Sunday, April 6, 2025

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – April 6, 2025

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – April 6, 2025

by Tony Wikrent


Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself

Nikita Mazurov, Matt Sledge, March 29, 2025 [The Intercept]

Searches of phones and other electronics are on the rise for those entering the U.S. Take these steps to help secure your devices.


Managing Unexpected ICE Visits: Best Practices for Employers

March 19, 2025 [IndustryWeek]


Trump not violating any law

'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law'


‘We’re Not Stopping’: Trump Border Czar Vows to Ignore Judges

[The Daily Beast, via MSN 03-18-2025]


No Person Shall Be Deprived… 

John Ganz, April 02, 2025 [Unpopular Front]

On Monday, the Trump administration admitted that it had deported a Maryland man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia “because of an administrative error” to El Salvador where he was thrown in the nightmarish CECOT prison. In 2019, Abrego Garcia received protected legal status from an immigration judge who determined he could be tortured if he was returned to his home country. He was denounced by a secret informant as a member of MS-13, a characterization Abrego Garcia denies and local police in Maryland did not believe. But, of course, the entire regime is lying and claiming that Abrego Garcia was a “convicted” gang member. What they are really saying is, “We can declare people unprotected by the law and deport them by fiat.”

But now that Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody, the government says there’s nothing they can do — and technically they are right: A petition for habeas corpus, a Constitutionally-defined process where the imprisoning jurisdiction to produce justification of detention, only applies to someone who is held under U.S. authority. This is where I strongly suspect that this was not an “error” as such, but part of a deliberate policy experiment. What this regime is attempting to do is to find a way around habeas corpus protections: You spirit someone across the border quickly before their lawyer can file a petition, dump them somewhere—say, a concentration camp run by a friendly client state—and then say, “oopsie, no more habeas for them.” ….


How Donald Gets the Constitution All Wrong

Tom Hall, April 2, 2025 [La Progressive]

The recent deportations of “enemy aliens” from countries with whom we are not at war, and countries which have not invaded us, ignored the actual language of the law which the Donald’s lawyers pretend justify his Orders….

...We are told that the Donald is “relying on” the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. But has anyone told you what those acts actually say, and provide for legally?

The 1798 Congress was the 5th Congress since the ratification of the Constitution and formation of the new government. Many of the men (it was all men) who drafted and ratified the Constitution were still alive and knew what they had meant by ratifying the Constitution. In the spring and summer of 1798, they passed three laws dealing wth aliens (www.archives.gov-1798 Aliens Acts). They knew what aliens were, and they knew what the powers of Congress, the Presidency and the Courts were.

The first law, Signed by President John Adams, on June 25, 1798, provided that the President could order an alien expelled from the United States, if the President believed the alien was dangerous to, or had committed crimes against the nation. Section I of the act provides that the President’s Order had to be served the alien with an order telling him to get out of the USA, and setting a reasonable time for the alien to do so. The same section provided for aliens to have an opportunity to present a case against removal, and apply for permission to stay. The alien was allowed to “prove...by evidence” that he did not pose a risk. The same section also provided that an alien who had been ordered deported, but had not left, could be imprisoned and permanently barred from citizenship “on conviction” of such a charge.

Missing from this first section of the act was any authority for the President to abduct people from their homes, college campuses or sidewalks and deport them without any hearing, trial or conviction….


PATRICK LAWRENCE: American Freefall 

[Consortium News, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]

The extent to which the U.S. has embarked on a departure from reality is only a question for empires in their waning decades.


Trump makes history by pardoning a corporation 

[The Hill, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Criminal Corporations Are Not People, But Trump Just Pardoned One Anyway

Brett Wilkins, April 03, 2025 [CommonDreams]


With Detention of Beloved Farmworker Organizer, ICE Comes for the Labor Movement 

[Truthout, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]


The Great Grovel: How Trump forced elite institutions to bend to his will

John F. Harris and POLITICO Staff, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Are Paving the Way for Authoritarianism 

[Vanity Fair, via Naked Capitalism 03-30-2025]  


Trump Executive Order Calls for End of Paper Checks for Taxpayer and Government Payments by Sept. 30; Industry Official Snort About Deadline; What About User Payment Charges?

via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]  


Resistance

Perkins Coie gets 500 lawfirms and 300 retired judges to help battle Trump

Bill Addis, April 5, 2025 [DailyKos]

Over 500 law firms have filed an amicus brief (PDF) in support of Perkins Coie's case against the U.S. Department of Justice, the named defendants, et. al..

The firms signing on take up 12 pages of the 24 page brief, filed on Friday. As evidence, it lists Trump's executive orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Paul Weiss, and the specific suspension of security clearance and contracts at Covington & Burling.

The lead law firm filing the brief is Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP….


Big Law Is Winning in Court—Now Is Not the Time to Fold

John Relman, April 06, 2025 [Common Dreams]

The law firms fighting back against Trump’s executive orders are winning, and those cutting deals with the White House are suffering irreparable damage behind the scenes.


If the Chamber of Commerce is Listening . . .

Gerard N. Magliocca, May 31, 2019 [reposted 04-05-2025 at Balkanization.blogspot]

...The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is the statutory authority cited by the President, grants two types of authority. One gives the President the power to freeze the assets of foreign nationals and/or foreign governments. The other gives the President the power to suspend commerce (or types of commerce) with another nation. Nothing in the Act suggests that the President is given the power to levy tariffs on another nation. Indeed, there are many reasons to doubt that such a power exists.

First, Congress has delegated tariff authority in other statutes that do not apply here. For instance, the President can (and has) imposed tariffs on China in response to unfair trade practices based on clear statutory authority. The lack of such an express delegation in the IEEPA implies no tariff authority.

Second, there appears to be no precedent for a President using the IEEPA to impose tariffs. (I say appears because I cannot find an example. If there is one, then I would like to know.)
Third, there is no indication from the legislative history of the IEEPA that Congress intended to give the President the authority to raise tariffs.

Fourth, there is no judicial authority for the President's proposed tariffs. Moreover, the Supreme Court's careful analysis of the IEEPA in Dames & Moore v. Regan is considerably narrower than the President's view….

In conclusion, the proposed Mexican tariffs are illegal. Interested parties should prepare to file suit.


DOGEbags at work

Rule by Contractor

Brett Heinz’ April 3, 2025 [The American Prospect]

DOGE is not about waste and efficiency—it’s about privatization.


DOGE’s Pentagon Budget Cuts Don’t Touch Elon Musk’s SpaceX

Nick Turse, April 3, 2025 [The Intercept]

The “total cuts” to the Pentagon amount to “800 million in wasteful spending,” Hegseth said. But these savings, which some experts doubt will even materialize, are trivial when it comes to the Defense Department’s immense $850 billion budget. And there’s one obvious contractor that hasn’t faced a single cut so far: Musk’s space technology firm SpaceX.

A day after his announcement, Hegseth hosted a “private meeting in the secretary’s office” with Musk, who donated almost $300 million to Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign — after which the new president tapped Musk to spearhead the administration’s budget-cutting efforts. While Musk has seen his electric car company Tesla face immense consumer backlash and financial headwinds, SpaceX — now the top Pentagon contractor by market valuation — is poised to reap increased rewards from Hegseth’s department.


DOGE Accesses Federal Payroll System Over Objections of Career Staff 

[New York Times, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


The CDC Has Been Gutted 

[Wired, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Trump and DOGE Defund Program That Boosted American Manufacturing for Decades 

[Wired, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]


The Expert Who Kept Eye Drops From Blinding You Was Fired Yesterday 

[Vanity Fair, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]


HHS fires entire staff of program that helps low-income people afford heat and air conditioning 

[The Hill, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]


Elon Musk and Tesla: A resource list for activists 

[Red Flag, via Naked Capitalism 04-03-2025]


Strategic Political Economy

Monopoly Round-Up: Tariffs, Abundance and Why America Can’t Build

Matt Stoller [BIG, via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]  

[TW: Important. Grab a cup of coffee or tea, sit down, and read the entire post. Stoller’s critique of the Democrats’ current economic thinking is especially important.]

...It’s clear the U.S. has a serious problem in building. Why? And what happened?

The answer is pretty simple. In the 1980s, after 20 years of debate over the U.S.’s roll in the world, we decided that the U.S. shouldn’t make things anymore. We decided to become a ‘service’ economy, focused on design, research, and finance, leaving the grubby work of physical stuff to others….

For 35 years after World War II, the constituency groups who built the New Deal arrangement had a broad understanding that financial consolidation led to fascism; the hot money flows of the 1920s, in the hands of private bankers, had helped raise the stock market, but also bring Hitler to power and break the world. The things required to make a democratic society, such as well-paid workers, communities, domestic production and investment, a robust educational system, a hearty small business apparatus, lots of small banks and farms, et al, are just not consistent with high stock prices and the consolidation of economic power they imply. Power, they knew, corrupts.

Economists have retroactively given this policy framework a name, “financial repression,” meaning that those who had financial capital were heavily taxed and controlled. While the government prints dollars, there is another group that sought to manage bonds, stocks, and credit instruments, without public checks: Wall Street. And that group, enfeebled during the Great Depression but waiting in the wings, bided their time.

Finally, in the 1970s, a group of people on the right and left, today known as neoliberals, attacked New Deal controls over finance and the corporation as silly. They argued, in an age of “microchips, robots, and computers,” mucking around with making things like t-shirts and steel was foolish.

This argument came into politics through both sides of the aisle. The Reagan administration was run by Wall Street, with men like banker William Simon and Chicago Schooler Robert Bork organizing policy. But it was preceded by Jimmy Carter’s deregulation of shipping, banking, trains, buses, trucking, airlines, energy, and even skiing, and his appointment of Wall Street-friendly Fed Chair Paul Volcker.

