Several people have observed that Trump’s audacious lies have the function of separating the die-hard MAGA loyalists from the fellow travelers and opportunists. These lies function as a test by which Trump and his inner circle can determine who is with him no matter what. If they buy and broadcast his core lies—the 2020 election was stolen from him, he got more popular votes than Hillary, Haitian immigrants are eating cats in Springfield, Ohio—regardless of evidence to the contrary, they are truly loyal.

As Anne Applebaum put it in Autocracy in America last year:

The Big Lie . . . helps the leader, the autocrat, establish who’s loyal, who’s on our side, and who’s not. You know, if you promise to believe in the made-up story, then you can work for the government or the party or whatever, and if you don’t, you’re out.1

Applebaum adds that Putin, Stalin and other autocrats have used the same device to secure a loyal following that will believe the dictator rather than “their lying eyes.”

For the vast majority of the MAGA Cult, acceptance of Trump’s lies is not transactional, not a means to get or keep a cabinet position or other high-level government job. It is about belonging to and being accepted by a group that allays anxieties, fears, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control.

Cults are Part of The Human Experience

There is nothing new about the underlying psychological mechanism. In his book, On Truth, Simon Blackburn writes of truth and religion:

The principal function of religious practice was to weld numbers of people into a social whole, a congregation. To this end the arbitrary nature of practices of faith, such as the veneration of some text, or some place or object, is ideally adapted. You gain a separate identity, a tribal badge as it were, by the very arbitrariness. You can't distinguish yourself from your neighbors by saying that we are the people who eat and breathe, but you can by identifying as the people who read just these books or sing just these songs, wear these hats, grow these beards, cut our hair, where veils, take off our shoes, eat seafood, worship cows, or don't.2

In this respect, the MAGA Cult is no different from the thousands of cults that have sprung up in human history. As Kurt Anderson has shown, America in particular is fertile ground for such cults.3

They Saw a Game . . . Or Did They See Many Games?

On a brisk November afternoon in 1951, Dartmouth traveled to Palmer Stadium in Princeton to play the hometown team in its last football game of the season. In the second quarter, Princeton’s star left the game with a broken nose. One of Dartmouth’s players was knocked out of the game with a broken leg in the third quarter. The referees kept blowing their whistles, penalizing Dartmouth with a total of 70 yards and Princeton with 25, not counting the plays in which both sides were flagged. Most agreed. It was a rough game.

Four days after the game, the Daily Princetonian wrote about how unfair the Dartmouth team had played, accusing it of deliberately trying (successfully) to injure Princeton’s star player. Not to be outdone, a few days later, the Dartmouth responded in kind, asserting that the Princeton coach had incited the Tigers to inflict injuries on the Dartmouth players, which they succeeded in doing by injuring the leg of one unprotected quarterback and breaking the leg of the other.

Up to now, this story is not highly unusual. Fans in sports rivalries are known to take sides over the officiating and alleged lack of fair play by the opposing team.

But two psychology professors decided to conduct a study to examine what was going on in the minds of the students. After all, they all saw the same game. Or did they?

A week after the game, Albert Hastorf of Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton asked students in their respective psych classes to complete a questionnaire “designed to get reactions to the game and to learn something of the climate of opinion in each institution.”4

The second step consisted of showing the same motion picture of the game to a sample of undergraduates in each school and having them check on another questionnaire, as they watched the film, any infraction of the rules they saw and whether these infractions were "mild" or "flagrant."

When Hastorf and Cantril compiled the results of the study, “[n]early all Princeton students judged the game as "rough and dirty"—not one of them thought it ‘clean and fair.’ And almost nine tenths of them thought the other side started the rough play.” Similarly, “when Dartmouth students looked at the movie of the game . . . they saw their own team make only half the number of infractions the Princeton students saw them make.”5

After studying the students’ various responses and laying them out in a table, Hastorf and Cantril stated:

It seems clear that the ‘game’ actually was many different games and that each version of the events that transpired was just as ‘real’ to a particular person as other versions were to other people.6

They then drew a conclusion about how we experience events generally:

Of crucial importance is the fact that an ‘occurrence’ on the football field or in any other social situation does not become an experiential ‘event’ unless and until some significance is given to it: an ‘occurrence’ becomes an ‘event' only when the happening has significance. And a happening generally has significance only if it reactivates learned significances already registered . . .7

In other words, a raw fact only becomes a meaningful "event" when it fits into the pre-existing worldview we already hold.

We See What Our Group Sees

Philosophers and psychologists have known for centuries that our minds construct the world we perceive and do not actually see the thing itself.8

What is of particular interest for our understanding of the MAGA Cult (and similar social systems) is the apparent synchronization of selective perception by groups of people, depending on the group to which they belonged.

In brief, the data here indicate that there is no such ‘thing’ as a ‘game’ existing ‘out there’ in its own right which people merely ‘observe.’ The ‘game’ ‘exists’ for a person and is experienced by him only in so far as certain happenings have significances in terms of his purpose.

* * *

The sharing of significances provides the links except for which a ‘social’ event would not be experienced and would not exist for anyone.9

This conclusion is reinforced by the work social psychologists over the past 75 years. Their work established the core principles of group psychology. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, for example, explains how we invent justifications to relieve the discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs—like supporting a leader we know is lying. Solomon Asch's famous experiments on conformity showed that people will knowingly give a wrong answer just to conform with the group, proving that we are often more loyal to the tribe than to our own eyes.

Belonging to a Group is Critical to Mental Health

All of us have an innate need to connect with others, to belong, and to be accepted.10

We not only see what our group sees; we see what the norms of our group predispose us to see. We see what we must see to remain members of the group.

People in the MAGA Cult are no different from other humans and no different from you and me. They have a need to belong and to be accepted.

Donald Trump—like other charlatans, con men, scallywags, and scoundrels—has a special talent for exploiting this need as he also appeals to an adjacent need for security and order.

A significant number of humans in every society have always had a need for what George Lakoff called a “strict father” in charge of the government.11 It is comforting and reassuring. It relieves the stress and anxiety we experience from perceived chaos.

Alongside this need some have for an absolute ruler in the guise of a strict father, many relieve anxieties by subscribing to various, occasionally outlandish, conspiracy beliefs.12

Donald Trump—in his own malevolent, twisted, sick way—helps satisfy that need for millions of people.

Trump’s Lies are a Shibboleth of Acceptance and Belonging

Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible will recall that the Gileadites used the word “shibboleth” to identify who was a member of their group and who not. The Ephraimites were unable to form the “sh” sound and said “sibboleth” when asked to say the word, thereby giving themselves away as outsiders.13

So, when Trump says that the January 6 insurrectionists were patriot heroes, what game will members of the MAGA Cult see? They’ll see the game Trump wants them to see. And they will believe those who don’t see it—who can’t pronounce shibboleth—are the traitors, the outsiders, the non-Americans, the enemy.

And when Trump says that tariffs will lower prices and make everyone more prosperous, what game will the MAGA Cult see? Just as students at Princeton saw an excessively dirty and unfair and violent Dartmouth team, they’ll see sunshine, lollipops, and roses—because that’s what the Dear Leader wants them to see and because seeing what he wants them to see is the shibboleth that gives them entry into the club.

For the roughly ten million American families who lost their homes in the Great Recession, the crisis wasn't an abstract economic event—it was a betrayal. While banks got bailouts, homeowners got foreclosures.

This wasn't an accident; it was a choice. In his book, The Price of Peace, Zachary D. Carter recounts how Barack Obama persuaded Congressional Democrats to vote for the financial rescue package by promising to support legislation that would help homeowners caught up in the financial crisis avoid foreclosure. Obama also promised to support changes in the bankruptcy law that would allow homeowners to restructure mortgage debt the way the law allowed for small business owners, farmers, and large corporations.

Obama did not keep his promise.

After Obama’s inauguration, the White House unveiled what became the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which was a $75 billion plan intended to help families avoid foreclosure and restructure home loans. But, as Carter reports, only about $19 billion was ever used, and the Administration channeled it through banks, which found ways to glom on to most of the money without providing meaningful relief to homeowners. The bankruptcy legislation stalled in Congress. Carter says neither Obama nor anyone in the White House did much to achieve the objectives of HAMP or to vigorously push for passage of the bankruptcy law. It was not a political priority.1

Big Mistake. HUGE.

Arguably, the abandonment of middle-class homeowners coupled with the bailout of the super rich bankers (almost none of whom were held accountable for their profligate endangerment of the nation’s financial system) contributed to the breeding ground of resentment which was a major factor in the election of Donald Trump.

An estimated 6 to 10 million families lost their homes as a result of the Great Recession.2

But the abandonment of working homeowners in 2009 wasn't an isolated incident. It was the continuation of a political shift that began decades earlier, a turn away from the party's New Deal roots that became starkly evident during the fight over NAFTA. Arguably, NAFTA helped destroy numerous factories in communities across the South- and Midwest. (See my essay, What Now Part I: The Reckoning.)

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ushered in this job-killing treaty as part of a turn to Neoliberalism championed by the Democratic Leadership Conference—a/k/a Democrats for the Leisure Class.3

NAFTA was strongly opposed by mainstream Democrats in Congress, and Ross Perot made a strong third-party showing in the presidential election of 1992 by constantly referring to the “giant sucking sound” of jobs that would be going to Mexico. Bernie Sanders spoke out against it over and over again.

But it passed. The rich did well. The Working Class was devastated.

A case could be made that since the election of Ronald Reagan, leading Democrats, including Barack Obama, have been more concerned with pleasing the rich and the superrich than with representing the interests of the people who historically have voted for Democrats.4

Robert Reich’s Prophecy

What we are witnessing today was foreseen and foretold by those who cared about working Americans in earlier decades.

On November 22, 1994, in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich spoke about the drubbing the Democrats had taken in the recent mid-term elections. What had led middleclass voters to turn to the Republicans? Answer: Economic Injustice.

