SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Not Just Today, Every Day Should Be No Kings Day
Two-hundred and fifty years ago, our ancestors rejected a mad king. And today, we must reject another.
Jun 14, 2025
A would-be king wants a coronation today—Saturday, June 14—a date already laden with meaning: Flag Day, the 250th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Army, and, yes, Donald J. Trump’s 79th birthday. But this year, Americans are refusing to let the day be coopted. Across all 50 states, from big cities to small towns, more than 1,800 events are planned to mark what organizers are calling the “No Kings Day of Defiance.”
Driven by grassroots outrage and organized by Indivisible, Public Citizen, Social Security Works, Third Act, Commit to Democracy, and others, these decentralized protests share one audacious goal: to reclaim the flag from authoritarianism and reject the corrosive spectacle of a would-be despot. The theme? “Take back the flag on Flag Day.”
Trump’s military pageant—planned for the heart of Washington—is a grotesque parody of patriotism. The New York Times reported that theproposed display features 28 M1 Abrams tanks, 28 Stryker armored vehicles, a vintage WWII-era B-25 bomber, 6,700 troops, 50 helicopters, and more than 100 military vehicles, horses, even a dog. The projected cost will likely end up at nearly $50 million, footed by we the people. All in the service of one man’s fragile ego.
This is the enduring charge of citizenship. We are stewards, not owners, of democracy.
Let’s not be coy: Since returning to the presidency, Trump has presented himself not as a public servant, but as a sovereign. His contempt for constitutional limits is as naked as it is dangerous. While the judiciary has pushed back—ruling against his overreach time and again—he relentlessly smears judges and demands fealty from a majority Republican Congress hollowed out by fear and complicity. Gone are the “adults in the room” from his first term. What remains is a court of sycophants.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), speaking before the Subcommittee on the Constitution earlier this year, reminded Americans what’s at stake:
We have no kings here, no queens, no titles of nobility, no serfs, no slaves. Our revolution overthrew monarchy and the established church... But in our time, Donald Trump’s crime spree throughout American society has tested the hard-won principle that we are all equal and that no one is above the law.
That’s the ethos animating No Kings Day of Defiance—a clear-eyed recognition that 250 years ago, our ancestors rejected a mad king. And today, we must reject another.
Legal analyst and political commentator Robert Hubbell, writing earlier this spring, captured the spirit of this moment:
At root, the issues animating protests separated by two-and-a-half centuries are the same: The right to self-determination, liberty, democracy, and the rule of law—not subjugation to the “divine right of kings.”
Hubbell, whose Today’s Edition newsletter has become a must-read for pro-democracy advocates, adds:
We stand on the shoulders of those who rose up against tyranny—not just revolutionaries in 1776, but the generations of Americans since: abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights marchers, labor leaders, and more. We inherit their unfinished struggle.
This is the enduring charge of citizenship. We are stewards, not owners, of democracy. The legacy we fight for isn’t ours to hoard—it belongs to all Americans, past, present, and those not yet born. The torch must be passed with an unwavering commitment to justice.
The road to a more perfect union has always been long, muddy, and rough. It took eight years to win independence. Another four to adopt the Constitution. Three-quarters of a century—and a civil war—to challenge slavery’s brutal grip. A hundred more years to begin fulfilling the promise of equal protection under the law.
No Kings Day is a line in the sand. Let’s meet the moment. Let’s honor the republic. Let’s remind each other—and the world—that in this country, power still flows from the people.
Democracy will endure. But only if we refuse to let it be stolen.
While some “kings” deserve admiration, the only ones worth celebrating aren’t monarchs at all. The sign I’ll be carrying on June 14 says it this way: “The only kings to listen to are MLK, B.B., Carole, and Billie Jean.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Born Loser: On Donald Trump's Troubled Life
Trump grew up in a world of vast privilege, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't emotionally wounded. Now, once again, the world pays the price for this deeply damaged man.