In 1980, the Democratic-led Senate Joint Economic Committee published a report titled Plugging in the Supply Side. Lloyd Bentsen, who later became Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary during the NAFTA fight, authored it. Everyone from Paul Tsongas, to Gary Hart to Robert Reich bought this frame, as did magazines like The New Republic. By 1980, neoliberalism had become consensus. Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter’s ostensibly “liberal” nemesis, fought to go further than Carter in ending rules on airplanes, and Ralph Nader aligned with Citibank on deregulating finance. Many of the unions, with the exception of the Teamsters, bought into deregulation….

Yet, Trump doesn’t believe in the necessary part of altering our national strategy, which is to move power from Wall Street to people who make things. It’s not just foreigners who screwed America, it’s also high finance. Trump is not displacing the domestic constituency groups who are dedicated to oligarchy, he’s knee deep in crypto, private equity, finance, and real estate. He’s destroying instead of reforming the institutions of a productive society, like universities and schools, public health bureaucracies, unions, and so forth….

...On the other side, Thompson and Klein, who both built their careers lauding the Obama administration, are proposing a path for the Democrats in the book Abundance, where they argue that liberals need to rededicate themselves to building by reforming zoning lawsIt’s a short book, mostly reprints of their columns. And it’s basically the platform for what would have been the Kamala Harris Presidency…. Overall, there’s not much substance to the book, it’s a reprint of neoliberal arguments from Democrats in the early 1980s…  this particular book is part of a set of arguments from thinkers and economists, like Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith, Marc Dunkelman, et al, who think that power in America is “largely in the hands of growth-and-change skeptical professionals,” aka homeowners, environmentalists and doctors. Oligarchy and Wall Street, things like patents, monopolies, and the like, are irrelevant to these guys. If Trump doesn’t want to displace Wall Street, Klein and Thompson just ignore it altogether....

...Klein and Thompson, and the Democratic establishment writ large, just will not deal with the real reason the U.S. doesn’t build. And that’s our choice to prioritize “number go up” and the social hierarchy of financiers we have fostered who thwart producing more. Fewer homes means that housing values appreciate, and in a world where asset appreciation is everything, that’s not a solvable political problem. Ultimately, Americans don’t want a world where asset valuations are everything. But that’s the world we’re in….

[TW: I remember clearly during the Bush Jr. regime I engaged in debates on DailyKos with people who saw no problem with deindustrialization and commented that I was crazy for harping on things like steel production.]


“Abundance” Is How Dems Lose To Trump

David Sirota and Aaron Regunberg, April 04, 2025 [The Lever]

Last week, Abundance co-author Ezra Klein went viral on social media. In a widely shared video clip from Jon Stewart’s podcast, Klein described the maddeningly bureaucratic process for deploying rural broadband funding under the Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure bill — a procedure so cumbersome that barely any of the entities seeking these grants have even finished the application process, years after the bill’s passage.…

The Kafkaesque nature of Biden’s broadband application process was not, in fact, the result of “everything bagel liberalism,” pressure from doctrinaire leftists, or Democratic politicians’ penchant for governing through checklists, which Klein and his co-author, Derek Thompson, frame in Abundance as the key obstacles to housing security, decarbonization, and other critical 21st century needs.

Rather, this burdensome procedure was created at the insistence of vote-withholding Republican senators and their cable industry donors — companies seeking to block funding to upstarts that might challenge their regional telecom monopolies or force them to provide affordable prices for broadband. After they loaded up the funding legislation with a Byzantine process, telecom giants and GOP-led states — not protocol-obsessed lefties or overly rigid bureaucrats — then manufactured a monthslong fight over what constitutes “affordable” rates, delaying quick funding for the build-out….

In fact, the takeaway from the broadband tale is that the biggest obstacles to efficiency and abundance are often corporate power and its corrupting influence on our politics — factors typically downplayed or unmentioned in the Abundance Discourse….

Meanwhile, there’s also the recurring problem of monopoly. A 2022 Johns Hopkins study spotlighted how more and more local markets are dominated by fewer and fewer housing construction giants. These home-building behemoths are making higher profits while choosing to build fewer homes than they once did, knowing that there aren’t as many competitors to fill the gap. In all, the study estimated that corporate concentration has resulted in $106 billion less housing volume every year….

Shortages of affordable baby formulaeggsprescription medicineammunitionairline ticketshamburgersmedical supplies, and hospital services are all connected to oligarchs and corporate donors using campaign cash to make sure that for decades there was a lack of consistent and robust enforcement of antitrust laws. Those same donors also used their political influence to create a zealous regime of restrictive patents to enforce profit-maximizing scarcity in technology and pharmaceuticals.



New Projected Cost of Trump-GOP Tax Cuts for the Rich: 'Staggering' $7 Trillion

Jake Johnson, April 04, 2025 [CommonDreams]


Global power shift

Carney says Canada cannot rely on U.S. any longer, must achieve ‘economic autonomy’

New Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney:

“The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over.”

“The eighty-year period when the United States embraced the mantle of global economic leadership—when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect, and championed the free and open exchange of good and services—is over.

“While this is a tragedy, it is also the new reality.” ….


The American Age Is Over: The United States commits imperial suicide

Jonathan V. Last, April 03, 2025 [The Bulwark]

[TW: This is some damn good writing — and I use “damn” precisely, because The Bulwark is the platform for never-Trump conservatives such as Bill Kristol and Mona Charen. When will they begin discussing how Trump was the inevitable result of conservatism? ]


Comac C949: China unveils quiet supersonic jet with 50% longer range than Concorde 

[SCMP, via Naked Capitalism 03-30-2025]  


Racist Allied Underestimation Of Russia’s Abilities Led To Its Win 

[Moon of Alabama, via Naked Capitalism 04-01-2025]


The problem of organizing weak states; and why Africa needs a new model of Pan-Africanism  

[Africanist Perspective, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Gaza / Palestine / Israel

Netanyahu Promises the “Final Stage” of Gaza Genocide Will Lead to Implementation of “Trump’s Plan"

Jeremy Scahill, March 31, 2025 [Drop Site]

Hours after Hamas announced it had accepted a ceasefire plan, drafted by negotiation mediators from Egypt and Qatar, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his plans on Sunday for what he called the “final stage” of his genocidal campaign in Gaza. “Hamas will lay down its weapons. Its leaders will be allowed to leave. We will see to the general security in the Gaza Strip and will allow the realization of the Trump plan for voluntary migration,” Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday, referring to President Donald Trump’s threat to seize Gaza and remove Palestinians from their land. “This is the plan. We are not hiding this and are ready to discuss it at any time.” Netanyahu also boasted, “We have an alliance with the greatest superpower in the world.” He later said the Israeli cabinet had voted in favor of intensifying the military assault on Gaza.


NEWS GRAVEYARDS: HOW DANGERS TO WAR REPORTERS ENDANGER THE WORLD 

[Brown University Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs., via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]

Chart: Number of Journalists and Media Workers KIlled, per War


Marked for Assassination: Gaza Journalists on Israeli Hit List Refuse to Stop Reporting

Sharif Abdel Kouddous, March 31, 2025 [Drop Site]

The day after the assassination of Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat, the Israeli military openly celebrated his killing. A correspondent for Al Jazeera Mubasher and a contributor to Drop Site News, Shabat was killed on March 24 when the Israeli military targeted him as he was driving in his car in Beit Lahia. He was 23 years old. Earlier that day, journalist Mohamed Mansour of Palestine Today was killed, along with his wife and son, in an Israeli airstrike on his home in Khan Younis.

On its official X account the following day, the Israeli military confirmed it had “eliminated” Shabat, claiming they had “exposed” his role within Hamas six months earlier….


Private groups work to identify and report student protesters for possible deportation 

[AP, via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]


Russia / Ukraine

Secret History: ‘Bombshell’ NYT Report Uncovers True Depth of US Involvement in Ukraine War 

[Simplicius, via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]


Oligarchy

On oligarchy: ancient lessons for global politics    

Edited by David Edward Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski [Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2011]

Chapter 7. Oligarchs and Democrats.

Leah Bradshaw

...In the descent of regimes catalogued in Book 8 of Plato's Republic, oligarchy sits squarely in the middle, between timocracy (the rule of the warrior types) and democracy (the rule of the many). At the extremes of the hierarchy are the best regime, the utopian rule of philosopher-kings, and the worst, tyranny. Interestingly for us con-temporary liberal democrats, oligarchy is identified by Aristotle as a better form of rule than democracy in some respects.

I want to explore the connection in this paper between oligarchy and moderation. Starting from from the categorizations in Plato and Aristotle, I compare the rule of the rich in this classical context with John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, in which Locke identifies the pursuit of wealth and property as the foundation of the modern representative state. I believe that Locke really elevates the oligarchic state to the best regime, counting upon state protection of money and property to provide political stability. The paper will argue that Locke's project fails, ultimately, for reasons identified in the classical teachings of Plato and Aristotle. Pursuit of wealth may be a reasonable goal, when it is understood as a necessary support for political community, but the sanction of unlimited acquisition leads to political ruin. It does so, first, because it prohibits the cultivation of moderation and in fact disparages moderation as an unnecessary restraint upon entrepreneurship, and it does so, second, because the push toward accumulation bursts the boundaries of the political community and pushes toward empire and global markets. As we well know in the West, the notion that markets will regulate themselves, and that the pursuit of wealth will automatically result in a more peaceful and just world, is under serious assault….

Socrates' condemnation of oligarchy is harsh. Oligarchies allow for wide differences between the rich and the poor. An oligarch is a sort of 'squalid man,' seeking always to maximize his own profit, with no care for the broader public good. 'The stingy man is a poor contestant when with his private means he competes for some victory or any other noble object of ambition in a city; he's not willing to spend money for the sake of good reputation in such contests. Afraid to awaken the spendthrift desires and to summon them to an alliance and a love of victory, he makes war like an oligarch, with a few of his troops, is defeated most of the time, and stays rich.  Measured against the self-sacrificing courage of the timocrat in time of battle, the oligarch appears an effete and cautious type, preferring to increase his stores of private wealth, even at the cost of his city. The oligarch is really anti-political, using the city for the enhancement of private ends….