Reich explained: “The Great American Middle Class has not shared in the benefits of this recovery anymore than it shared in the economic growth of the 1980s.” Well-paying jobs were going to the well-educated, while the jobs available to those without college degrees paid poorly. The gap between the 5% overclass and the middle class had been growing since the late 1970’s.

“Last year alone, in 1993, the top 5th of American households took home a record 48% of the nation's total income and pocketed 72% of the entire growth in income. The top 5% in particular (I label it America’s overclass), they widened their lead on the rest of the nation last year, taking home 20% of the nation's total income and more than 40% of all of the growth in income.”

By 1994, many in America’s Middle Class had joined the ranks of the dispossessed, the insulted, the ignored, the abused, the downtrodden.

Prophetically, Reich said, “They voted for change in 1994 just as they voted for change in 1992, and they will do it again and again and again until that downward slide is reversed.”

They voted for change in 2004 and again in 2008. They got more pink slips.

They voted for change in 2016. The pink slips kept coming.

They voted for change in 2020. The Biden Administration engineered a massive investment in infrastructure and other job-producing programs—particularly in fly-over country. But those jobs would not start coming online until 2024. No one got the word out that the Democrats made it happen. And, in any event, many working Americans did not receive much, if any, benefit. Inflation from the Covid crisis remained high, especially in housing.

So, they voted for change again in 2024, precipitating what is shaping up to be a disaster for them, American democracy, and America, as Trump and the Project 2025 crowd wrecks government programs, decimates health insurance and food support, raises taxes on consumers through irrational tariffs, and cancels the infrastructure and manufacturing projects that would have brought money and jobs to economically depressed communities.

The downward slide continues.

Let’s Champion Working Americans

Elected Democrats must stop shilling for the Morgans, Goulds, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Fisks of our time. Perhaps we should make Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, required reading for every Democratic candidate for office. (Someone—why not you?—should go to campaign events and ask candidates: “Have you read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich?”)

In his 1994 speech, Robert Reich said, “Across America, I Hear the same refrain again and again and again coming from American workers. I have given this company the best years of my life and they dispose of me like a piece of Rusty machinery.”

That refrain is not new. It’s been around since the beginning of the industrial revolution and was memorialized musically by Utah Phillips in “All Used Up.”

But we must not treat this dismal state as God given.

In 1992, James Carville slapped a sign on the wall of the Clinton Campaign’s war room containing the phrase: “The Economy, Stupid,” which became known as “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Today, we should create billboards everywhere saying: “It’s Working Americans, Stupid.”

Stand Up and Speak Out

Here is the fundamental question for the Democratic Party: What is the point of power if it isn't used for the people who grant it?

Seriously. How will the lives of the vast majority of Americans change if elected Democrats continue competing with Republicans for the blessing of Jamie Dimon, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Peter Thiel, while the interests of everyone else are screwed?

This is not a winning strategy; it is a moral surrender.

The program that will save American democracy is the one that saves Americans from the avarice of the super-rich. It requires a vision inspired by the New Deal—a massive commitment to building homes, creating jobs, and reversing the obscene inequality that has crushed working families for decades. It means standing with the employee being discarded "like a piece of rusty machinery," not with the executive who signed the pink slip.

If current Democratic officeholders cannot or will not lead this charge, then we must find people who will.

Don't stand on the sidelines. Don't wait to be asked.

Find the local candidates and groups who are champions for economic justice. If no one fits that description, recruit them. Or run for office yourself. The time to simply vote for change is over.

Now is the time to build the movement that makes change inevitable. Stand up for Working Americans in your local Democratic Party organization. Go to your precinct’s reorganizing meeting this month and speak up for Working Americans. (Find out about your state here.)

Join a local Indivisible group. Or start one yourself. Make a difference.

The Poor Have Only Themselves to Blame

One my persistent memories from reading The Grapes of Wrath is of dirt-poor Oakies readily sharing what little they had with those even worse off than themselves. Social scientists have studied this prosocial behavior, concluding that those with less give more.1

The corollary is that the more we have, the less we give. As a class, the rich are not only less generous but often tightfisted and stingy.2

That may be a human propensity, but in the United States we also have a distinct hostility toward the poor. The poor, by virtue of being poor, are unworthy. If they weren’t unworthy, so the logic goes, they wouldn’t be poor.

Where does this belief come from?

Are There No Workhouses?

The cultural belief that worldly success is a sign of divine favor—and failure a sign of rejection—has roots in 16th-century Calvinism as it evolved into 17th-century English Puritanism. As Max Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination taught that only a predetermined elect would be saved, while the rest were damned. Because no one could know their fate with certainty, a deep “salvation anxiety” became widespread. To cope, believers (encouraged by preachers) sought signs of election in their worldly lives—especially in disciplined work and economic success.3

A corollary belief emerged over time that the poor are responsible for their own poverty—indeed, have been condemned to such by God. It is a convenient belief—if you are well off.

This belief underlies Ebeneezer Scrooge’s dismissal of the men collecting alms for the poor at Christmas: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

A blame-the-poor complex of cultural beliefs works against efforts to mitigate or reduce poverty—particularly through government programs.

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Budget Bill

In The Four Ugliest Points About the Big Beautiful Bill, Jacob S. Hacker and Patrick Sullivan present four ways in which the Republican Budget Bill will make wealth inequality worse and increase the burden on the poor.

Millions of Americans believe that the Scrooge-like provisions of the Republican Budget Bill will rightly deprive up to 15 million people of health insurance and millions of nutrition assistance. It is morally wrong to use the government to help the poor. If God didn’t want them to be poor, they wouldn’t be poor.

The Republicans’ Budget Bill, therefore, can be seen as an amalgam of different strains of anti-government, anti-poor cultural beliefs. The assault on government support for Medicaid, SNAP, and other anti-poverty programs can be understood, not merely or even primarily as cost-saving measures. (After all, with the tax give aways to the super rich, they won’t balance the budget.) Rather, this assault furthers the view that prisons and workhouses are the correct, in fact generous, response to poverty.

After a constituent pointed out the deadly effects of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts, Senator Joni Ernst said, “Well, we all are going to die.” Ernst’s remark brings to mind Scrooge’s callous response to the remark that many would rather die than go to the workhouses: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Not a Time for Bystanders

America finds itself in a moment of constitutional decision. Will we continue to advance toward a society of egalitarian solidarity, in which the poor are housed, the naked clothed, the weak lifted up, and the lame walk? Or will we trod the broad path of meanness, cruelty, and disdain for the poor and misfortunate that has infected our culture for hundreds of years?

In this hour of crisis, those who support a shared sense of egalitarian solidarity must rally around the better angels of our nature and oppose the willful oppression of the poor and the engorgement of the rich through the Budget Bill.

Join an Indivisible Group or form one yourself. Sign up with Third Act. Circulate petitions on Move On. Get involved.

Help bring about a more perfect union that promotes the general welfare and secures the Blessings of Liberty to all.

So, we’ve come to the point where some members of Congress want to initiate impeachment proceedings against Federal Judges who rule against the Trump Administration.

MoveOn has started a petition to tell Congress to knock it off.

Sign the Petition Now

Why Impeaching Federal Judges Over Rulings Threatens Democracy and Rule of Law

Impeaching federal judges simply because one disagrees with their rulings poses several grave threats to our constitutional system:

1. Undermines judicial independence - Judges must be free to interpret the law without fear of political retaliation. When judges face impeachment for unpopular decisions, they may rule based on political pressure rather than legal merit.

2. Violates separation of powers - The judiciary serves as a check on legislative and executive power. Allowing Congress to remove judges over disagreeable rulings effectively eliminates this essential balance.

3. Creates dangerous precedent - Once we accept impeachment as a response to disfavored judicial decisions, we open the door to increasingly partisan attacks on judges, threatening the stability of our entire legal system.

4. Chills judicial decision-making - The potential for personal financial ruin and professional destruction will inevitably influence how judges approach controversial cases.

5. Weakens public trust - An independent judiciary is vital to public confidence in fair and impartial justice. Politicized impeachments would further erode this already fragile trust.

Our system requires judicial finality not because courts are infallible, but because without it, there can be no rule of law - only the rule of those with momentary political power.

This hour calls for courage by federal judges. We should stand by and support them.

Sign the Petition Now

“Who Will Defend the Defenders of the Constitution?”

That’s the headline of an opinion piece by the New York Times editorial board. In the article, the editorial board encourages people to take a stand on behalf of judges who are defending the Constitution, writing, “Every time a judge or lawyer steps forward, it becomes easier for others to speak out and harder for Mr. Trump to isolate any one person standing up for the law. He is straining the American system of checks and balances in ways it has not been tested in many decades. The most effective way to protect that system starts with courage from more people who believe in it.”1

Give your Voice to the Values of Our Constitution.2 Sign the petition now.

Sign the Petition Now

What Courageous Judges Can Accomplish

Following the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, a small group of federal judges in the American South faced enormous pressure as they worked to implement school desegregation against fierce resistance. These judges made difficult decisions that often isolated them in their communities, yet proved essential to advancing civil rights.

The Fifth Circuit Four

Four judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals became particularly notable for their courage and effectiveness in enforcing the Constitution’s prohibition of de jure segregation. Collectively, we remember them as the Fifth Circuit Four.3

Judge John Minor Wisdom of Louisiana emerged as an intellectual leader who authored numerous key decisions enforcing desegregation. His opinion in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education (1966) required affirmative integration efforts rather than mere non-discrimination.4

Judge Elbert Tuttle, the Fifth Circuit's Chief Judge, coordinated the circuit's pro-civil rights jurisprudence and personally issued numerous integration orders.5

Judge John Robert Brown, who succeeded Judge Tuttle as Chief Judge on the Fifth Circuit, was later instrumental in splitting the circuit into the 5th and 11th circuit courts.6

Judge Richard Rives of Alabama joined his colleagues despite profound personal costs, becoming a pariah in his home state for his desegregation rulings.7

Other Notable Judges

Judge Frank Johnson of Alabama ordered desegregation of Montgomery buses following the famous boycott and later issued numerous civil rights rulings despite being ostracized in his community.