Jun 14, 2025
I must admit, if Trump wasn't such a power-hungry demagogue, a danger to democracy, a sexual predator, racist, sociopath, pathological liar, bully, and impulsive and unstable megalomaniac, I might feel sorry for him.
He has no real friends, just sycophants. All his relationships are transactions, including with his three wives and his children. When people are no longer useful to him—wives, lawyers, advisors, Cabinet members—he discards them.
His current wife Melania is transactional, too. She married him for his money. She obviously doesn't love or respect him and she occasionally displays her disdain for him in public. She didn’t even campaign for him last year, except to make a few public appearances.
Trump hardly ever laughs. He has an almost-constant angry scowl on his face. To Trump, the world is a dark and foreboding place, where, like him, people are consumed by greed and lust. He relies on money and intimidation to get what he wants because he has no capacity for empathy or love—or any belief that people can be motivated by idealism and compassion.
Trump grew up in a world of vast privilege, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't emotionally wounded.
Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.
According to his niece Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, he was bullied by his father, who must have told Donald that he wasn't smart and that he was (or should be worried about being) a loser. In 2017, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts published a book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, warning that he was erratic and unstable as pressures mounted on him. Two years later, they updated the book—this time with 37 experts weighing in on Trump’s troubled mental health.
He has no strong beliefs about governing or public policy. His major motivations are money, power, revenge, racism, and adulation.
One of Trump’s few joys in life are the cheers from his fans at MAGA rallies. So, to compensate for his insecurities, feed his ego, and to mobilize his MAGA followers, he has planned this massive parade on June 14—today—ostensibly to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday, but which also just happens to coincide with this 79th birthday. The plan is to include 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, and seven military bands, and 34 horses—at a cost of about $50 million—money that could otherwise be spent on improving the lives of soldiers and military veterans. The event will require the closure of Ronald Reagan National Airport to accommodate flyovers and fireworks displays. Trump intends it as a display of force, domination, and personal power. It is more about him than about honoring our soldiers and veterans.
In U.S. history, large military parades have typically come at the end of wars as part of demobilizing troops and celebrating getting the country back to normal. But such spectacles have a long tradition in authoritarian countries, where dictators, including the current rulers of Russian and North Korea, seek to bind themselves to national identity. The most disreputable of these displays of dominance were the mass rallies and parades organized by the Nazis to celebrate Adolf Hitler, depicted in Leni Riefenstahl’s pathbreaking propaganda film “Triumph of the Will,” that celebrated Hitler speaking at a massive Nazi Party rally in Nurenberg in 1934.
Having won a second term, Trump is now wants to consolidate his grip on power. He’s sought to bend those whom he views as his critics and opponents—universities, media companies, law firms, judges, businesses, scientists, artists and performers, and even professional sports teams—to his will. Both the federal raids on immigrants in Los Angeles and the upcoming military parade in Washington, D.C. reflect Trump’s need to look tough, manly, and in control.
From his father, who was arrested at a Klan rally in 1927, he also absorbed the racist ideas of the fake science of eugenics, which was popular in America in the early 1900s.
In 1988, he told Oprah Winfrey that a person had “to have the right genes” in order to achieve great fortune. In 2010, he told CNN that he was a “gene believer,” explaining that “when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse.” He compared his own “gene pool” to that of successful thoroughbreds. During a 2020 campaign speech to a crowd of white supporters in Minnesota, Trump said, “You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
But in fact, Trump has thus always been insecure about his family's genes. His father lied about his family's heritage, pretending that the Trumps were from Swedish, not German, ancestry. Trump repeated the lie in his book, The Art of the Deal. (He later said that he wouldn't mind if the US had more immigrants from Scandinavia, but kept out immigrants from "shithole countries," an outrageously racist comment). Trump said at a rally in Iowa that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of the country. They're destroying the fabric of our country, and we're going to have to get them out."
Trump believes that most white Americans share his racism toward immigrants and that he can weaponize that hatred by carrying out a mass deportation of people he calls “illegal” and “criminals.” He’s sent federal agents to Los Angeles to arrest immigrant workers and parents, followed by National Guard troops to intimidate and arrest those who are protesting the anti-immigrant raids. This is all designed to create fear and chaos to give Trump cover as the “law and order” president and, as Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) noted, “an excuse to declare martial law in California.” The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.