The ancient caution against the accumulation of wealth is not one taken seriously by modern liberal democrats for the most part. John Locke, in the seventeenth century, lays the foundations for representative government grounded in the endorsement of unlimited accumulation. Rejecting the classical typologies of politics (rule of the one, the few or the many, based on a variety of ends such as honour, money, power), Locke as we know begins from the premise that we as human beings are by nature solitary and acquisitive creatures. The earth was given by God to all mankind in common, yet Locke establishes that all men have a God-given right to property. Because every man has a property in his own person, 'the labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. '36 Labour affords an entitlement to private property by mixing human ingenuity and effort to nature. God gave the world to men in common, but it is clear in Locke that God gave it especially to the 'industrious and the rational….


The Worst Political Decision Since Nixon Taped Himself Committing Crimes

Les Leopold, April 01, 2025

How the Democrats handed Trump the election on a bitcoin-plated platter—and most still don't think they did anything wrong….

The attraction to wealth is an even bigger problem. Far too many Democrats are enamored by the rich and famous. They went to school with them. They lean on them for campaign funds. They plan to join them when they leave public office. The wizards on Wall Street and in corporate America form the class they see themselves as part of, or in the class they aspire to….

​​​​​​​Many probably discounted their worries about Trump, thinking that the rich and powerful would tame him. Because that’s where the Democratic Party thinks real power lies. The financial class wouldn’t let Trump wreck the economy, would it? Surely, the corporate class wouldn’t back down on DEI programs or forgo their access to inexpensive immigrant labor. The wealthiest Democratic law firms aren’t going to cave, right? Wouldn’t the elites prevent Trump’s excesses the way they did last time? Hmmm.

Along the way, most Democrats lost their anger. They lost their fight. They lost their connection to the working people who have seen their way of life crushed after 40 years of neoliberalism. 


The Existential Threat of Ultra-Billionaires

Ryan Cooper March 25, 2025 [The American Prospect]

A handful of rich guys will burn human society to the ground rather than pay a dime in tax.

[TW: “Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.” — John Milton, Paradise Lost (1667) ]


Divergence From the Interests of Capital

Hamilton Nolan, April 01, 2025 [How Things Work]

One of the most interesting things about the current Trump administration is the fact that we have a Republican president who is boldly leading the nation down a path that is contrary to the standard interests of capital. I do not say this in a complimentary sense. This is interesting in the same way that the methods and predilections of a prolific serial killer are interesting. The actions are so far outside the norm that is is fascinating to try to understand why they are happening; and, by understanding them, we might be able to think more clearly about where this is all going, before everyone is dead.

Generally speaking, throughout the history of modern America, the government has worked on behalf of business. Foreign policy has been conducted in service of business interests, and domestic policy has been conducted with an eye towards generating maximum prosperity. The Democratic Party tends to lean a little more towards shared prosperity and regulation, and the Republican Party tends to lean more towards raw unfettered capitalism, but both have operated in service of the basic mandate of “protect and increase America’s wealth.” To say that money controls politics is a little simplistic—history shows that social movements and labor power and other countervailing forces have their impact—but if you are looking to reduce politics to a single variable, money is the one that will produce the most accurate predictions….

Trump is doing something different: He is making decisions that will clearly harm the American economy, in both the short and long term. He is breaking things that are useful to business interests. Casting this as “right wing populism” is, I think, foolish—the media’s habit of describing Trumpism as “populism” reflects mostly a paltry vocabulary. Calling a man whose primary motives are narcissism and revenge and self-enrichment a “populist” does not really illuminate what’s going on here.

But something is going on here. Consider just a few of the ways that Trump is, either implicitly or explicitly, acting against the interests of capital: ….

This is just a quick and dirty sketch of a deep, dark ocean of harm that Trump is doing to the capitalists themselves… Trump is not helping the billionaires, whose wealth is utterly dependent on strong financial markets and transparent legal regimes and smooth global trade and rising asset prices….

I hope that it is not necessary to point out here that this does not make Trump a victory for the left. He is not replacing the interests of capital with the interests of the people; he is replacing them with the interests of Donald Trump. This is in line with the remarkable pattern, seen throughout world history, of great nations finding themselves turned towards the service of a single corrupt ruler….

If you consider yourself politically engaged, if you are the sort of person who believes that you have a coherent theory of how politics works, and for whom, and why, Trump demands an explanation. Shoehorning his actions into the old “money buys power” slot doesn’t cover it. Here we have a rich man, supported by many other rich men, who is rapidly dismantling the system that has made all of them and their nation rich. It’s odd.

The most honest explanation for Trump’s actions are: He is insane. He suffers from a number of pathologies. That is fairly clear. The more important question is: How has this insane man managed to gain control of the government of the world’s richest and most powerful nation? That, my friends, is the unfortunate outcome of an economic system that has so profoundly failed to enforce economic equality, and a political system that so profoundly failed to protect its democracy from the influence of capital that it allowed itself to be totally captured by extreme lunatics backed by extreme wealth…. 


The carnage of mainstream neoliberal economics

Uber’s Bastards II 

Edward Ongweso Jt. [The Tech Bubble, via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]


Feeling Broke? Blame Big Oil 

[The Tyee, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Predatory finance

Larry Fink says Bitcoin could replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency because of national debt 

[Fortune, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Information age dystopia / surveillance state

Phishing Attacks – Anyone Can Get Pwned 

[JD Supra, via Naked Capitalism 03-30-2025]  


New Email Scam Includes Pictures of Your House 

[EFF, via Naked Capitalism 03-30-2025]  


[X-Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 03-31-2025]


Here's the shit that pisses me off the most: these AI bros refuse to understand how little creativity they actually put into their finished products. The ONLY reason this looks like it does is due to the 100's of thousands of hours that Jackson, Miyazaki, and crew put into it

AI "art" cannot create anything new. Your AI art (even a single Ghibli-wannabe image) requires the theft of thousands of artists, and also requires incredible amounts of computing power and natural resources! It just feels easy and simple bc all you do is type in a prompt

Like no, it did NOT just cost $250 and 9 hours to make this. It cost BILLIONS of dollars and untold countless hours to train your shitty AI filters (on the work of hundreds of thousands of artists w/o their consent) all to process your single sentence prompts.




Climate and environmental crises

Arctic warming accelerates to seven times the global average, catastrophic damage “locked in” 

[IntelliNews, via Naked Capitalism 04-05-2025]


Climate-resilient potato farming: Strategies for adapting to extreme weather conditions, drought, and unpredictable growing seasons 

[Potato News Today, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]

Democrats' political malpractice

What’s wrong with tariffs 

Cory Doctorow [Pluralistic, via Naked Capitalism 04-04-2025]

...The Dems' embrace of Reaganomics meant that working people of all types experienced steady decline over 40 years: stagnating wages, economic precarity, increased indebtedness, and rising prices for health care, education, and housing. When Trump figured out that he could campaign on these issues, Dems had no response….

...Trump's genius was to marry white supremacy to economic grievance, tricking white workers into blaming their decline on women, brown and Black people, and queers – and not on the billionaires who had grown so much richer even as workers got poorer.

But Trump couldn't have pulled this trick off without the Dem establishment's total unwillingness to confront the hollowness of their economic policies. From Pelosi's "We're capitalists and that's the way it is" to Hillary Clinton's catastrophic campaign slogan, "America is already great," the Dems' answer to workers' fear and anger was, "You are wrong, everything is fine." Imagine having had your house stolen in the foreclosure crisis after Obama decided to "foam the runways" for the banks by letting them steal their borrowers' homes and then hearing Hillary Clinton tell you "America is already great"….

...The worst-treated workers in America are also its most discriminated-against workers, so the best way to help women, racialized people, and other disfavored minorities is to help workers: protect unions, raise the minimum wage, defend tenants, cancel student debt, and give everyone healthcare. In the same way that a special tax on incomes over $1m will disproportionately affect straight white men, an increase in the minimum wage will disproportionately benefit women and people of color – as well as the majority of straight white men who are also getting fucked over by people with $1m salaries.

Since the Clinton years, Democrats have been trying to figure out how to defend economic policies that help rich people while still somehow being the party of social justice….

In right wing, conspiratorial hands, rage at wage stagnation and lack of parental leave turned into reactionary demands for an economy in which women would be full-time homemakers while their husbands recovered their roles as breadwinners….

It's a cheap trick, but Dems keep falling for it. When the right declares itself to be against something, Dems can be relied upon to be in favor it, no matter how reactionary, anti-worker and authoritarian "it" is. During Trump 1.0, Dems lit James Comey votive candles and passionately defended the "intelligence community," a community that gave us CIA dirty wars and FBI COINTELPRO. Anthropologists call this "schizmogenesis" – when a group defines itself by valuing whatever its rivals deplore, and vice versa….

For the most part, the progressive discussion of Trump's tariffs takes the position that tariffs are always a terrible idea – in other words, that Clinton and Obama had the right idea when they created free trade agreements with countries around the world, and Trump is vandalizing an engine of American and global prosperity out of economic ignorance.

Economists support this analysis. But in a new, well-argued editorial in The Sling, University of Utah economists Mark Glick and Gabriel Lozada present a more nuanced version of the tariff debate, one that dodges the trap of neoliberal economics and schizmogenesis:

https://www.thesling.org/the-failed-assumptions-of-free-trade/

Rejecting tariffs is practically an article of religious faith among economists. As the NYT put it in their reporting of the 2025 meeting of the American Economic Association, "free trade is perhaps the closest thing to a universally held value among economists":

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/business/economy/economists-politics-trump.html



Lever Daily 04-03-2025

What more is there to say? Back in 2021, Democrats refused to empower then-President of the Senate and Vice President Kamala Harris to wield her authority to bypass the chamber’s unelected parliamentarian and force a vote on a federal $15 minimum wage. Now, Senate Republicans in the same position will blow past the Senate parliamentarian to force through an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy.


This progressive leader has a strategy for Dems: Drop the purity tests, and ‘pick villains’ in the GOP

[Politico, 03/29/2025]

It’s a strategy — embracing explicitly populist messaging and using slogans like “Fight Oligarchy” — that’s resisted by some more moderate Democrats. Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way, said that “demanding economic populism is its own form of purity test.”