Judge J. Skelly Wright served as a district judge in New Orleans before joining the D.C. Circuit. He faced intense hostility, including death threats and social ostracism, after ordering the desegregation of New Orleans schools. His family needed 24-hour protection from U.S. Marshals.

Judge J. Waties Waring of South Carolina wrote an influential dissent in Briggs v. Elliott (later consolidated into Brown) arguing for school desegregation years before the Supreme Court's ruling.

These judges faced burning crosses on their lawns, social isolation, and constant threats. Yet they persisted in upholding constitutional rights when doing so was deeply unpopular, demonstrating remarkable judicial courage that ultimately helped transform American society.8

Share the Link to the Petition and

Sign the Petition Now

Leave a comment

Share

I’ve taken part in my share of marches, sit-ins, and protests. And, yes, I’ve been to jail for justice. So, I’m all for peaceful demonstrations and rallies.

And some studies show that all that marchin’ and protestin’ we did in the 60’s and 70’s actually helped to defeat Jim Crow fascism and bring the slaughter in Vietnam to an end.1

So, folks, please don’t misunderstand this post in any way as disparaging street demonstrations. At least as far back as the Women’s Suffrage Movement, the organized exercise of the First Amendment Right of Assembly has been a vital part of our democracy.

We Must Do More

This moment—and the tools we have available today—call on us to do more. We need a full-scale, differentiated, multi-prong, all-hands-on-deck approach to defending our democracy from the all-out attack that White Christian Nationalists, Nazi Sympathizers, MAGA Republicans, and other acolytes of Donald Trump and Elon Musk are pursuing against our democracy.

Make no mistake. This is not a dispute over policy differences among those who support democracy. They are out to destroy democracy and replace it with a White Christian Nationalist autocracy.

They want to replace your freedom to think, believe, pray or not pray, speak, vote, and mind your own business with a do-as-I say patriarchal order infused with a twisted version of Christianity that has nothing to do with what Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Their vision has more in common with the Handmaid’s Tale and the 17th-Century Salem Witch Trials than anything in the New Testament.

Their dystopian vision was laid out for all to see in Mandate for Leadership, the 900+ page book by Project 2025, particularly the parts written by Russell Vought, Trump’s new Director of the Office Management and Budget. I and others have written about it at length.2 Like all true believers, they have convinced themselves that they are on a mission from God, but the God they worship is a false idol.

We cannot allow this fanatical destruction of democracy to succeed.

Organizing All of Us

In the coming days and weeks, many people will put forth ways we can help. Journalists can monitor and report on the legal battles going on in response to attempts to shut down USAID, fire federal employees, stop paying federal debts, destroy programs, privatize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and more. We can organize letter writing and phone-ins to Congressional representatives. We can create support groups for federal employees who have been fired. Lawyers can defend people being maliciously prosecuted without charge. See Orgs Defending Democracy for additional ways to get involved.

All of Us is a new resource that contains additional ways to participate in the resistance. Commissioned by The Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice and MoveOn Education Fund, this booklet focuses on Organizing to Counter White Christian Nationalism and Build a Pro-Democracy Society.

The growing influence and normalization of white Christian nationalism today presents a grave threat to our democracy. In the face of this dangerous development, we have some important questions to answer within the field of organizing: How do we fight back? What is and isn’t working? What strategic shifts are necessary to build an inclusive pro-democracy society with deep and lasting power? This report takes up these questions, and more, with a spirit of rigor and honest introspection.

Download the Report and Take Action

Step 1: Download and read the report.

Step 2: Discuss it with friends and neighbors.

Step 3: Consider organizing a group to do some of the things suggested in the report.

To everything, there is a season.

There is a time for observing. There is a time to organize and act.

Now is the time for action.

Don’t Agonize.

Organize!

Share

Leave a comment

As Doug Pagitt was traveling the country with Vote Common Good before the last election, he repeatedly heard evangelical Christians say that they could not abide Donald Trump’s meanness and vindictiveness. As they knew, Christians are called to be kind—to everyone. Jesus put it this way,

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Matthew 5:44-45.

Loving everyone—including enemies—was a major theme in Jesus’s preaching. See, e.g., Mike Palmer, Who is My Neighbor? Jesus was, of course, building on the best teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

Have We Been Afflicted with a Moral Virus?

It is as if large segments of salt-of-the-earth people from Middle America have been infected by a moral virus that turns their solidarity with their neighbors into a bitter hatred of people they have never met. In earlier times, people might have said many of us have become possessed by an evil demon. In our more enlightened times, we speak of mass psychosis. See How Good People Justify Voting for Trump.

Donald Trump misleads and abuses the trust of his followers. They believe him when he tells them that the power elites (of which he is one) have exploited them. He persuades them to follow him and swallow the poison that he continually spews.

This is a dark place. It is, as Shakespeare wrote, a “thing of darkness.” (The Tempest, V.i. 755-56)

It is not who they are, not really. It is not who we are either. We are all better than this.

As a country, we have committed many sins. As bad and perilous as this current moment is, it is not the worst thing we have done or the most imperiled we have been—not yet anyway.

But Elon Musk and his young’uns are doing some really bad stuff, which is gratuitously and unnecessarily causing severe damage to federal employees and their families, not to mention to our government an the people who depend on its services.

I am reminded of the havoc caused by the incompetent Coalition Provisional Authority in the aftermath of the Iraq war, some of which, like allowing the theft of antiquities, was irreparable. Over $8 billion in cash was unaccounted for when Paul Bremer was in charge. See Ali Allawi, The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War and Losing the Peace (Yale University Press, 2008).

To get through it and help Peace and Solidarity (Shalom) prevail, we need to remember:

We are better than this.

The ideals of our founding documents are better than this. The best leaders of our history have brought us to better places than this. Those who have died for peace and justice deserve better than this.

We must not succumb to despair. We must not obey in advance.

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address.

We must not let the dark angels extinguish “the better angels of our nature.”

Don’t agonize.

Organize.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Leave a comment

Share

Keep Hope Alive!

Like thousands from across Vermont and hundreds of thousands in villages, towns, and cities in every state, about 130 hearty souls in Middlebury, Vermont braved the cold and snow to speak up in resistance to the Trump Administration and in solidarity with the thousands of dedicated federal employees whose lives are being devastated by the Doggie Wrecking Crew.

Organizers reported people showed up with many signs. There was chanting, singing, and waving. Lots of supportive honking and waving by people in the cars going by. And there was a great sense of solidarity.

A local chapter of Indivisible organized the demonstration, which is still protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

NPR reported that “thousands of people gathered at the Capitol Reflecting Pool chanting ‘Where is Congress?’ and urging members of Congress to ‘do your job!’ despite nearly 40-degree temperatures and 20-mile-per-hour wind gusts.”

50501 organized the DC rally and many others across the country. The organization arose spontaneously and organized its first demonstrations on February 5.

The #50501 protests were a decentralized rapid response to the anti-democratic and illegal actions of the Trump administration and its plutocratic allies. The idea—50 protests in 50 states on 1 day—was born on r/50501 and spread rapidly on social media.

In just days, grassroots organizers—without any budget, centralized structure, or official backing—pulled off over 80 peaceful protests in all 50 states.

The movement will continue to grow.

Do your part.

Don’t agonize.

Organize!

Share

Leave a comment

The “Enemy of the People”

In July, 2024, I wrote an article summarizing how Project 2025 and Donald Trump were “Coming for the Journalists.” In the piece, I discuss how subverting and neutralizing honest journalists is part of the authoritarian playbook. I noted that throughout the 20^th Century, autocrats and dictators sought to suppress or eliminate a free press, calling them, as Trump does, the “enemy of the people.” This happened in Nazi Germany (1933-1945), the Soviet Union (1917-1991), China (1949-present), and East Germany (1948-1989). Similar stories are unfolding in Turkey (2002-present), Hungary (2010-present), Egypt (2013-present), and Russia (2000-present) right now.1

Trump’s Lawsuit Against CBS

In October, 2024, Donald Trump filed a complaint in a the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, alleging

partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive, and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election—which President Trump is leading— approaches its conclusion, in violation of Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(a), which subjects “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” to suit under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code §17.50(a)(1). See Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (the “DTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.41 et seq.

To my knowledge, no major news outlet has quoted any portion of the complaint, including the introduction I just shared. This is unfortunate, because a careful reading of the complaint reveals it to be bogus.

I don’t want to go through it in detail with you here, but let’s take a look at key parts. (You can read the entire complaint here.)

Let’s get a misunderstanding out of the way. This is not a defamation suit. Trump is not claiming that he himself was defamed, libeled, slandered, or, in any other way, the victim of false statements directed at him.

It’s also not a case for election interference under Federal Election Law.

Instead, the complaint claims that CBS violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. Huh?

Most states have an statute like this. Such laws are designed to give consumers a legal remedy when they’ve been the victims of fraud and other deceptive practices in commerce. For example, a company labeling a bag with 15 ounces of chips as a 20-ounce bag could be held liable for deceptive trade practices and ordered to pay damages to deceived consumers.

Trump’s Complaint Against CBS is Absurd

Trump’s complaint claims that, by excluding part of Kamala Harris’s answer to a question on Gaza in the 60 Minutes segment (which it showed earlier that in a clip on Face The Nation), CBS deceived millions of viewers in Texas and elsewhere to the detriment of Donald Trump.

Come again?

Exercising editorial judgment can be a deceptive trade practice?

Remember. CBS did not doctor the answer. It did not change the substance of the answer. It did not fabricate the answer. It merely omitted part of the answer from one the 60 Minutes episode, which it had included in the Face The Nation program. (How else would Trump’s team even have been aware of the editing?)