Trump often claims that he's a self-made billionaire. In fact, he inherited his father's wealth, as reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig explain in their 2024 book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. His father bankrolled his developments and bailed him out when they failed. Despite his boasts, he knows that most of his business ventures—his casinos, hotels, golf courses, fake university, airline, football team, clothing line, steaks, and others—failed. Most banks won't go near Trump, because they consider him a toxic grifter who consistently defrauds his subcontractors, employees, and lenders. According to Forbes magazine—which ranks the world’s billionaires—Trump was never as wealthy as he claimed to be.
The timing is no accident. The federal raids—which Trump is likely to expand to other cities—are meant to divert public attention from Trump’s legislative plan to cut Medicaid and other essential programs in order to give a huge tax cut to the super-rich.
Trump's favorite insults, directed toward people he considers his enemies, are "not smart" and "losers." Clearly the man is projecting.
Trump was terrified of losing last year’s election because he might have had to go to prison and also because he'd be viewed as a "loser," which in his mind is the worst thing you can be, a consequence of his father's disparagement and his mother's neglect. He was doubly worried that he might lose to a Black woman, Kamala Harris, whom he described as “not smart.”
Trump is clearly insecure about his mental abilities and worries that it's due to his inferior genes. He’s boasted that he comes from a superior genetic stock and that he is a "very stable genius." For years, he has constantly insisted that "I'm smart." “Throughout my life,” Trump tweeted in 2018, “my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” He lied about being first in his class in college. He didn't even make the Dean's List. Whenever he has defended his intelligence, it isn't clear if he's trying to convince his interviewers or himself.
He’s even defensive about his vocabulary. He claims to have "great words," although linguists who have studied his speeches and other statements say he has the vocabulary of an adolescent. He doesn't read—for pleasure or work. As president, he doesn’t read the memos prepared for him by his staff, including intelligence briefs. Some observers attributed this to his arrogance. But more likely it is because he can’t understand what is in them. He'd rather be considered arrogant than stupid.
At least 26 of his top aides publicly said that Trump was unfit to be president. They questioned his competence, character, impulsiveness, narcissism, judgement, intelligence, and even his sanity.
According to Michael Wolff, in his book, Fire and Fury, both former chief of staff Reince Priebus and ex-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin called Trump an “idiot.” Trump’s one-time economic adviser Gary Cohn said Trump was “dumb as shit.” His national security adviser H.R. McMaster described the president as a “dope.” In July 2017, news stories reported that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State, called the president a “moron.” When asked, he did not deny using that term. In an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, Tillerson recounted that Trump’s “understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of U.S. history was really limited.” He said, “It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”
“Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” said his former Vice President, Mike Pence. Mark Esper, one of Trump’s Defense Secretaries, said that Trump is not “fit for office because he puts himself first, and I think anybody running for office should put the country first.” In his farewell speech, Mark Milley, a retired Army general who served as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023, warned “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” clearly referring to Trump. John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps four-star general who served as chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, said that Trump “admires autocrats and murderous dictators” and “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”
Soon after the January 6, 2021 insurrection, McMaster, the former national security advisor, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Trump had incited the riot through “sustained disinformation… spreading these unfounded conspiracy theories.” He accused Trump of “undermining rule of law.” Sarah Matthews, deputy White House press secretary during Trump’s first term, witnessed Trump staffers trying, without success, to get the president to condemn the January 6 violence. “In my eyes, it was a complete dereliction of duty that he did not uphold his oath of office,” she toldUSA Today. “I lost all faith in him that day” and resigned from her job. Trump’s “continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again,” Matthews said.
What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is?
But let's give Trump some credit. He does have the kind of intelligence, sometimes called "street smarts," attributed to hustlers, con men, and grifters. That seems to have worked for him.