“There’s a lot of different approaches to the economy that can appeal to working class voters, that involve honoring hard work, ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to earn a good life and that doesn’t involve ‘fighting the oligarchs,” Bennett said. “If that becomes their litmus test, then we’re right back in the same boat.”

[TW: Do I have to write it? If you’re not fighting the oligarchs, you’re not addressing the source of all the problems afflicting the republic at this point.]


Democratic Party Leaders and “Free Speech” Warriors Shrug as Trump Deports Dissidents 

[In These Times, via Naked Capitalism 04-02-2025]


Trump’s transactional regime

Trump’s Tariffs Are More Spectacle Than Strategy 

Waleed Shahid, via Naked Capitalism 04-05-2025]

Trump’s proposed tariffs—blanket levies on nearly all imports, from China to Europe to Lesotho—aren’t industrial policy. They’re political strategy. Their purpose isn’t to reindustrialize America, but to reconstruct power: to hurt broadly, then selectively relieve that pain for those who prove their loyalty. This is less an economic plan than a system of incentives and punishments, weaponized to enforce allegiance. It’s not new. It’s textbook Orbánism.

Viktor Orbán built a system in Hungary where taxes, tariffs, and subsidies became political instruments—tools not for growth, but for domination. Infrastructure contracts went to cronies. Foreign firms were taxed arbitrarily unless they struck favorable deals. The media, universities, and civil society were tamed not through open coercion, but through economic dependency. What emerged, as Hungarian author Bálint Magyar writes in The Anatomy of Post-Communist Regimes, is a “patronal autocracy”—a regime “in which a single-pyramid patronal network has monopolized political power and exercises it through formal democratic institutions,” subordinating the state to the informal interests of a ruling elite.

In this model, tariffs aren’t tools of strategic industrial development. They are the language of fealty. Broad pain is inflicted, then selectively withdrawn—if companies praise the leader, stay silent on abuses, or donate to the right super PAC. The result is what Magyar calls a “mafia state”: a fusion of state and party where economic life flows through loyalty, not markets. 


They’re Not Tariffs, They’re Sanctions

David Dayen April 3, 2025 [The American Prospect]

… I think we give too much credit to Donald Trump and his lieutenants when we suggest that they’re pursuing a misguided trade policy, or that they aren’t pairing tariffs with the necessary steps to boost domestic manufacturing. Those things are true, of course: U.S. trade policy has been deeply inequitable for decades, favoring multinationals over workers and the environment, giving benefits to those corporations in free-trade agreements that they could never get through normal legislative channels, and handing over economic decisions to Wall Street. But these careful explanations, however correct, have nothing to do with what we saw on display in the Rose Garden yesterday.

Because these aren’t really tariffs at all….

It is not at all surprising that Trump sees the appeal in sanctions. It is no different from a mob boss moving into town and sending his thugs to every business on Main Street, roughing up the proprietors and asking for protection money so they don’t get pushed out of business. Trump believes that the U.S. is indispensable enough that it can intimidate every country on Earth by, well, asking for protection money, which would take many forms: curbing migration, taking in more U.S. farm exports or weapons systems, reducing industrial capacity in China and forcing more consumption, buying long-dated U.S. debt on the cheap, siding with a war strategy against Iran, literally anything the White House wants. Trump now has a tool by which he can achieve whatever goals he conjures up, or simply have his leg-breakers beat the global economy to a pulp. It’s a mentality fit for someone repeatedly linked to organized crime.



Conservative / Libertarian / (anti)Republican Drive to Civil War

Understanding the Congressional Budget Irresolution

David Super, April 05, 2025 [Balkanization]

In the wee hours this morning, the Senate approved the concurrent resolution on the budget and sent it to the House for consideration next week.  One moderate (Sen. Susan Collins) and one fiscal hawk (Sen. Rand Paul) opposed the measure along with all Democrats.  Democrats forced Republicans to vote down amendments to protect Medicare and Medicaid, to restore the staff that Elon Musk has cut from the Social Security Administration, to rebalance tax cuts more towards the middle class, to avoid explosive increases in the deficit, and, of course, to stop military planning from being conducted over Signal chats.  The outcome was a foregone conclusion.

A congressional budget resolution is a procedural prerequisite to advancing budget reconciliation legislation to make changes to revenue and entitlement spending legislation….

For the Senate moderates, the “compromise” budget resolution establishes a relatively low minimum amount of cuts to safety net programs in the Senate (only).  It thus would allow a reconciliation bill that would fund the tax cuts almost entirely by increasing the deficit.  The resolution allows the Senate to propose deeper human services cuts, but it has little reason to do so as its reconciliation bill will go to conference committee with a House bill with draconian reductions.

    For the House “moderates”, the budget resolution offers essentially nothing – because the House “moderates” have repeatedly demonstrated that nothing is required to secure their votes….

The game plan seems to be to obscure the meaning of all votes prior to the vote on final passage of the conference agreement on the reconciliation bill.  The House will pass a bill the “deficit hawks” can stomach (with the “moderates” promising that the human services cuts will come down in conference with the Senate).  The Senate will pass a bill with less headline-grabbing safety net cuts as its “deficit hawks” promise greater “fiscal sanity” in negotiations with the House.  Then the leadership will craft a final agreement that looks essentially like the House bill and ram it through before its contents are widely known.  A few Senate Republican moderates, particularly those up for re-election next year, can vote “no” without endangering its passage; everyone else will justify their votes as necessary to prevent a tax increase at the outset of a recession. 


Red-O Pedos: The Right's favorite accusation is a misplaced confession

Trygve Hammer, April 4, 2025 

It started with QAnon, was adopted by MAGA, and is now just mainstream Republican messaging (as if there is some Republican mainstream outside of MAGA). Republicans are more comfortable with this messaging than I am. For them, it is just so easy to baselessly accuse their political opponents of a thing that plagues the Republican party and their allies: sex crimes, and particularly the sexual exploitation of minors. Right-wing preachers and youth pastors, Republican office holders and campaign personnel, Republicans in positions of authority, Republicans pardoned by Donald Trump, and self-righteous Republican loudmouths on social media have all been arrested for sex crimes against kids. Some of these Republicans possessed or produced child pornography. Some of them sexually assaulted children they knew. Others went abroad to have sex with kids, which is a crime in the United States even if it’s not a crime in the country a Republican sex tourist travels to.

Here in North Dakota, I have Republican friends who, in their social media posts, often attach “Pedo” to the names of prominent politicians with whom they disagree. Also here in North Dakota, a retired Republican state legislator was just sentenced to ten years in prison for traveling to Prague to have sex with underage boys….

Right next door in Minnesota, Republican state Senator Justin Eichorn was arrested on March 17th for soliciting prostitution from a person he thought was a 17-year-old girl, but who was actually a detective in a sting operation. Earlier that same day, Eichorn and four of his Republican colleagues had introduced a bill classifying “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as a mental illness suffered by those who dare to criticize Donald Trump. Karma works fast in Minnesota, apparently….

Also in Minnesota, Jason Yates, former CEO of My Faith Votes, a pro-Trump evangelical get-out-the-vote nonprofit, was charged with eight counts of possessing child pornography….

A little farther east, in Mike Pence’s home state of Indiana, Sylvester Driscoll, A former Southport police chaplain and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department civilian employee, was arrested in September for allegedly sexually abusing a child for three years. Driscoll, a MAGA Republican, started showing the girl videos of adults having sex when she was 5 years old....

Joel Koskan was a Republican candidate for the South Dakota state senate in 2022. He went to jail for incest, because his victim was his adopted daughter. Koskan found that being a father simplified the grooming process. He had cameras in the girl’s room, tracked her with GPS, and began having sex with her when she was 17 years old....

So, let’s talk about a Republican J6 insurrectionist pardoned by Donald Trump. Theodore Middendorf pleaded guilty last May in Illinois to Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child. His victim was 7 years old. A charging document specifies that Middendorf “committed an act of sexual penetration” with the victim. Another J6 Republican pardoned by Trump was David Daniel. He was indicted in October in North Carolina for production of child pornography….


Heather Cox Richardson, April 3, 2025 [Letters from an American]

J.D. Vance explained in a 2021 interview, is to destroy the current government, business, educational, cultural, and scientific pillars of the United States in order to replace them with a new system, although there is tension between the Project 2025 wing of MAGA and the technocrats’ wing over whether that new system will be a theocracy or a technocracy. In either case, it will be an authoritarian government in which power and money concentrate in a very few hands.

The administration’s crusade against the state of Maine shows what this looks like. After Maine governor Janet Mills told Trump the state would follow state and federal law rather than bow to his demands, acting Social Security Administration commissioner Leland Dudek canceled contracts permitting Maine parents to apply for Social Security numbers for their newborns from the hospital and for Maine families to report deaths from funeral homes. Told such a change would risk identity theft and wasteful spending, Dudek told the agency to do it anyway in order to punish Mills.

After an outcry, Dudek backtracked, but yesterday the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, announced she was freezing federal funds for Maine educational programs. The Trump administration would stand against “a leftist social agenda,” Rollins wrote.


Confederates in the courtroom

Thomas Mills, March 31, 2025 [politicsnc]

A photo has surfaced of Jefferson Griffin wearing a Confederate uniform when he was in college. Like the rebels he admired, Griffin refuses to accept his loss in the North Carolina Supreme Court case he’s contesting. And like those losers, he believes he can change history if he just holds out long enough.

Griffin is a member of the Kappa Alpha Fraternity, an order that venerates the Myth of the Old South. They consider Confederate General Robert E. Lee to be their spiritual founder. For years, they held Old South balls where members dressed in Confederate regalia and women dressed in period dresses. The photo of Griffin is from one of those events.

Griffin says his cosplay was a mistake and that he recognizes that it was inappropriate. In a statement, he said, “Since then, I have grown, learned, and dedicated myself to values that promote unity, inclusivity, and respect for all people.”