Whatever one thinks of the editorial judgment, can it in this instance possibly be a deceptive trade practice?

Unless we have gone down the rabbit hole into Alice’s Wonderland, the answer is a resolute no. (See Steve Benen, “Why Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is transparently ridiculous,” Rachel Maddow Blog (November 1, 2024).)

CBS has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That’s lawyer talk for “bogus claim.”

It’s as absurd as demanding a refund for a product you didn’t buy in the first place.

Any court acting honestly and rationally would throw the case out and quite possibly would sanction Trump and his lawyers under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which bars lawyers from filing pleadings that are not supported by evidence and are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for revising a judge-made rule. Here is the pertinent text of Rule 11:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Courts and lawyers take this rule seriously. Several Trump lawyers were sanctioned under this rule for filing frivolous pleadings in some of the 60 cases he filed after his defeat in 2020.

Paramount Might Order CBS to Settle

Recently, the New York Times reported that Paramount might order CBS to settle this bogus lawsuit, presumably by agreeing to pay money, issuing an apology, or both. Former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, has written about this as well. (See “Heartbreak for CBS.”)

many executives at CBS’s parent company, Paramount, believe that settling the lawsuit would increase the odds that the Trump administration does not block or delay their planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

Lauren Hirsch, James B. Stewart, and Michael M. Grynbaum, “Paramount in Settlement Talks With Trump Over ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit,” New York Times (January 30, 2025).

The article reports that Shari Redstone, principal owner of Paramount, who stands to receive billions if a sale of Paramount to Skydance goes through, supports the settlement.

We also learn that “Edward Paltzik, Mr. Trump’s lawyer on the case, wrote in a statement on Thursday: ‘Real accountability for CBS and Paramount will ensure that the president is compensated for the harm done to him, and will deter the Fake News from further distorting the facts to advance a partisan agenda. President Trump looks forward to seeing this case through to a just conclusion.’”

In other words, “that’s a nice network you have there. It’d be a shame if the FCC or any other arm of the federal government did anything to shut it down.”

This is Not Just a Shakedown for a Bribe

Some have suggested that Trump and his lawyers are shaking CBS down for a bribe. (See Jason Easley, “The Free Press Crumbles As CBS Considers Bribing Trump With Lawsuit Payoff,” PoliticusUSA (January 18, 2025).) It certainly has the earmarks of a shakedown.

But something more is going on. It’s one more attempt to intimidate the press—at least, that part of it owned by big corporations and conglomerates.

Jeff Bezos has curtailed vigorous reporting and commentary at The Washington Post because the federal government could seriously harm his real business interests with anti-trust lawsuits against Amazon and refusal to enter into contracts with Blue Origin, Bezo’s rocket company. He has, as Timothy Snyder puts it, “obeyed in advance.”

Mark Zuckerberg, who has sole control of Facebook through his special stock voting rights, has cancelled fact checking that might expose Trump’s lies as such. (See, e.g., Huo Jingnan, Shannon Bond, and Bobby Allyn, “Meta says it will end fact-checking as Silicon Valley prepares for Trump,” NPR (Jan. 7, 2025)

Trump doesn’t want money from CBS. He wants CBS and every other major media outlet to do “voluntarily” what Bezos and Zuckerberg are doing openly: abandon their watch-dog function and become his lap dog.

So, yes, “they’re coming for the journalists.” And weak-kneed sunshine patriots are caving in advance.

Vigorous Reporting and Commentary Will Prevail

This is not a story of despair or defeat. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, my local paper, The Addison Independent, and your local paper are not subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission—or anyone, for that matter. We are all protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Short of engaging in defamation and libel, we can print and publish whatever we please.

Substack has many fine journalists reporting on news in the crevices. We will continue doing so as long as there is an internet. We will not be intimidated.

You can help. Support Substack publications such as this one and others so that we can continue to do the vital work of helping to defend democracy.

Thanks,

Mike

Leave a comment

Share

Keep Hope Alive!

On February 11, 2025, the American Bar Association published a statement unequivocally condemning remarks by “high-ranking officials of the administration” that questioned the legitimacy of judicial review by the courts. You can read the full statement here.

It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy that the courts are the protectors of the citizenry from government overreach. All lawyers know that judges have the authority to determine whether the administration’s actions are lawful and a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority. It is one of the oldest and most revered precedents in United States legal history — Marbury v. Madison. This is a key principle that is taught in the first year of law school.

Every first-year law student does, indeed, learn this key principle. The legal dispute arose when William Marbury, who had been appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, sued James Madison, the new Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson, seeking to compel Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission, which had been signed by Adams but not delivered before Jefferson took office.

The dispute centered on whether Marbury was entitled to his commission and whether the Supreme Court had the authority to order its delivery. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, held that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus he sought. Marshall reasoned that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the scope of the Court's original jurisdiction as defined in Article III of the Constitution.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal judiciary to examine legislation and executive actions and declare them void if they conflict with the Constitution. In the course of his opinion, Marshall declared: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This landmark decision established the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution and fundamentally shaped the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government.

The complete opinion can be found at Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Vance Says President Trump Should Defy the Supreme Court

On February 9, Vice President Vance posted the following statement: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Being a Yale-trained lawyer, Vance hedged the statement with the word “legitimate.” He also left wiggle room with the word “control.” (See Charlie Savage and Minho Kim, “Vance Says ‘Judges Aren’t Allowed to Control’ Trump’s ‘Legitimate Power’,” New York Times (February 9, 2025).)

Vance was deliberately provoking uncertainty about whether Donald Trump will comply with court orders that constrain his efforts to demolish various government agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Education. (The desire to destroy these and other agencies was laid out in detail in Mandate for Leadership, the 900+ page document that was part of Project 2025, which I wrote about before the election.)1

In an article published on February 11 in Politico, Ian Ward explains that “There’s No Need to Guess. JD Vance Is Ready to Ignore the Courts.” Ward writes that going back to the 2022 Senate campaign “the vice president has explicitly said that a second-term Trump should defy the courts — even the U.S. Supreme Court — if they stand in the way of him exercising executive authority in ways he deems fit.”

Ward quotes Vance’s statement on a conservative podcast in 2021 that, if re-elected, Trump should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” For a profile in Politico conducted in 2023, Ward asked Vance whether he still held this view. “Yup,” was his reply. (“There’s No Need to Guess,” supra.)

Vice President Vance’s View is Both Wrong and Reckless

Vice President Vance’s view violates the Subordination Principle of the Rule of Law: “No state power (i.e., force, violence, institutions, or financial resources) may be exercised without specific authorization by law. No agent of government may act outside the law. And each such official must carry out the duties prescribed by law for his or her office.” Mike Palmer, “12 Principles of The Rule of Law: As It Has Evolved in the United States” (June 13, 2024). This principle is popularly known by the phrase “no person is above the law.”2

In this case, the President may do only what the Constitution expressly says he can (and must) do, which is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (US Const. Art. II, Section 3.)

Beyond violating fundamental principles of the Rule of Law, the notion that a president can defy court orders represents a dire threat to our constitutional system. Such a doctrine would not merely bend our governmental structure—it would break it.

First, the Vance view would effectively nullify the judicial branch as a coequal branch of government. If the executive can simply ignore judicial decisions at will, courts become mere advisory bodies, rendering the constitutional checks and balances meaningless. This would fundamentally alter our tripartite system into something closer to an autocracy with ceremonial judicial trappings.

Second, the practical consequences would be immediate and severe. Markets despise uncertainty, and the notion that court judgments might be selectively enforced would create economic instability affecting everyday Americans' retirement accounts, small businesses, and consumer confidence. Government agencies could be paralyzed by conflicting directives, unsure whether to follow court orders or presidential commands, leading to dysfunction throughout federal administrative agencies.

Third, this principle would cascade down to every level of government. If a president can ignore the Supreme Court, what prevents a governor from ignoring state courts, or a mayor from defying federal courts? The entire fabric of judicial authority—from traffic courts to the highest tribunal—could unravel.

Fourth, it would invite retribution and escalation. Future administrations of opposing parties would feel entitled to ignore different court rulings, creating a downward spiral where the Rule of Law is replaced by the Rule of Arbitrary Power. Foreign adversaries would exploit this constitutional crisis, questioning America's stability and reliability as an international partner.

Perhaps most critically, the intentional undermining of judicial authority would shake public confidence in our entire legal system. If the highest office in the land can simply disregard judicial rulings, why should any citizen feel compelled to comply with laws they find inconvenient? This erosion of the social contract that binds our diverse nation together would be profound.3

In essence, what Vice President Vance characterizes as a question of "legitimate power" is actually a blueprint for constitutional collapse—one that would transform America from a nation of laws into one where power alone dictates outcomes.

We Must Speak Up for the Rule of Law

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

We must not, like Martin Niemoeller in the Third Reich, wait until “they come for us” to mount a vocal and decisive opposition to a possible violation of the first principle of the Rule of Law. For then it will be too late.

We must organize. We must find thousands of ways to speak up and speak out.

Find a local or national organization that is working to resist the demolition of our Constitution Order and get involved.

In the coming days and weeks, I will be publishing chapter from my coming book, Organizing to Defend Democracy on this site. Use it to organize your own group if need be.

Leave a comment

Share

Keep Hope Alive!

Hi everyone. Mike Palmer here. If you're following the news about the MAGA coup and what the courts are doing in response, you've probably come across phrases like “temporary restraining order” or TRO and “preliminary injunction” and may have wondered what those are all about. Journalists don’t always have space or time to explain. What follows is a kind of Cliffs Notes to the inside language of the federal court system.

Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO)

What: Emergency court order stopping activity.

Effect: Keeps everything as is until court sorts it out.

How Long: Unless renewed, TRO’s expire after 10 days in federal courts.

Grounds: To issue a TRO, the court must find 4 things: Harm that probably cannot be undone. The plaintiff will probably win the case. Money damages are not sufficient compensation. The balance of hardships weighs in favor of the plaintiff.