Trump knows that many Republicans in Congress laugh at him behind his back but don't say anything in public because they fear him—particularly his ability to find candidates to run against them in the GOP primaries.
He also knows that most world leaders don't respect him. We’ve now been witness to the ritualized Oval Office meetings between Trump and his counterparts, where Trump seeks to bully, coerce, and humiliate them. A few have challenged him, which gets him angry enough to seek revenge. His meetings with Putin are somewhat different, since he envies the Russian autocrat’s power. Trump’s bromance and recent break-up with Elon Musk is partly about policy but mostly a battle of egos and wills.
What kind of person craves being famous for telling people, "You're fired"? But that's how he became a TV celebrity. What kind of president invites the media to attend Cabinet meetings where each member is required to humiliate themselves by telling Trump how wonderful he is? To Trump, respect is a zero-sum game. He likes to demean others to boost himself.
Trump will try, and fail, to cancel the 2028 elections and remain in power. But don't expect him to fade away. He will seek to become the leader of a white nationalist supremacist movement while continuing to dominate the Republican Party. The MAGA forces he’s unleashed since 2016 will also still be around. It is no accident that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic incidents have spiked since Trump began campaigning for president. Trump verbalizes, encourages, enables, tolerates, winks at, and makes excuses for hate groups, most notably when he said that some of the Nazis marching in Charlottesville in 2017 were “good people.”
WhenTrump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
But as he gets crazier and crazier, and no longer has the power of the presidency, most of his followers will abandon him, crowds at his rallies will be smaller and smaller, and he’ll become a lonely, decrepit old man, a fallen idol like the Orson Welles character (Charles Kane) in the 1941 film "Citizen Kane" and the Andy Griffith character (Lonesome Rhodes) in the 1957 film "A Face in the Crowd."
He'll retreat to Mar-a-Lago—his Xanadu—by himself and with his paid staff. Or perhaps he'll spend much of his remaining years in federal prison, seething over how he was the victim of conspiracies.
WhenTrump dies from the side effects of obesity, the nation and the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And while he can't quite admit it to himself, he knows it, and it terrifies him.
Keep ReadingShow Less
One Certainty About Israel’s Attack on Iran? We in the US Must Try to Stop It
Whatever the president or the secretary of state or any other official says or refuses to say, Washington is supplying the weapons and preventing accountability for Israel’s wars.
Jun 13, 2025
Israel’s attack on Iran opens a huge danger—a predictable pattern of escalation ushering in a new phase of the long-standing crises roiling the Middle East region. Certainly Israel has a long history of attacking Iran—including bombing raids; assassinations of political and military leaders as well as nuclear scientists; cyberattacks; assaults on Iranian allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and beyond—and Iran has on occasion struck back. But although it is too soon to know exactly how this will play out, this latest assault holds the prospect of full-scale war between the two strongest military forces in the region, one of them backed by the strongest military power in the world.
The specific role of the United States in the first hours and days of Israel’s war against Iran remains uncertain; we don’t know if U.S. forces were directly involved, whether or how much the Israelis relied on U.S. intelligence or other immediate assistance in carrying out the assaults on Tehran and other cities across Iran. What we do know is that Israel has always been able to count on continuing U.S. backing—economic, political, diplomatic as well as military—whether or not any particular White House administration supported or disagreed with any particular military attack, and whether or not that support involved direct U.S. military participation.
Beyond that, we can examine what we know about Israel’s (still-underway) attack on Iran, what we know about U.S.-Israeli relations that shape how we understand the U.S. role, what we don’t know yet, and what may lie ahead.
What We Know About Israel’s Attack on Iran
On Thursday night, June 12, Israel attacked nuclear facilities and other targets across Iran. It attacked the nuclear facility at Natanz, but did not go after the deeply-buried and thus well-protected Fordow fuel enrichment plant until the next day. The United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that conditions at Natanz were safe, with no evidence of radiation leakage. The impact of the attack on Fordow is not yet clear.