Except voters. Especially Black ones. He still doesn’t seem to respect them. He’s trying to strip their votes away from them. While White voters made up almost 64% of the electorate, they make up only about 34% of the ballots Griffin is trying to disqualify….

While reverence for the Confederacy is usually associated with White Supremacy, it’s more than that. It’s a story about power and entitlement without accountability. Jefferson Griffin comes from a tradition deeply ingrained in the South, particularly in rural areas where a landed gentry and the legal community conspired to reverse, as much as possible, the gains for equality and justice won in the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the perpetrators of the rebellion were never held accountable and the victims of the unjust system never received restitution. Thirty-five years after the end of the war, the descendants of secessionists stripped voting rights and power from poor people, both Black and White, while fomenting racial division to maintain control of society. They imposed a reign of terror to suppress African Americans and denied them equal justice under the law. Using legislative strategies and legal maneuvers, they fought off civil rights and voting rights to rule over the South until the 1960s. They never paid a price for their sins….

Sunday, March 30, 2025

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – March 30, 2025

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – March 30, 2025

by Tony Wikrent


Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself

Nikita Mazurov, Matt Sledge, March 29, 2025 [The Intercept]

Searches of phones and other electronics are on the rise for those entering the U.S. Take these steps to help secure your devices.


Managing Unexpected ICE Visits: Best Practices for Employers

March 19, 2025 [IndustryWeek]


Rep. Jaimie Raskin’s request for you to file FOIA with DOGE



Trump not violating any law

'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law'


‘We’re Not Stopping’: Trump Border Czar Vows to Ignore Judges

[The Daily Beast, via MSN 03-18-2025]



The Biggest Scandal of the Second Trump Term Isn’t “Signalgate”

Alex Shephard, March 28, 2025 [The New Republic]

The national security chat debacle certainly merits attention. But the Trump administration is now blatantly disappearing students and others who are in the country legally…. Masked agents snatching legal residents off the streets and disappearing them—not so long ago, this would be unthinkable in the United States. Now it is not only a regular occurrence but something that the Trump administration boasts about….

By removing the authors of innocuous op-eds, Rubio seems to believe that he can surgically smother the opinions they were expressing. At the same time, this purge allows the administration to systematically attack higher education. Already, the administration has used student protests to attack a number of colleges and universities and to withhold hundreds of millions in federal funding from several. Allegations of antisemitism—and a list of demands that are more or less impossible to fully meet—are being used as a Trojan horse to withhold funding and to attack other sources of revenue. Many schools rely heavily on foreign students, who often pay full tuition. The Trump administration’s crackdown, even if it were to somehow stop today, has already seriously jeopardized that. Who would send their child to study in America in such a climate? Especially knowing their child could be swept off the street and flown to a detention facility?


What Will It Take?

Joyce Vance, March 26, 2025 [Civil Discourse]

Why use Signal in the first place when American leaders have some of the most secure communications technology in the world available to them? Is it just for convenience? If so, that’s sloppy, and they should be committing to do better, not arguing over whether the information was classified or not. (But if it looks like a duck…)

The truth is that by going to Signal, they avoided leaving a paper trail. No annoying records that could be unearthed down the road. Remember Trump’s first impeachment? It came about in large part because after the call where he threatened Ukraine’s president with withholding security aid if he wouldn’t announce his country was investigating Joe Biden for financial misconduct, records of the call were buried inside a classified information system where they didn’t belong. That was what got the ball rolling. It was about trying to hide records of an official call that everyone knew was wrong.

As far as we know at this point, there was nothing improper about the attack on the Houthis. So why were high-ranking members of the Trump administration communicating off the books? How pervasive is the practice, and who knows/authorizes it? We are a government of the people. Transparency isn’t optional. There are rules about public records that have to be followed, and this president who likes to operate in secret and at the margins of our laws has frequently tried to skirt them.


The Next American Constitution

Thomas Neuburger, March 26, 2025 [God’s Spies]

...What if the Right wins absolutely? What would we be as a country under full right-wing rule?

That’s been hard to determine, though there were clear indications. I decided the Right was factious, and a lot depended on which group would end up on top. If the Christian Nationalists, the God-bothering absolutists, or groups of that stripe should win out, we’d have one kind of place. God before gold, God with list of demands.

Or what if Charles Koch won out? America would be slightly different — a terrible place, but not the same hell hole as the New Apostolic Reform people would create. God as a cover story, gold calling the shots.

A Techno-Fascist Takeover

So who actually won? That’s been answered. Thanks to Trump’s love of revenge — if you try to remove the king, it's best to succeed — and his bromance with a man he’s decided swings admirable pipe, the group on the Right we can safely call techno-fascists has come out ahead.

They’ve captured a man who thinks like a mafia boss, and that man has captured the crown — meaning, both houses of Congress, the Court (for now), and the throne, something we once called a Presidency, then inflated to king….

I originally thought that of course Trump would leave office when his term expires…. But consider the people behind him, who feed on his fury: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and their ilk; Russ Vought, a primary author of Project 2025; the whole of the Heritage crowd; the people who created John Roberts to be who he is, who financed his Court. Crazed billionaires, bankers and moguls of every stripe. They have transformational dreams that don’t end with Trump….

Three things to watch for, ways to judge your next move:

• What will the Roberts Court do as cases come up? Acquiesce, split the baby, or pull the king off of his throne? If the third, what will Trump do? Ignore them or change course?

• If his friends wants to break Social Security — make sure checks don’t go out — they’re well on their way. If they do that, how will they deal with the fury that follows? They can respond “So what?” — invoke the No one can stop me Amendment — but will they?

• Finally, will they treat citizens like alien others? Remember, Obama set precedent on that. Will Trump go that far: use AI to find his enemies, then “deal with” the ones he thinks he can safely destroy? Or will he stop short of that?


The Appellate Void

Andrew Coan, March 24, 2025 [Balkanization]

What would it look like for the executive branch to defy a court order? Typically, we picture a dramatic showdown between the President and the Supreme Court, the whole country watching with bated breath. But there's another, less dramatic scenario, which has been largely overlooked in recent commentary.

Suppose the administration simply defies a district court order and declines to appeal. The plaintiffs, having already won, would have no standing to file an appeal of their own. Nor could they petition the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.

The Courts of Appeals have no jurisdiction to grant mandamus against executive officials under these circumstances. As Marbury v. Madison established, such actions constitute original, not appellate, proceedings and can only be brought before a court with original jurisdiction. The All Writs Act permits writs only "in aid of jurisdiction," requiring an existing appellate case. Without an appeal, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals would possess a clear procedural vehicle to intervene.

Contempt sanctions might solve this problem. But the best recent scholarship suggests that they are a fragile remedy even under normal circumstances. In this scenario, it seems quite possible they would fail completely. Enforcement depends on cooperation from the executive branch. And without an appeal, higher courts are likely powerless….


The Judiciary’s Last Stand

Tom Nichols, March 24, 2025 [The Atlantic]

Trump’s campaign against the rule of law has ratcheted up dramatically.


Democrat: Leaked Messages Show Waltz Admitting to War Crime in Yemen Strike 

[Truthout, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


Trump Executive Order on Voting Denounced as 'Authoritarian Power Grab'

Jon Queally, March 26, 2025 [CommonDreams]

...The official executive order—under the Orwellian header "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections"—would do the very opposite, warn critics, by making it more difficult for tens of millions of eligible U.S. citizens to cast their ballots in state and national elections….

"The order, which multiple legal experts say is likely illegal," Edkins continued, "threatens to punish states that do not comply and could potentially disenfranchise any American who doesn't have a passport. It even invites Elon Musk's DOGE to help enforce the measures. This isn't about securing our elections—it's voter suppression, plain and simple."

The ACLU said the presidential directive "represents a significant overreach of executive power and poses a direct threat to the fundamental right to vote," in part by ordering—by fiat and without the consent of Congress—the Election Assistance Commission to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to register to vote—something never needed in the nation's history.

Trump's order also attempts to force states to enact "documentary proof of citizenship requirements". It would force state election authorities, under threat of significant federal funds being withheld, to discard all absentee and mail-in ballots received after Election Day….

"A president does not set election law and never will," said Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of the pro-democracy group Common Cause. "Trump's executive action is an attempt to take away our right to vote or make it so hard that we don't participate….”


They Are Going to Take Everything If We Don't Stop Them 

Hamilton Nolan, March 28, 2025 [How Things Work]


The worst thing that the federal government has done to labor unions in my lifetime happened last night. Donald Trump signed an executive order saying that the government will no longer recognize and bargain with a huge portion of the unions that represent federal workers. Among the agencies where he says he is tossing out the union contracts are the VA, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Department of Energy, the EPA, the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, and others. To justify this move, Trump said that all of these agencies are involved in “national security.” This is a fiction. His statement also said that “Certain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” which is closer to the true motivation. He doesn’t like these unions, so he is just trying to erase them with the stroke of a pen….

There are more than a million union members working in the federal government. I have not seen an official count, but this executive order targets most of them. It is also meant to establish the precedent that the president is capable of destroying entire unions using flimsy legalistic pretexts. Oh, the Environmental Protection Agency is “determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,” so you can throw out its fairly negotiated existing union contract, and that is okay? Sure. Treating any of this as a legitimate political position is a mistake. This is just running into the middle of organized labor swinging around a chainsaw.
 



'Fall in Line or Else': Latest Trump Order Seen as Message to Workers

Jon Queally, March 28, 2025 [CommonDreams]

...President Donald Trump's latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump's deep antagonism toward working people and their families….

The far-reaching order, which cites the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act as the source of his presidential authority, goes way beyond restricting collective bargaining and union representation at agencies with a national security mandate but instead tries to ensnare dozens of federal agencies and classifications of federal workers who work beyond that scope….

"Straight out of Project 2025, this executive order is the very definition of union-busting," said Schuler in a Thursday night statement. "It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies….” 