Not Appealable: In most cases, the losing party cannot immediately appeal a TRO.

A temporary restraining order is an emergency order that can be issued anytime of day or night, even without notice to the defendant, to stop damage that could not be undone. It’s an emergency because the harm could happen any moment. For example, the demolition crew is about to swing the wrecking ball to reduce a landmark building to rubble.

The court schedules a hearing as soon as possible and usually either converts the TRO to a preliminary injunction or cancels the TRO.

Preliminary Injunctions

What: Court order commonly telling the defendant not to do something or to stop doing it.

Effect: Keeps everything as is until there is a full trial following discovery.

How Long: Lasts until the trial court or a court of appeal lifts the injunction or makes it permanent.

Grounds: To issue a TRO, the court must find 4 things: Harm that probably cannot be undone. The plaintiff has a high probability of winning the case. Money damages are not sufficient compensation. The balance of hardship weighs in favor of the plaintiff.

Appealable: The losing party following a preliminary injunction may immediately appeal the order. Appeals can take anywhere from a few weeks to several years to be resolved.

Preliminary injunctions are issued after a full hearing that can last from 1 hour to several days. Witnesses may testify. Parties can submit any documents they have. Commonly, both sides submit written briefs and present argument orally to the court, which then issues or denies the motion for a preliminary injunction within a few days.

In many cases, the preliminary injunction order is the ball game. The losing party may win on appeal, but by that time it is often not possible to undo the damage caused.

Complaint

Plaintiffs start a lawsuit by filing a complaint. In most courts, the clerk of court stamps the document and assigns it to a specific judge, commonly based on a set rotation. That is the judge next in line gets the case.

The complaint names the parties (plaintiffs and defendants). It begins by stating generally what kind of case the plaintiff is asserting, states the statutes that give the court jurisdiction (the right to decide it), and states why this is the correct place (venue) to start the case.

The complaint contains numbered paragraphs (generally with only one sentence) in each of which the plaintiff alleges a fact as true.

Commonly, complaints will assert several legal grounds (causes of action) on which the court can award damages or give another remedy to the plaintiff. It is customary in each section in which such a claim is made to reallege all of the facts stated before as grounds for the relief.

Each section stating a cause of action ends with a “prayer for relief.” Here the lawyer tells the court precisely what it wants the court to do (award damages in an unspecified amount, award a specific dollar amount of damages, order the defendant to stop doing something, order the defendant to do something, order the seizure of property to be delivered to the plaintiff).

The Answer

In federal court, the defendant has 21 days after being served to file an answer or other pleading with the court. The other pleading can be a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or a counterclaim.

In the answer, for each numbered allegation, the defendant states whether it admits, denies, or needs more information about the allegation.

Counterclaims

Once the complaint is filed, the defendant has the right to file its own complaint against the plaintiff, in effect saying, no you’re the bad guy. The counterclaim follows the same rules and procedures as the complaint; and the plaintiff (counter defendant) has 21 days to file a responsive pleading.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants often respond to a complaint with a motion to dismiss, which asks the court to throw out the complaint for specific reasons. Often defendants will make a legal argument that they can’t be held liable for doing what the plaintiff says they did. For example, a competent lawyer would file a motion to dismiss a defamation suit brought by the daughter of a dead man because anyone can say whatever they like about dead people without legal liability.

For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the moving party admits that all of the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true. “Yes, judge, my client said that Colin Jones was a no good scoundrel and a thief. But it doesn’t matter, because Jones is dead. The plaintiff can’t recover damages as a matter of law.”

Motion for Summary Judgment

Commonly filed at the close of the discovery phase of a case, a motion for summary judgment asks the court to rule in favor of the moving party, claiming that there are no material facts in dispute. Either or both parties may file a motion for summary judgment. Sometimes both sides file cross motions for summary judgment on all or part of the case. A motion for summary judgment claims that there is no need to present evidence at a trial because all the material facts have been established by stipulation or otherwise are uncontested.

Courts will often hear oral arguments by the lawyers at a hearing.

Timing

Court proceedings take time, often years, and can be ruinously expensive for the litigants and occasionally for lawyers as well.

Except for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, nothing moves quickly in courts.

Although litigants are subject to strict deadlines, courts (that is, judges) may issue rulings whenever they get around to it. Some trial and appellate courts have been known to take months or years to rule on routine motions.

The Supreme Court commonly decides cases within 12 months from the time it hears oral argument. On rare occasions, the Court will hold a case over until the following term. (Roe v. Wade was continued until the following term.)

A Civil Action

You can get a sense of what a civil lawsuit is like by watching A Civil Action, which is based on the book with the same title by Jonathan Harr. For more than a year, Harr sat in on many of the internal meetings of the plaintiffs’ legal team and attended court hearings. His book and the movie accurately show as much about what goes on in civil lawsuits as anything I know.

In this article, I’ve shared a simplified version of how a court case gets started. A flow chart showing all the possible twists and turns would fill a page or more. The amount of stuff going on reminds of the following chart:

Enforcing Court Orders

Vice President Vance and other MAGA extremists have made statements to the effect that the President does not have to obey court orders because he is, well, President.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or judicial precedent supports this wild notion. Vance just made it up.1

In a second article, I will discuss what powers the courts have to see to it that parties obey their orders. Hint: Ask Steven Bannon how he enjoyed his four months in jail for contempt of Congress.

Leave a comment

Share

Keep Hope Alive!

Postscript 2-15-25

vtdigger, Vermont’s statewide online newspaper, just set up a Lawsuit Tracker that will give readers the status of 5 lawsuits against the Trump Administration that Charity Clark, Vermont’s Attorney General, has joined with other AG’s around the country. Bookmark the page on your browser to periodically check the status. (Don’t forget to donate to VtDigger as well.)

Musk, who is an unelected adjunct to Trump, this evening gleefully referred to the civil servants in the government who work for the American people as the opposing team. But something jumps out from the chaos of the past two weeks. Instructions are vague, circumstances are chaotic, and it's unclear who is making decisions.

That confusion makes it hard to enforce laws or sue, although observers note that what’s going on is illegal and a breach of the constitutional order. Our federal government rests on the U.S. Constitution. The three different factions of Trump’s MAGA Republicans agree that the government must be destroyed, and they are operating outside the constitutional order.

Where they are not sowing chaos, they seek destruction.

In the runup to the 2024 election, I and others shared Heritage Foundation President Russell Vought’s remark that the next conservative President’s job every day was to come to work thinking about which government agency he could destroy:

President Trump has nominated Russell Vought to be the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

After defaming USAID and those who work there by calling it a “criminal organization,” Elon Musk and his cadre of college students and recent graduates has begun carrying out Vought’s project even before the latter has been confirmed. They have access to the Federal Government’s payment system and have shut down USAID. Musk has not been elected to anything and is not a government employee.

The US Agency of International Development Performs a Vital Role

Foreign aid has been a basic part of US National Security and economic development since the creation of the Marshall Plan shortly after World War II. See, e.g., “Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy,” Congressional Research Service (January 2022).1

Despite the documented effectiveness of foreign assistance programs, however, since before President Kennedy’s time in office, polls have consistently shown that Americans falsely believe we spend about 10 to 25% of the federal budget on assistance to foreign countries. See, e.g., George Ingram, “What Every American Should Know About Foreign Aid,” The Brookings Institution (October 2019).

Actually, we spend less than 1% on all foreign aid programs.

A while back, I worked as a sometime consultant on Rule-of-Law projects funded by USAID in Jordan, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Mongolia. I gained first-hand experience with the vital work this agency does throughout the world, helping people learn how to help themselves by setting up free-market economic systems and legal institutions that Europeans and Americans credit as the structural foundations for our prosperity.

As many have observed, the United States may receive a far greater benefit in national security and economic benefits than we spend in foreign assistance.2 To be sure, not all programs are equally effective nor is this assistance an unalloyed good for the recipients.3

Most experts would likely support surgical and even programmatic changes. But that’s not what Elon Musk is doing. He is Lizzy Borden giving the agency forty whacks with an ax. Musk is carrying out Russell Vought’s mandate. No one elected either of them.

Our Constitutional Government is Under Attack

In his column in today’s New York Times, Thomas Edsall quotes an email he received from Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe:

The apocalyptic tone adopted by the MAGA minions reflects a rhetorically effective if not especially original plan to confuse and thereby disarm the resistance, such as it is, by disabling the sadly limited critical faculties of those whose political paralysis enables the ascendant to rule largely unchallenged while the policies they push injure the very voters whose ballots cloak them with a patina of popular legitimacy.

Transparently normalizing the aberrant and extreme, they clear the path toward infiltrating, inhabiting and thereby co-opting the political and legal institutions they aim to make their own, in all three branches of government and throughout the federal system.

The results they seek conform to no systematic ideology but reflect the age-old pathology of self-aggrandizing power and wealth, spiked with an added dose of cruelty and retribution for imagined slights, and heavily tinged with scapegoating racism and misogyny, magnified by xenophobia and classic antisemitism.

Are the Dems Fighting Back?

Yesterday leading Congressional Democrats held a 40-minute press conference in which they described how the destruction of USAID is illegal and bad for US interests at home and abroad. See Democratic Press Conference on USAID (CSPAN).

More is needed.

Yesterday, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, filed a lawsuit in the DC Federal Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, to stop Musk’s access to confidential information in the government’s payment system. (A copy of the complaint is available here.)

The complaint states:

4. Federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.

5. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, defendant Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau’s records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau’s data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency’s disclosure policies.

6. The scale of the intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented. Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records. Secretary Bessent’s action granting DOGE-affiliated individuals full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords. And because Defendants’ actions and decisions are shrouded in secrecy, individuals will not have even basic information about what personal or financial information that Defendants are sharing with outside parties or how their information is being used.

This is Lawlessness, Not Just Chaos

When I started this Substack last summer, it was initially devoted to helping readers understand what the Rule of Law means in practice. (See 12 Principles of the Rule of Law.) I soon pivoted to a focus on Project 2025 because it was not receiving the attention it needed. After many news outlets and organizations exposed Project 2025 and public opposition to it became strong, I changed the focus to exploring how we can work Together for Good.

I still believe in the project of working together for the common good and will continue to write and publish resources for this purpose. Meanwhile, we cannot ignore the attack taking place on our Constitution and the Rule of Law. What they are doing is lawless, the opposite of the Rule of Law.

The first job of the citizen is to be reasonably informed about what is going on. In this instance, Trump is in the process of destroying our government and the Constitution on which it is based.

Share this post. Let others know. Organize.

Keep Hope Alive!

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

On November 18, the New York Times reported that Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, co-hosts of the MSNBC show, Morning Joe, had traveled to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President-Elect, Donald Trump.

On their show that same morning, Mika said, “For those asking why we would go speak to the president-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, ‘Why wouldn’t we?’”

This essay answers Mika’s question.

Subscribe now

The Role of a Free Press in Our Democracy

Let’s begin with a brief summary of the role of journalism and ethics in our democracy.

Not for nothing is there a guarantee of Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Political thinkers of the 18th Century knew well that the broad dissemination of accurate information—truth—was essential to establishing an informed electorate. As the Washington Post proclaims on its masthead, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Independent, fair, and accurate journalism is essential to the proper functioning of our government and society.

As a class, politicians are not all that happy about a profession of journalism free from government interference and intimidation. Donald Trump may have been the first American President to malign the mainstream press as “fake news;” but he was not the first to intensely dislike what made it into print.1 It might be hard to find a President who thought he was treated fairly by the press. Perhaps not all wanted to silence the press generally; but they all would have like to silence parts of the press, particularly those journalists who published inaccurate, misleading, or deliberately false information.

But, except in cases of malice or reckless disregard for the truth, the First Amendment protects journalists from being sued or prosecuted by public figures for what they report. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).) (As the victims of Alex Jones’s irresponsibly reckless and malicious lies about the Sandy Hook massacre have shown, however, the civil courts provide a remedy for the harm caused to common citizens by libel, slander, and defamation perpetrated by journalists.)

The First Amendment’s protection of a free press is so robust that it even prevents federal and state governments from blocking the publication of information that officials believe is false or will harm national security. Known as “prior restraint,” this kind of government interference with the functioning of a free press has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court. (See, e.g., Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); New York Times Co. v. United States,403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Pentagon Papers Case).)

Anyone who publishes information of any kind, therefore, is covered by the First Amendment. Even Alex Jones and those who sell conspiracy theories—especially those—are protected.

The Court’s answer to those who want the government to step in to prevent the dissemination of outright lies or other potentially harmful speech was summed up in the pithy statement by Justice Brandeis in the landmark 1927 case, Whitney v. California:

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

The Professional Responsibilities of Journalists

For every right there is a companion responsibility. Collectively rights are a component of our social governance system. They make it possible to have a Rule-of-Law society. Rights are accompanied by implicit duties that include acting responsibly toward others and society as a whole. The pairing of rights and responsibilities flows from the universal law of reciprocity, the tendency by the universe to seek balance and equilibrium.2 To quote Dolly Parton, it can’t be “all takin’ and no givin’.”3

As journalism developed into a profession, journalists have founded various professional organizations and associations.4 Every professional association of journalists I have found has a statement of ethical values, principles, guidelines, or rules. The following statement of principles from the Ethical Journalism Network is typical of the core values found in these ethical codes:

1. Truth and accuracy

2. Independence

3. Fairness and Impartiality

4. Humanity

5. Accountability

Some ethical codes for journalists include duties to avoid conflicts of interest, assure transparency, and diversity.5

Most codes that I have found include a commitment to truth, independence, and fairness. In other words, leaders in the profession of journalism have formed a consensus that truth, independence, and fairness are core values that should guide the work and conduct of journalists. To be a journalist is to make every reasonable effort to seek and report the truth, remain independent of interests that could influence judgment about what to investigate or report, and to report what we’ve found fairly and without avoidable bias.

To be clear, none of this has the force of law. In engineering, medicine, the law, accountancy, and other professions, a person who violates the profession’s code of ethics can be sanctioned or even lose her license (and livelihood). There is no state or federal licensing procedure for journalists because the First Amendment prohibits government regulation of journalists.

The absence of legally enforceable rules for journalists increases the importance of informal sanctions such as peer pressure and ostracism and editorial oversight by media organizations such as newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations and networks. The profession uses these mechanisms to achieve accountability and integrity without government intervention.

What We Know About What Joe and Mika Did

MSNBC's Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski met with President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. This meeting marked their first direct interaction with Trump in seven years, following a period of strained relations.

Background and Context

During Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Joe and Mika maintained a cordial relationship with him, frequently featuring him on their show. Arguably, this often amounted to infotainment, the display of a buffoon not expected to become President.

After Trump’s Presidency progressed, Joe and Mika became more sharply critical, particularly concerning his policies and rhetoric. An adversarial attitude persisted through the 2024 election, when Trump secured a second term. In response to his victory, the co-hosts decided to reestablish communication, believing it was time to adopt a different approach in their coverage.

Details of the Meeting

According to news reports and statements Joe and Mika made on their show, the meeting took place at Mar-a-Lago, with Joe and Mika engaging in a discussion with Trump that covered several significant topics:

• Abortion: They explored Trump's stance and potential policies on reproductive rights.

• Deportation: The conversation included discussions on immigration policies and enforcement measures.

• Political Retribution: They addressed concerns regarding threats of political retribution against opponents and media outlets.

Joe emphasized that the visit was not an endorsement of Trump but an effort to report on him objectively. He stated, "Don't be mistaken. We are not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump. We are here to report on him."

Why What Joe and Mika Did Was Bad

So, I’ve summarized the applicable ethical standards—principally, truth, independence, and fairness—and summarized the facts as far as we know. We now need to apply the standards to the facts to determine whether and, if so, what Joe and Mika did violated those standards.

I have no information indicating that Joe and Mika were acting in bad faith or in awareness that what they were doing was wrong in terms of the profession’s ethical standards. By all appearances, they thought they were doing the right thing.6 Joe and Mika are not bad people, and we should avoid passing judgment on them as people.7 Our inquiry concerns only whether what they did was bad.

That said, let’s consider the argument supporting the conclusion that they violated ethical standards or engaged in problematic behavior.

Legitimizing Authoritarianism

Normalizing Antidemocratic Behavior: Engaging socially with an avowedly fascist or authoritarian figure risks normalizing their conduct. It can signal that their actions are within the bounds of acceptable political behavior, even when they undermine democratic norms.

Platforming Harmful Ideologies: By engaging with Trump in a non-critical manner, journalists may inadvertently amplify his rhetoric or policy positions, lending credibility to views that threaten democratic institutions.

Undermining Public Trust in Media

Erosion of Credibility: The public relies on journalists to hold powerful figures accountable. Socializing with someone who is openly antagonistic to the press and democratic principles undermines this role and could lead to accusations of complicity or hypocrisy.

Fostering Cynicism: Such interactions may foster public cynicism about the press's commitment to its watchdog role, reinforcing the belief that media figures are part of an elite class disconnected from the public’s concerns.

Ethical Concerns in Covering a Subject

Access Journalism: Visiting someone like Trump may reflect an overemphasis on maintaining access rather than prioritizing hard-hitting, investigative reporting.

Compromised Coverage: Personal relationships or encounters may make it difficult for journalists to cover their subject with the rigor and detachment required.

The Visit Creates an Impression of Compromised Objectivity

By visiting Donald Trump in his mansion, Joe and Mika contributed to a perception of partiality or favoritism, even if the interaction was professional. For journalists, the appearance of objectivity is as crucial as objectivity itself. (Lawyers have a rule that prohibits them from engaging in acts that create the appearance of impropriety.)

Given Donald Trump’s polarizing and stated intention to use the federal government to exact vengeance on those who opposed him, Joe and Mika’s social interactions with the President Elect blur the line between critical reporting and maintaining a personal relationship. The meeting in fact contributed to the impression that they were currying favor or, at least, trying to avoid retribution for their apparent opposition to his re-election.

Facilitating Manipulation

• Exploitation by Trump: An authoritarian-leaning figure like Trump could use such meetings to manipulate journalists, gaining favorable coverage or exploiting the encounter to legitimize their position.

• Media as Propaganda Tool: Authoritarians often use interactions with journalists to bolster their image, portraying them as cooperative or conciliatory even when their policies are not.

Ethical Imperatives for Journalists

• Transparency: Journalists must ensure their methods and motives are clear to the public. Visiting a controversial figure in private without clear journalistic purpose invites suspicion.

• Accountability to Democratic Principles: The press has a responsibility to uphold democratic values, particularly when reporting on leaders who threaten them.

• Avoiding Dual Roles: Journalists should avoid being perceived as both critics and confidants of those they report on, especially figures whose leadership is antithetical to the press's role in a democracy.

Contextual Considerations

While journalists sometimes engage with controversial figures to gather insights, the context of the relationship and the public nature of the interaction are critical. In the case of Trump, whose antagonism toward the press and democratic norms is well-documented, any private, non-journalistic meeting is likely to be viewed as inappropriate or harmful to the journalist’s role as an impartial observer and critic.

In summary, visits like those by Brzezinski and Scarborough to Mar-a-Lago risk compromising journalistic ethics, legitimizing antidemocratic behavior, and eroding public trust in the media’s role as a watchdog for democracy.

The Erosion of Democratic Values and Norms

In a time of creeping autocracy, one of the biggest threats to democracy is the gradual erosion of bedrock values and norms—the values and norms that tell us what is important and what is acceptable and objectionable behavior. Our shared values and norms constitute the soil within which all individuals as well as institutions, organizations, and other social groups function. They are part of our Basic Social Operating System.