Under Pressure From Trump, ICE Is Pushing Legal Boundaries 

[ProPublica, via Naked Capitalism 03-26-2025]


Mike Johnson Suggests Eliminating Federal Courts After Trump Rulings Blocked 

[Truthout, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


Donald Trump Has Invented Something New and Chilling

Michael Tomasky, March 28, 2025

Donald Trump is inventing a new way. Call it chaos fascism. Destroy the institutions of democracy until they’re so disfigured or dysfunctional that a majority no longer cares about them.

That’s exactly what’s happening with Social Security. The Washington Post reported this week that the SSA is breaking down: Its website “crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts.” A Wall Street multimillionaire who probably doesn’t need his Social Security check and who has pledged that he will “100 percent work with DOGE” has already cut around 12 percent of the staff and doesn’t look like he’s stopping there….

It applies even to Signalgate. Trump has contempt for rules and procedures, and so he appoints unqualified stooges like Pete Hegseth to run the world’s largest military, who share that contempt—who think being tough means showing the world that they can do anything they want with no consequences. Again—ignore the law, trash the rules, establish that procedure is whatever you say it is. Chaos fascism….

Trump will orchestrate no military coup. The Republican Congress will probably pass no laws that make Trump president for life. That would be too obvious. What they’ll do is make stealthier moves across the board that discredit and destroy our democratic institutions until he and his billionaire friends can strip them for parts. Chaos fascism is here to stay.


Men DOGEbags at Work 

DOGE Plans to Rebuild SSA Code Base in Months, Risking Benefits and System Collapse 

[Wired, via Naked Capitalism 03-29-2025]

Like many legacy government IT systems, SSA systems contain code written in COBOL, a programming language created in part in the 1950s by computing pioneer Grace Hopper. The Defense Department essentially pressured private industry to use COBOL soon after its creation, spurring widespread adoption and making it one of the most widely used languages for mainframes, or computer systems that process and store large amounts of data quickly, by the 1970s. (At least one DOD-related website praising Hopper's accomplishments is no longer active, likely following the Trump administration’s DEI purge of military acknowledgements.)

[TW: Grace Hopper is a prime example of How America Was Built by government support and promotion of science and technology. Hopper’s pioneering computer work took place as she was serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy. She devised the theory of machine-independent programming languages, the foundation of all computer programming today. She retired as a Rear Admiral. These are the stories of actual industrial development that have been stifled by the neo-liberal / conservative myths of “free enterprise.” ]


DOGE cuts to Social Security staff and services sends benefits system into chaos 

WSWS, via Naked Capitalism 03-26-2025]


‘A Small Group of People Wanted to Do Away With Social Security From the Beginning’ 

[FAIR, via Naked Capitalism 03-26-2025]


Sabotage In Plain Sight— How Republicans Hope To Get Away With Dismantling Social Security

Howie Klein, March 26, 2025 [downwithtyranny.com]


Treasury Plans ‘Substantial’ Layoffs as Part of Musk’s DOGE Push 

[Bloomberg, via Naked Capitalism 03-26-2025]


FBI puts together Tesla task force as counter-protest violence ramps up 

Electrek, via Naked Capitalism 03-26-2025]


An Interview With A Fired USDA Specialist 

[Defector, via Naked Capitalism 03-24-2025]


Internal White House document details layoff plans across U.S. agencies 

[WaPo, via Naked Capitalism 03-28-2025]


Gaza / Palestine / Israel

“The Target is Unmistakable”: The Shooting of Gaza’s Children 

Amel Guettatfi, March 27, 2025 [Drop Site]


The carnage of mainstream neoliberal economics

Neoliberalism and Its Hegemonic Crisis 

[Modern Intellectual History, via Naked Capitalism 03-28-2025]


Predatory finance

The Synthetic Lender of Last Resort 

Matt Levine [Bloomberg, via Naked Capitalism 03-29-2025]


They’re not capitalists — they’re predatory criminals


Restoring balance to the economy


Disrupting mainstream economics


Health care crisis


Information age dystopia / surveillance state


Democrats' political malpractice

Monopoly Round-Up: The Democrats’ Corporate Lawyers Get the Humiliation They Deserve

Matt Stoller, March 23, 2025 [BIG]

...A few years ago, I spoke at the American Bar Association Antitrust Section, and observed the rage the gathered corporate lawyers felt towards anti-monopolists for barging into their club. While I noted at the time the legal elements of the disagreement, there’s a political element as well. These lawyers are the Democratic establishment, the real thinkers and operatives behind the frontmen like Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer and candidates like Kamala Harris and Barack Obama. And it’s been this way for decades, such that it’s systematized….

A key firm in this network is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a multi-billion dollar entity that is so politically connected its New York office served as the unofficial campaign headquarters for Kamala Harris’ campaign. Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries worked as an associate at Paul Weiss for six years….

Today, at $7.5 million in profit per partner in 2024, the fifth highest of major law firms, Paul Weiss is anchored by private equity titan Apollo Global Management, as well as Google, Amazon, and Apple. It reps nine of the top ten private equity firms. Just this week, it got a securities action against Amazon dismissed, advised Rocket Mortgage in buying Redfin, and helped engineer the roll-up of roofing in the $11 billion QXO/Beacon Roofing Supply deal. Its work spans the gamut of pro-corporate aggressive lawyering. Brad Karp, for instance, sent a letter opposing the Biden administration’s $8 cap on credit card late fees. It helped Verizon buy Frontier, did one of the largest private equity deals in China and as an internal investigator failed to catch one of the largest stock frauds in history. Paul Weiss is a firm unafraid of standing up to the government on behalf of its corporate or pro bono clients….

A week and a half ago, Donald Trump targeted Paul Weiss with an executive order stripping the firm of security clearances and business with the government, as well as potentially barring their lawyers from Federal courthouses. In addition, Trump implied he would penalize Paul Weiss’ clients. It’s a blatantly illegal order, the kind widely understood as an authoritarian move.... 

Working through Burck, as well as New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a firm client, Karp reached out to Trump, and they met for three hours. In the middle of that meeting with Karp, Trump picked up the phone and calling Paul Weiss’s most important rival, Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell, and asked what he should do. The whole episode leaked, which revealed to the entire corporate and legal world that Paul Weiss has no juice in Trump-world, and Sullivan & Cromwell does.

Finally, they cut a deal. In return for Trump ending his executive order, the firm agreed to end its diversity programs, do $40 million of free work for Trump-aligned priorities, and ensure that it would hire and represent Trump-aligned clients. Karp also disavowed former Paul Weiss lawyer Mark Pomerantz, who had worked in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in a case against Trump.

This capitulation shocked and horrified the legal world, inviting Trump to expand his attack on the legal community. The next day, Trump issued another executive order calling for the government to sanction lawyers who bring “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” lawsuits against the government. That’s a signal to the entire legal world that representing clients in disagreements with the government carries a personal and professional risk….

In this context, Paul Weiss’ immediate capitulation caused a lot of lawyers to despair. One way of seeing this dynamic is to ask the question: If this venerable law firm, which has the resources to fight and a legacy to protect, capitulates, then who else will? But the way I see this dynamic is that it merely reveals to everyone in Democratic politics what we’ve already known, which is that big law is a place of toxic anti-democratic sentiment. And the entire edifice of party politics, that fancy lawyers do the real governing work while shabby hacks handle the rabble during the elections, is a charade to hand over America to private equity and monopoly.

The story of Paul Weiss is the story of modern corporate liberalism turned sour. It’s a wildly unethical place, flipping sides on Google for money. Moreover, its lawyers have openly encouraged corporate clients to break the law….

...what should be crystal clear to everyone in politics is these lawyers aren’t just unethical, but are in many ways the reason that the Democratic Party is as enfeebled and pathetic as it seems to be. Big law is the brains of the Democrats, with the actual elected officials, often meek pleasers with little experience wielding real power, as ornaments who serve up slop on centrist and leftism and other meaningless terms. The alchemy of big law was always they way in which you seamlessly revolve in and out of government - the allure of making a lot of money and governing. That is what is shattering….

And in that sense, I am thankful to Paul Weiss and Brad Karp. In this dangerous moment, the Democratic corporate establishment, by capitulating so obviously to Trump in return for corporate money, has just ripped out the heart that ran the Clinton, Obama, and much of the toxic parts of the Biden administrations. And they did so at the only moment in the last two decades during which normal Democrats are looking for someone to blame for their own party’s fecklessness. And who better to blame than the would-be Kamala Harris staff, a pack of Google and private equity defense lawyers - and Chuck Schumer’s brother - who, when the chips were down, bent the knee to Trump?

 [TW: Stoller’s account of the lawyers at Paul Weiss deciding to roll over for Trump, is a powerful example of civic republicanism having been destroyed by greed and the love of wealth. Paul Weiss lawyers decided they would rather preserve their wealth, than honor their profession’s civic duty to uphold the rule of law. Which is why I place the next contribution, discussing oligarchy, immediately following.]


Oligarchy

On oligarchy: ancient lessons for global politics    

Edited by David Edward Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski [Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2011]

Chapter 3 “Overcoming Oligarchy: Republicanism and the Right to Property in the Federalist”

Jeffrey Sikkenga

...Plato's most systematic analysis of oligarchic regimes is found in Book 8 of The Republic. In the beginning of Book 8, the conversation returns to a discussion interrupted at the end of Book 4 about the relative justice of five regimes: aristocracy (the rule of philosopher-kings), timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. The ensuing conversation between Socrates and his interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus focuses on the oligarchic soul because, according to Socrates, regimes acquire their character from the psyche of those who establish and hold the ruling offices….

...Socrates portrays the moneymaker's soul as 'in a sense two-fold, born from a combination of the desire to acquire security and the desire to acquire honour. For the moneymaker, wealth satisfies both desires. But money makers are not oligarchs - that is, human beings moved by distinctly oligarchic political principles. Moneymakers are politically happy if the city allows unlimited acquisition and the laws 'diligently hold down by force' crimes against property. But oligarchs demand that the city honour wealth by imposing a property qualification forholding office that excludes the vast majority of inhabitants.

According to Socrates, the oligarchic soul comes into being when the rich face a democratic revolution that insists on equality….