When leaders stray from those values and norms, we can move—even if ever so slightly—toward establishing an alternative operating system. A failure to speak up for values such as independent journalism or avoidance of conflict of interests is like letting weeds grow in a garden.

Fortunately, several prominent journalists and others have spoken up and out about Joe and Mika’s misstep. See, e.g., Steve Schmidt, “‘Morning Joe’ Mika Just Keeps Making it Worse,” The Warning (Nov. 23, 2024); Jon Stewart, “Jon Stewart Urges Democrats to Fight Like Republicans and Exploit Loopholes,” The Daily Show (Nov. 18, 2024).

One can debate whether Joe and Mika showed poor judgment in meeting with Donald Trump. I could be wrong in claiming that they did something bad.

We must not, however, remain silent while societal leaders, regardless of sector, ignore the bedrock values and norms of Democracy, thereby contributing to their erosion and replacement with values and norms of Autocracy.

Thanks for reading. I’m Mike Palmer.

Keep Hope Alive!

Leave a comment

Share

Much gnashing of teeth and other forms of consternation greeted the news the Jack Smith had filed motions to dismiss two criminal cases against Donald Trump without prejudice because a policy adopted years ago by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice precludes prosecuting a sitting President.

I readily understand why many people might think (and some have written) that Smith should not have “obeyed in advance”1 but rather should have let Trump’s new AG do the dirty work.

This interpretation likely comes from not understanding the significance of the phrase “without prejudice” in Smith’s motion. (Judge Chutkin has since granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.)

Cases can be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be filed again. Unless resuscitated by a court of appeals, such cases are dead, dead, dead.

Cases can also be dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff (in a civil case) or the prosecutor (in a criminal case) may refile the case later after the problem leading to dismissal has been removed. This happens routinely when a complaint fails to allege facts supporting all the elements of a civil claim. The plaintiff corrects the mistake and refiles the complaint. In this case, based on a purportedly Constitutional impediment (can’t prosecute a sitting President), the case could not go forward until the President leaves office, whether by impeachment and conviction or after his term expires.

So, why not just ask the court to put the case on hold for the next 4 years?

That makes more sense than dismissing it outright, even without prejudice. Except that Donald Trump has made clear he will direct “his”2 Attorney General to dismiss the case. And the AG’s motion would almost certainly ask for dismissal with prejudice. If the court granted that motion, the case would be truly over, never to rise again.

By pre-emptively seeking dismissal without prejudice, Special Counsel Smith has kept the case alive—at least, as much alive as possible. The new Attorney General cannot file any motion to dismiss it, because it has already been dismissed.3

Subscribe now

But Wait! There’s More

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations governing special counsels, specifically 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), a special counsel must provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. This report is intended to detail the reasoning behind the decisions made during the investigation.

Although the timing of this submission is not specified in the regulations, we can expect Special Counsel Smith to submit such a report to Attorney General Merrick Garland before the end of the year.

After receiving the report, the Attorney General notifies Congress upon the conclusion of the special counsel's investigation, including a description and explanation of the disposition of the investigation or case, if any. The regulations do not require the public release of the report; but the Attorney General has discretion to disclose it, taking into account legal and policy considerations.

Historically, the extent of public disclosure has varied. For instance, Attorney General Barr released Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report with parts of it blacked out. Other reports have remained largely confidential.

Given the high-profile nature of the Trump investigation, there is significant public interest in the findings. However, any decision to release the report publicly will depend on the Attorney General's assessment of factors such as ongoing legal proceedings, privacy concerns, and national security implications.

We’ll See . . .

In Charlie Wilson’s War, Gust Avrakotos (played brilliantly by Philipp Seymour Hoffman), tells the following story:

“There’s a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse, and everybody in the village says, ‘How wonderful. The boy got a horse.’ And the Zen master says, ‘We’ll see.’

Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, ‘How terrible.’ And the Zen master says, ‘We’ll see.’

A war breaks out, and all the young men have to go off and fight, except the boy can’t because his leg is all messed up. And everybody in the village says, ‘How wonderful.’

And the Zen master says, ‘We’ll see.’”

This parable aligns with Taoist philosophy, emphasizing the unpredictability of life and the futility of immediate judgment. It’s often traced to the teachings of Laozi (Lao Tzu) and the Tao Te Ching, which promote a perspective of accepting events as they unfold, without attaching rigid notions of “good” or “bad.”

The specific parable is commonly referred to as “The Farmer and His Horse” or “Sai Weng Shi Ma” in Chinese folklore.4

The story reflects a universal truth about life’s complexity: what seems like a blessing may have hidden challenges, and what seems like a curse may bring unexpected benefits. It’s an invitation to cultivate patience, acceptance, and humility in the face of uncertainty.

In this time of turmoil, it may be wise to step back a bit and reflect as events take place.

Leave a comment

Thanksgiving in the United States is a unique holiday. It's the one time that all of us (almost all of us) take off from work and gather as extended families and friends to be grateful for our blessings.

But this festive occasion is frequently marred by rancor and animosity if someone brings up political or other controversial topics at the dinner table. In recent years this blemish has become so common that broadcast networks offer advice on how to avoid such squabbles alongside their advice on how to cook the turkey.1

Subscribe now

Good Manners at Thanksgiving

There is an etiquette to Thanksgiving (and to other festive occasions as well), a set of good manners that both guests and hosts alike need to observe to assure that everyone is respected and has a good time. The good folks at The Emily Post Institute have put together a list of rules that have evolved over time.

One of the rules of good manners at Thanksgiving says: Avoid controversial or painful topics:

Throughout the day, it's best to avoid controversial or painful topics. It's not that debate or sharing of different opinions isn't a good thing, but the chance for arguing instead of debating or hurt feelings instead of sharing ideas is too risky for the goal of the holiday. This is a day to be together in a spirit of appreciation for one another and all that we have and share. Let that theme shine throughout the mood and conversation, and save harder topics for another time. Emily Post Institute.

OK. That’s clear. But what should or can we talk about? It’s pretty boring just to talk about the weather—and that could easily lead into chatter about Global Warming, a subject almost guaranteed to ignite a storm of disagreement.

In this post, I’ve put together a list of topics you can safely discuss that will help you learn more about and become closer to your family and friends this season.

Enrich Your Celebration With Shared Thoughts

1. What We Are Thankful For

• Personal gratitude: Reflect on individual blessings from the past year.

• Family gratitude: Share moments or milestones the family is thankful for.

• Community gratitude: Acknowledge positive things happening in your community.

• Seasonal gratitude: Highlight what you love most about this time of year.

• Gratitude for challenges: Discuss lessons learned or growth from difficult experiences.

2. Food and Cooking

• Favorite holiday dishes or desserts.

• The best meal you’ve ever had.

• Tips for preparing holiday classics.

• Unusual or creative recipes to try.

• Fun food traditions from around the world.

3. Holiday Traditions

• Unique family traditions and their origins.

• Traditions you'd like to start or revive.

• Most memorable holiday celebrations.

• Comparing traditions across different cultures.

• Holiday decorating ideas or favorite decorations.

4. Travel and Vacation Stories

• Favorite travel memories or destinations.

• Dream vacations you'd love to take.

• The funniest or most unexpected thing that’s happened while traveling.

• Tips for traveling during the holiday season.

• Hidden gems or lesser-known places to visit.

5. Entertainment

• Favorite holiday movies, TV specials, or songs.

• Book, movie, or podcast recommendations.

• Memorable live shows or concerts.

• Fun party or board games to play together.

• Creative ideas for family movie or game nights.

6. Hobbies and Interests

• Updates on personal hobbies or projects.

• Stories about new skills or talents learned.

• Outdoor activities and favorite seasonal sports.

• Artistic or creative pursuits like painting, music, or writing.

• Sharing tips or tricks for a favorite pastime.

7. Positive Life Updates

• Good news from the past year (e.g., new jobs, births, engagements).

• Personal or family milestones achieved.

• Reflecting on personal growth or learning experiences.

• Fun or exciting plans for the upcoming year.

• What everyone is looking forward to during the holiday season.

8. Family Memories and Anecdotes

• Nostalgic stories about past holidays or family members.

• Funny or heartwarming anecdotes from childhood.

• Revisiting memorable family trips or events.

• Asking about how older family members met or major life events.

• Sharing old photos or family heirlooms.

9. Seasonal Topics

• Favorite activities for the season (e.g., apple picking, sledding, ice skating).

• Discussing the beauty of nature (e.g., fall leaves, snow-covered landscapes).

• Holiday decorating tips or ideas.

• Exploring favorite seasonal scents or flavors.

• Plans for making the most of the current season.

10. Lighthearted "What If" or Hypothetical Questions

• If you could invite any historical figure to dinner, who would it be?

• What would you do if you could live one day as someone else?

• If you could only eat one holiday food for the rest of your life, what would it be?

• If you could relive any holiday memory, which would it be?

• What’s the most unusual holiday tradition you’d create?

11. Community and Generosity

• Favorite charities or causes to support during the holidays.

• Stories of kindness experienced or witnessed.

• Ideas for volunteering as a family or group.

• Discussing ways to make the holidays meaningful for others.

• Inspiring stories from the news or community about giving back.

12. General Interest and Curiosity

• Fun facts or trivia about random topics (e.g., animals, history, space).

• Interesting new things you’ve recently learned.

• Questions about each other’s favorite things (e.g., books, songs, places).

• Exploring fascinating traditions or celebrations from around the world.

• Sharing unique skills or hobbies others might not know about.

Have a Joyous and Grateful Thanksgiving, Everyone

Let’s all relax and take a break from politics and civic engagement for a few days.

Have a great time together.

Mike Palmer

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

A Temporary Setback for Democracy

Tuesday’s election of Donald Trump to a second term as President confirmed what we have known for multiple election cycles: We are multiple cultures and multiple tribes. When Congress adopted “Out of many, one” as the motto for the Great Seal in 1782, it symbolized the unity of the original 13 colonies. Yet, except for possibly during the Second World War, the people of the United States have never achieved the “more perfect union” envisioned by the Preamble to our Constitution.