Unlike money-makers who gather up their property and flee when threatened, these wealthy people have become willing to risk 'impeachments, judgments, and contests' in order to defend the dignity and justice of the moneymaking way of life, which resides not so much in the simple accumulation of wealth as in the nobler fact that such a person rules himself through the dominance of the orderly (moneymaking) desires over the disorderly (spendthrift) desires. In their view, the justice of oligarchy is that it recognizes the moral excellence of the acquisitive person's orderly soul and publicly distinguishes it from lower ones that lack these virtues. For such people, oligarchy must be fought for because it is the only regime that gives the city's highest authority and honour to the best human beings, the people who deserve these distinctions. What makes some moneymakers 'truly oligarchs' is their moral attachment to a specific notion of justice that opposes the democratic idea of equality. Thus, while acquisitive desire for wealth is born from fear and shame, Socrates suggests that it becomes a bold demand for political honour fueled by a growing attachment to what the rich see as the nobility and justice of oligarchic distinction….

Aristotle notes, however, that there are a variety of oligarchic arrangements, ranging from the rule of newly rich moneymakers to dynasties of a very few old, wealthy families who are not permitted to engage in moneymaking. What unites these oligarchs indeed, what makes them oligarchs is that all of them believe that only the rich deserve to rule, and they enforce this idea by having a high property qualification for voting and office holding. The variety of oligarchies shows, however, that oligarchs disagree over why wealth is worthy of honour. Oligarchic regimes devoted to the endless accumulation of wealth believe that the life of acquisition is the good life. For them, what makes human beings noble is the act of overcoming material privation and freeing oneself from necessity. But the other types of oligarchies show that the passion fueling oligarchs cannot be reduced to the desire to acquire money. For these oligarchs, wealth is honourable because it is the only means to a higher end, hence, Aristotle says, these oligarchs 'are held to occupy the place of gentlemen' by the many and 'in most places' even mistake themselves for aristocrats. These gentlemanly oligarchs believe that both wealthy moneymakers and the poor should be excluded from office because both groups are 'vulgar' (apeirokalia): that is, inexperienced in the nobler matters that are necessary to elevate the mind in preparation for political rule. There seem, then, to be several kinds of oligarchies rooted in different notions of what type of human being is truly good and deserves to rule. Yet within these differences lies the common idea of all oligarchy: an unbreakable link between wealth and political merit. To be an oligarch is to believe that the rich (at least certain rich people) deserve mastery over the city.

[TW: Slightly different than Thorstein Veblen’s analysis of The Leisure Class, but not much. I want to emphasize here that civic republicanism is based on the belief that all individuals have reason and are capable of self-government if they are not steered astray by false prophets and demagogues. Hence, the high value placed on free public education for all — which many conservatives today have become emboldened enough to explicitly oppose. Leo Strauss and Curtis Yarvin are very open about the need for society to be ruled by elites who trained and educated to spin and weave myths and lies to keep the masses in place. ]


Nation's Elite Lawyers Choose Money Over The Constitution

Brian Beutler, March 26, 2025 [Off Message]

Suddenly, litigants who need to defend themselves against Trump’s threats or file suit to stop his legally dubious orders, “are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges,” according to the Post. “Biden-era officials said they’re having trouble finding lawyers willing to defend them. The volunteers and small nonprofits forming the ground troops of the legal resistance to Trump administration actions say that the well-resourced law firms that once would have backed them are now steering clear.”

That’s bad enough. But in context, its even worse. White shoe pro bono work is in exceptionally high demand because, through his lawlessness, Trump has already taxed the world of public interest, legal aid, and boutique firms to its limit. Before his first orders, which targeted corporate firms Covington & Burling, and Perkins Coie, lawyers for these independent firms and civil-society organizations were already cracking under the workload.

“Two months into this administration, the American legal system is already under severe stress,” said Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court advocate whose firm Gupta Wessler has participated in litigation against the Trump administration. “The nation's largest, richest, and most powerful corporate law firms are starting to be ruled by abject fear. They're already categorically declining to take on new pro bono clients in cases that might draw the administration's ire. Worse still, in some cases I know of, they're backing out of existing commitments to challenge unlawful government actions on behalf of vulnerable groups that desperately need their help. Nonprofits and smaller law firms like ours simply cannot make up for all of that unmet need.”


A Disregard for Rules Trickles Down From Trump to His Aides

Julian E. Barnes, March 27, 2025 [New York Times]


    
Surrendering to Authoritarianism

Chris Hedges, March 24, 2025

Elite universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Columbia or Yale, were created to train and perpetuate the plutocracy. They are not and never have been centers of cutting-edge intellectual thought or hospitable to dissidents and radicals. They cloak themselves in the veneer of moral probity and intellectualism but cravenly serve political and economic power. This is their nature. Don’t expect it to change, even as we fall headlong into authoritarianism….

These institutions of privilege — I attended Harvard and have taught at Columbia and Princeton — have always been complicit in the crimes of their times. They did not, until the world around them changed, speak out against the slaughter of Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans, the crushing of labor and socialist organizations at the turn of the twentieth century and the purging of institutions, including the academy, during the Red Scare in the 1920s and 1930s, and later the witch hunts under McCarthyism. They turned on their students protesting the war in Vietnam in the 1960s as viciously as they are turning on them now….


What the New JFK Documents Reveal

Thomas Neuburger, Mar 28, 2025 [God’s Spies]

If you’re looking for an introduction to the just-released JFK material, there’s a good discussion on Breaking Points by Jefferson Morley, a bona fide expert. It’s worth listening all the way through….

• Why does it matter who killed JFK? “Because when JFK was killed and there was no accountability, the American Empire took a turn. Kennedy was trying to steer the ship one way, and when Kennedy was killed and there was no accountability, the ship was steered another way.

“And we never had a course correction after that, because the faction that avoided accountability with Kennedy's murder and avoided responsibility for it — they had impunity, and they could dominate all the policy debates that followed. And also because they had the secrecy apparat, the apparatus of secrecy around them.”


An Abundance of Ambiguity

Zephyr Teachout, March 23, 2025 [Washington Monthly]

Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster, 304 pp.

…The 40-year stagnation of wages, and the drop in small and medium-sized businesses, is a supply-side story that they simply don’t engage—one that, as the former chair of the FTC Lina Khan and many others have recognized, is a direct result of monopolization and financialization.

If they took their own “stop the scarcity mind-set” medicine, they’d realize that the industrial policy of the 1980s to 2020, not zoning, was what caused the scarcity of opportunity throughout the country—and we can change that policy. During the most productive and innovative era in American history, places like Corning, New York, known as a glassware technology powerhouse, and St. Louis, which once had 22 Fortune 500 companies and a thriving “creative class,” were the centers of the dynamism. If we just got out of the modern coastal-scarcity mind-set and took on the real bureaucratic behemoths of today—the private equity cartels and the monstrous platform monopolies like Google and Meta—we would unlock far more innovation and creativity and vitality.


Collapse of independent news media

How Worker-Owned News Outlets Are Changing the Media Industry

Damon Orion [Local Peace Economy, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


Climate and environmental crises

​​​​​​​The Huge Jury Verdict Against Greenpeace Is Really An Attack on the Entire Climate Movement. It Will Backfire 

Steve Donzinger [via Naked Capitalism 03-29-2025]


1 in 7 Homes Does Not Have Home Insurance as Premiums Skyrocket 

[Realtor, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


Trump’s transactional regime

They helped Trump take back the White House. The rewards have come swiftly. 

[CNN, via Naked Capitalism 03-25-2025]


Resistance

Fighting Back: A Citizen’s Guide to Resistance

Timothy Noah, March 27, 2025 [The New Republic]


Conservative / Libertarian / (anti)Republican Drive to Civil War

Buying the vote 

[MuskWatch, via Naked Capitalism 03-25-2025]

In Wisconsin, an Elon Musk-backed super PAC is offering registered voters $100 in exchange for their contact information and signatures on a petition condemning “activist judges.” Signers can receive another $100 for additional voters they refer to the petition. The scheme was launched less than two weeks before a state Supreme Court election that could shift the partisan balance of Wisconsin’s highest court….

Michael Maistelman, a Wisconsin election lawyer who supports Crawford, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Musk's tactics may violate Wisconsin law. "Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value to induce a person to vote, refrain from voting, or take any action related to an election," Maistelman said. "Even though the money isn’t directly tied to voting, it could still be seen as an unlawful incentive related to election activity."

The tactic is similar to one Musk deployed during the 2024 presidential election when he offered voters in swing states a chance to win $1 million in exchange for signing a pro-Trump petition. The Department of Justice warned that Musk's tactics might be illegal, and he was sued in federal court. The sweepstakes, however, were ultimately allowed to proceed.


How Elon Musk, George Soros and Other Billionaires Are Shaping the Most Expensive Court Race in U.S. History

Megan O’Matz, March 28, 2025 [Pro Publica]

Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill to allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted no…. “I definitely think that that piece of legislation made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically who can inflame things in the most clever way with some terrible TV ad that’s probably not even true.”


Florida child labor bill SB 918 would let minors as young as 14 work overnight 

[Pensacola News Journal, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


Florida wants to loosen child-labor laws to make up for loss of migrant workers 

[The Independent, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]


The Big Bank Plotting to Privatize the Post Office Under Trump 

[In These Times, via Naked Capitalism 03-27-2025]

Wells Fargo envisions a postal service where the mail is kept as a taxpayer-funded government entity while the package and parcel components, which are more profitable, are ​“sold or IPOed.” In order for the new private company to earn a decent profit, ​“USPS would need to raise prices by ~30-140% across its product line.”

A privatized postal system would also take aim at the Universal Service Obligation, which requires mail to be delivered to every address six days a week. Such dedication to equitable service ​“would be a challenge for a third-party operator to profitably move mail and packages,” the memo complains. This move would also put pressure on the proposed mail-only service, which would likely be financially hobbled, to downgrade from six-day delivery as well.