With Donald Trump and his supporters in the White House, the challenge of coming together for good has grown substantially. The Trump Crowd is more likely to increase tensions, divisions, strife, and misery than to grow understanding and seek common ground.1

Don’t Despair

So, there are many reasons to despair.

Don’t.

Don’t give in to that feeling of loss that threatens to immobilize you and others as we dread the coming chaos. Don’t listen to that voice whispering “It’s all over.” Don’t crawl into a protective shell and just wait for the storm to pass.

Now, more than ever, we must work for understanding and the common good.

How We Can Move Forward

There is an art—a body of knowledge, a collection of tools, and a set of skills—to working out differences and arriving at better outcomes for all. Call it the Art of Bringing People Together for Good. In my earlier essay, Together for Good, I mentioned 10 organizations that have been practicing and developing this art for decades. Take a look. Reach out. Get involved.

This website is devoted to providing information and training in the Art of Bringing People Together for Good. Our goal is to help hostile groups transform animosity into collaboration by focusing on shared goals. Let’s apply that art to our nation as a whole.

Stay engaged with this Substack. Sign up for the workshops I’ll be offering soon, and continue to support other initiatives that promote peace and justice.

The Moral Arc

In a sermon delivered at the Washington National Cathedral on March 31, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

That arc bends only when we do our part.

Jesse Jackson, who was with King when he was assassinated less than a week after the Moral Arc Sermon, kept reminding us to “Keep Hope Alive!”

Now, more than ever, that is our job.

Those supporting the vision of common ground and common good laid out by Harris and Walz are roughly equal in number to those drawn to meanness, vengeance, and retribution. While we may not currently hold governmental power, we wield moral power—a power that, in the end, may be far stronger.

Do It Anyway

Some who read this may be saying, “Those are nice words, Mike, but with dark forces controlling our federal government, is any of this realistic?”

Over 60 years ago, Kent Keith tacked his Paradoxical Commandments onto a dorm room wall. In a pre-internet era, they achieved a kind of viral distribution around the world, eventually finding their way onto a wall in Mother Theresa’s office.2

We Shall Overcome

African Americans endured centuries of slavery and, after emancipation, another century of legally sanctioned oppression that stripped them of dignity, rights, and wealth. Against unimaginable odds, they overcame Jim Crow’s brutal regime of terror, violence, and repression.

The Art of Coming Together for Good has helped warring groups overcome entrenched conflicts and improve lives in Northern Ireland, South Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world. It can work here too.

Deep in my heart, I do believe. We shall overcome, someday.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

At the outset of his ministry, Jesus fasted in the dessert for 40 days and nights and thereafter was three times tempted by the Satan.1 In the third temptation, the Satan “took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.’” (Matt. 4:8-9.)

Jesus replied, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” (Matt. 4:10.)

The third temptation of Christ repeatedly comes to mind when I see and hear Evangelical Christians worshiping Donald Trump as a Messiah. Some even claim that the twice impeached, multiply indicted, criminally convicted, and twice divorced former President, who bragged about grabbing women by the genitals, and wants to wreak vengeance on his political opponents has a “personal relationship” with God.

That was Pastor Mark Burns claiming that Donald Trump has a personal relationship with God. And at the January 6 rally, Pastor Paula White prayed for Trump as if were a holy leader:

Not All Evangelicals Support Trump

Not all Evangelical Christians have been seduced by “earthly idols of nation and influence and exaltation,” as Tim Alberta puts it in his most recent book.2 Many Evangelical Christians are appalled by the notion that Donald Trump has anything to do with Christianity or could be considered Godly. And some, like The Reverend Doug Paggit, the folks at Vote Common Good, Sojourners, The Reverend Jim Wallis of the Georgetown Center for Faith and Justice, and Professor John Fea, author of Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, firmly reject the lust for governmental power that Satan has been whispering in Evangelical ears for the past 50+ years.

Many Christians may be confused. They see evangelical pastors proclaiming Trump as an instrument of God, and they are inclined to buy the story.

Jesus Preached the Kingdom of Heaven, Not the Sword

Satan’s Temptation of Jesus with governmental power is not an isolated text. Jesus preached the transformation of the world through love of and for other people. He called this radically transformed society the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. This message of a new order is laid out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and other passages. It’s in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). It’s contained in the encounter with the Rich Young Ruler who asks about eternal life (Luke 18:18-30). When Jesus rejected Satan’s offer, he chose a fundamentally different way of bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven. He chose love and self-sacrifice.3

And the people entering the Kingdom of Heaven were not the rich and powerful. (See “Blessed are the Poor.”) Neither is the Kingdom overcrowded with people enthralled with their own piety. (Matt. 6:1-13; 15:1-9.)

But, some say, God’s will is so important that we must seize the power of government to violently compel people to comply with it. That notion contradicts the First Amendment to the Constitution and would undermine our democracy. “Well,” some might respond, “God is more important than the Constitution or democracy. So, we should use violence, if necessary, to enforce God’s will.”

That argument is not illogical. But it is Unchristian. It has no basis in the New Testament or in the life and teachings of Jesus.

We’ve Been Here Before. It Didn’t Work Out Well.

We tried theocracy in the 17th Century. Puritans, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Catholics fled Europe for the New World, initially to be free from religious persecution. Then the Puritans in Massachusetts imposed their version of Christianity on everyone else through an American theocracy,4 which led to the expulsion of Rhode Island founder Roger Williams and the burning of witches at the stake.

Do we really want to go back there? (Apparently, some do.) Do we really want an American Ayatollah like in Iran? (Apparently, some do.)

If you can tell me what to believe, when and where to worship, and what to do with my body, what’s to prevent me (if I have more guns) from doing the same to you? Do we really want a state ruled by the religion with the most guns? (Apparently, some do.) Do we really want an American equivalent of Iran’s “guidance police” barging into our bedrooms to see whether we are using contraceptives?5 (Apparently, some do.)

Not only is such a government Unchristian; it is also Unamerican. By the time the Colonists got to 1776, they knew that theocracy was a form of slavery. That’s why the First Amendement guarantees the rights to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. For crying out loud. This is 5th-grade civics we’re talking about here.

White Nationalists Misuse the Good News

In an interview on Morning Joe, The Reverend Jim Wallis, author of The False White Gospel, explains how the Christian Gospel, which has often been misused to obtain political power, is being misused for that purpose again by people who are selling fear:

And in the same broadcast, Professor Eddie Glaude reminds us that Christianity in America has been intertwined with slavery and the temptation of idols that distort one’s faith and belief:

Beware False Prophets

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned his listeners: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Matt. 7:15.)

When the authorities came to arrest Jesus, one of his followers cut off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. And Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:51-52.)

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

The world of Donald Trump and Project 2025 is the world of money-grubbing greed. He flaunts his love of money. He exults in it. He continually praises himself for how much money he has. He wallows in wealth.

But the Bible says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10.) And Jesus said, “Blessed are you who are poor, for of you is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)

There is a fundamental contradiction here. Jesus said, “You cannot love both God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24) You can’t love Jesus and support Donald Trump. I’m sorry. You just can’t.

The Rich Young Ruler

A wealthy young man comes to see Jesus and asks what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus says, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” The young man asks, “Which?” And Jesus says, “You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man says, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” To which Jesus replies, “If you would achieve the goal, go, sell what you possess and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad; for he had great possessions.” (Matthew 19:17-22)

When the man was gone, Jesus says to his followers, “I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

Jesus repeatedly exhorted his followers to help the poor and needy and championed their cause. See Luke 6:20 (“Blessed are you who are poor”), Luke 14:13-14 ("But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed."), Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22 ("The poor have the good news preached to them."), and Luke 16:13 ("No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.").

We Help the Poor Through Government Programs

Throughout the 20th century, people of faith joined with other social advocates to create the political will for state and federal programs that give the poor, the needy, and the dispossed a helping hand. Head Start, National School Lunch Programs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, Women Infants and Children Supplements, and the Earned Income Tax Credit—all help millions of families struggling to get by on inadequate wages.1

Project 2025 Would Reduce or Eliminate Such Programs

Project 2025 seeks to reduce or eliminate many of these federal programs. The authors propose to eliminate Head Start (Mandate at 482), eliminate the Community Eligibility Provision of the school lunch program (Mandate at 303), and substantially modify the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (Mandate at 302).2

Project 2025 would place a lifetime cap on Medicaid benefits, which would threaten coverage for 18.5 million Americans.3 It would take away access to free emergency contraception for 48 million women.4 It would increase prescription costs for 18.5 million seniors and other Medicare recipients.5

Throughout his Presidency and beyond, Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to get rid of The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which provides health insurance coverage to 45 million Americans, has helped prevent serious medical problems,6 and has saved millions of people from crushing medical debt and bankruptcy.7 During his 2016 campaign, Trump consistently promised to "repeal and replace" the ACA. Once in office, he supported several legislative efforts aimed at dismantling the law, including the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) in the Senate.

Like Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, Trump seems to be asking, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” He would grind the poor despite—perhaps because of—his enormous wealth.8

Jesus warned us to beware of gnat-gagging, camel-swallowing piety that risks neglecting “the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith.” (Matthew 23:24.) Among other things, this means we must take seriously our duty to help, not castigate, the poor.

The Great Judgment

In The Great Judgment, Jesus says:

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. ³⁴ Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸ And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹ And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:31-40.)

Don’t Judge Trump, But Don’t Support or Vote for Him

Donald Trump is mentally ill. He suffers from malignant narcissism and psychopathy. Like one demonically possessed, he deserves our compassion. We should not judge or condemn him. (See Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged.”)

But neither should we support what he says and does. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to empower evil. Bible-believing Christians should renounce him and all he stands for.

Pass the word.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now