The Reckoning at the Town Hall

Mike Brock, March 29, 2025 [notesfromthecircus]


An Open Letter to Trump Supporters

Mike Brock, March 28, 2025 [notesfromthecircus]

...I understand why many of you were drawn to Trump initially. When he emerged on the political scene, he spoke to genuine frustrations that the political establishment had ignored for too long. He named realities that many Americans were experiencing—the hollowing out of manufacturing communities, the sense that Washington elites viewed your concerns with contempt, the feeling that your way of life was disappearing while no one in power seemed to care…. no amount of partisan rhetoric can erase the legitimate grievances that drove many Americans to support an outsider promising to upend a system that wasn't serving them.

But I want to ask you, sincerely: Is this what you thought you were voting for?

Did you vote for the systematic deportation of people to face torture without due process? Did you vote for the dismantling of civil service protections so that government agencies could be purged of career experts and filled with loyalists? Did you vote for private companies to take control of Treasury systems? Did you vote for the President to declare he can simply ignore court rulings he disagrees with?

I don't believe most of you did. I believe you voted for someone who would shake up a broken system, who would put American interests first, who would speak bluntly rather than in the carefully crafted language of professional politicians. I believe you wanted accountability from institutions that seemed unaccountable, change in a system that seemed resistant to change, and recognition for communities that felt forgotten.

But what's happening now goes far beyond those legitimate desires. It represents a fundamental assault on the constitutional order itself—not because it's delivering conservative policies or challenging liberal orthodoxies, but because it's dismantling the very structure of democratic governance.

When a president claims he can simply ignore court rulings, he's not challenging “the establishment”—he's rejecting the Constitution's separation of powers. When asylum seekers are deported to face torture without hearings, this isn't “putting America first”—it's abandoning the most basic human rights principles our nation was founded upon. When career civil servants are purged and replaced with loyalists, this isn't “draining the swamp”—it's creating the conditions for unchecked corruption and abuse of power.


Don't Expect To Wake Up And Someone To Say "Trump Became A Dictator Today"— It's A Process

Howie Klein, March 28, 2025 [downwithtyranny.com]

On Wednesday, The Guardian published a piece by Rachel Leingang, Yale professor who studies fascism fleeing US to work in Canada, about Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018). Stanley swapped his job at Yale for one at Torononto’s Miunk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy because he sees the U.S. in danger of becoming a fascist dictatorship. He wants to raise his kids in a country that isn’t tilting towards fascism. “When I saw Columbia completely capitulate, and I saw this vocabulary of, well, we’re going to work behind the scenes because we’re not going to get targeted— that whole way of thinking pre-supposes that some universities will get targeted, and you don’t want to be one of those universities, and that’s just a losing strategy,” he said. “You’ve got to just band together and say an attack on one university is an attack on all universities. And maybe you lose that fight, but you’re certainly going to lose this one if you give up before you fight. Columbia was just such a warning. I just became very worried because I didn’t see a strong enough reaction in other universities to side with Columbia. I see Yale trying not to be a target. And as I said, that’s a losing strategy.”

Noah Smith posed a disturbing question on his substack on Wednesday: If and when you live in a dictatorship, how will you know? Smith wrote that Trump isn’t a dictator right now “but over the past couple of weeks, the Trump administration has done or said a number of things that sort of pattern-match to the stuff dictators usually do. And this is causing reasonable people to worry that Trump is slowly, carefully trying to push in the direction of a dictatorship… [M]any of the MAGA movement people are openly advocating for Trump to assert truly dictatorial powers.” He used quotes from outright fascists Sebastian Gorka, Tom Homan and Michael Flynn as examples, noting that “if Trump doesn’t push to become a true dictator, it’ll only be because he and his subordinates choose to defy the desires of their activist base. And that’s not something I’m particularly comfortable betting the future of the country on.”


The (anti)Federalist Society assault on the Constitution

A Dark Money Deluge To Kill Consumer Protections

Freddy Brewster, March 26, 2025 [The Lever]

More than a dozen legal groups bankrolled by tens of millions in dark money tied to a conservative judicial mastermind are urging the Supreme Court to kneecap federal agencies’ ability to protect consumers and impose vital fees on companies. If the groups are successful, the ruling on a little-known regulation could further constrain federal agencies’ power and give corporations free rein to pollute the environment and swindle the average consumer.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments on Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Researchwhich could decide whether federal agencies are still allowed to undertake certain essential government tasks, such as rulemaking and imposing necessary fees on companies and consumers. The defendant in the case, Consumers’ Research, and 13 conservative groups supporting its efforts are all in part bankrolled by a nonprofit connected to Leonard Leo, President Donald Trump’s former judicial adviser, who played a key role in constructing the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and maintains close ties to two of the justices.

Leo’s ultimate goal includes plans to “crush liberal dominance” and help establish more conservative values and judges in the federal judiciary….


Civic republicanism

On Civic Republicanism — Ancient Lessons for Global Politics

edited by Geoffrey Kellow and Neven Leddy [University of Toronto Press, 2016]

[The entire books appear to be available for reading free online.]

Introduction, by Geoffrey Kellow

... To call one’s polis a republic was to stand out against a horizon dominated by oligarchic, monarchic, and imperial alternatives… It is this vision of republicanism, civic republicanism to be precise, that the essays in this volume address. This collection considers what ancient civic republics can say to modern republics and their citizens. Of course, the ancient republics have been speaking to us, providing lessons, for centuries. Our political, cultural, and even architectural landscape is populated with their lessons.…

...when we draw on republican sources today we necessarily draw on two traditions, the original civic republicanism of antiquity as well as the varied early modern reclamations and restatements that emerged from Florence to the American founding. This inevitable commingling has been with us for centuries. In the very heart of the Renaissance both Erasmus’s The Education of the Christian Prince and Machiavelli’s The Prince explicitly and implicitly drew on recollections of Republican Rome and Cicero’s De Officiis. But just as importantly, both referred to republics more recently lost and lamented. For Erasmus and Machiavelli and ever since, when we recall republics we inevitably recall both ancient and modern republics. We cannot think only of Pericles and Cato; inevitably, we think also of George Washington and Piero Soderini….

One school of thought, most prominently represented by Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock, has argued for a deep continuity between ancient and modern. Pocock in particular has famously argued of Harrington that he provided the intellectual means “whereby the county freeholder could equate himself with the Greco-Roman polites and profess of a wholly classical and Aristotelian doctrine of the relations between property, liberty and power.”2 This interpretation has been vigorously challenged by the work of scholars such as Harvey Mansfield and Leo Strauss….

[TW: Following Strauss leads to Reagan, Bush / Shrub Jr., and Trump. Not a good path. But who follows James Harrington and his Commonwealth of Oceana (1656)? A handful of scholars have identified Harrington as a far more important influence on the USA founders than the evil John Locke, who served as secretary for Lord Shaftsbury’s Council on Trade and Plantations (which by the time of the American Revolution was more widely known and reviled as the Board of Trade), and for the Carolina Lords Proprietors. Locke coauthored with Shaftsbury The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which imposed a strictly hierarchical structure of hereditary aristocracy and slavery. Without a knowledge of the philosophical differences between Locke and Harrington, today’s opponents of conservatism — liberals, “the left,” the Democratic Party, socialists, marxists, what have you — are philosophically incapable of out- thinking and out-maneuvering conservatives: Clinton / Clinton, Obama, and Biden have not been a good path either. Certainly, at least, not good enough. ]

[The primary purpose of government, according to Locke, is the defense of property.  By contrast, republican theorists see the primary purpose of government as supporting and encouraging  individual citizens to improve themselves as instruments for improving society — doing good for the general welfare. (Recall the HAWB example above of Rear Admiral Grace Hopper and the development of computer programming.)  

[Back to Kellow’s “Introduction”:]

The concern with ends binds together all the essays concerning Aristotle and what begins to illuminate the distinctions between liberal democracy and civic republicanism… These first essays recognize that a civic republic with a common end in mind must always be concerned with the civic means, its place in the cosmos and on the earth, and the faith, character, reason, and rhetoric of its citizens….


​​​​​​​Chapter 8. Montesquieu on Corruption: Civic Purity in a Post-Republican World

Robert Sparling

...Montesquieu believed that free states always regulate their merchants, whereas despotisms create, if I may employ an anachronistic phrase, business-friendly regulatory environments (20.12).42 He did not want merchants to be overly burdened with excessive bureaucratic formalities (20.13), but he was quite clear that the purpose of commerce is to further the good of the state, and the regulation of merchants is an essential basis for freedom. Excessive taxation would harm industry, but taxation was the reason commerce was to be celebrated by governments….

Finally, he thought it essential for a well-ordered state that private property be respected (26.15). But property right is a product of positive law, and the state must be able to control matters such as inheritance in whatever manner necessary for their particular constitutions. Political interference in matters of property is not something that Montesquieu condemned, nor was he an outright enemy of high taxation (the most free countries are the most taxed, while the most despotic are the least 13.12, 10) – the key was merely to adjust tax policy so as not to dissuade commercial activity….

...for Montesquieu, corruption entails the augmentation of the sentiments (fear and avarice) that undermine sociability. In this sense, it entails the abuse of public things for private gain, for the greater corruption there is, the less sense there is of a public. But the complete elimination of fear is impossible in human society, and the complete elimination of greed leads to an unhealthy asceticism. His solution to the problem is one with which our liberal world is quite familiar – institutions must be designed such that public benefits derive from moderate private vices. The state must not be allowed to become either too heavy-handed in its wielding of the sword or too light in its control of commerce. Punishment must remain humane. Merchants and financiers must be encouraged but controlled: the liberty of commerce depends on merchants not being allowed to do what they want (20.12). Office holders may be expected to want to breach the trust given to them, and watchfulness and resentment must be encouraged in order to keep them in check. Unlike ancient founders of republics, Montesquieuan legislators no longer have purity in their sights….

But make no mistake – this regime-craft entails soul-craft. A certain type of human personality is both the product and the defender of this balance (and in Montesquieu’s more aristocratic moments he suggests that it is not a terribly admirable type). The passions of fear and avarice must not be allowed to become so dominant as to break apart natural human relationships and turn society into zero-sum games of exploitation....