While a full report of casualties—military, civilian, scientific, children and more—is not yet available, we know there were explosions all over Tehran and in other cities across Iran. The Israeli strikes killed at least six nuclear scientists, unknown numbers of ordinary civilians including children, and important military leaders, including the chief of staff of Iran’s army and Ali Shakhani, who served as the main liaison between Iran’s top leader, Ali Khamenei, and the diplomatic team meeting with U.S. negotiators. Israeli officials bragged of having had agents of the Mossad, Israel’s international intelligence force, on the ground setting drone targets long before the attack began. While Iran’s initial response involved 100 drones that were all reportedly destroyed by Israel’s anti-aircraft systems, subsequent Iranian attacks have caused damage and injuries in Israeli cities.
We know that there is only one nuclear weapons state in the Middle East region. Israel maintains an arsenal that reportedly includes at least 90 nuclear weapons, and while it is widely known as one of the nine nuclear weapons states in the world, it is the only one that refuses to confirm or deny its arsenal. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and does not have a program to create such a weapon.
Israel remains the main destabilizing force in the Middle East.
We also know that while President Donald Trump abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, in 2018, he has shown an eagerness to return to some version of a deal based on the same principles—the U.S. ending sanctions in exchange for Iran not getting a nuclear bomb. The long-standing obstacle to such an agreement was always Israel—which insisted that Iran be denied not just a nuclear weapon but any nuclear enrichment capacity, including civilian uses. Until just a few weeks ago, Trump had maintained the demand that Iran be denied a nuclear weapon in return for lifting sanctions, which Israel continued to reject as insufficient. In the last two weeks, Trump and others in the White House began to switch back and forth between the long-standing U.S. position and the Israeli demand, something they knew would be impossible for Iran to accept.
Before the June 12 attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was near the nadir of his popularity. He was close to facing the collapse of his government—and we know that citing Iran as an ostensibly “existential threat” to Israel, and claiming to be the only one capable of dealing with it, has always been at the core of his political career. On the morning of the Israeli assault, just hours before the missiles took off toward Iran, the Knesset rejected a no-confidence resolution brought by the opposition. That gives Netanyahu six months before another such resolution can be put forward. Whether it’s his political survival (he faces several trials and a likely jail term once he is out of office) or his long-standing commitment to challenging Iran at the top of his list, both were almost certainly part of the decision to launch this war.
We know that the U.S. government knew about the Israeli plans ahead of time—that was evident in Washington’s highly publicized decision to withdraw nonessential embassy staff, military families, and others from the region, citing the expectation of danger. The first acknowledgement of the Israeli assault came not from the White House but from the State Department, just a couple of hours into Israel’s bombing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement focused on the claim that essentially “we didn’t do it,” and that Washington’s only interest was in keeping U.S. personnel safe. His statement urged Iran not to attack U.S. people or facilities because, you know, “we didn’t do it.” Significantly, it did not mention Israel, did not express the usual—however pro forma—expression of “we support Israel.” Trump, some hours later, wrote on Truth Social that he had told Netanyahu not to do it, and added that of course we support Israel. He did not, however, specify support for Israel’s actions against Iran.
And finally we know that this war stands to create new disasters across the region—most especially for Gaza. Because with the world’s attention pivoting to Israel’s war against Iran, the need to end the on-going genocide in Gaza is likely to slip far from the center of attention where it needs to be.
What We’ve Always Known About the Israel-Iran-U.S. Relationship
Washington has for decades provided Israel with enormous levels of military support, including the most powerful weapons short of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. For decades Congress and multiple administrations have guaranteed billions of dollars in military aid to Israel every year. In the last 20 months of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, that aid has skyrocketed. In 2024 alone, Israel provided Israel with almost $18 billion to purchase warplanes, tank ammunition, and thousands of bombs, including the massive bunker-buster bombs that Israel used in Gaza, but could also use against the hardened Fordow nuclear site just a few miles from Qom, Iran’s religious center. U.S. taxpayers paid 40% of Israel’s entire military spending that year—so regardless of whether or when U.S. officials knew of, or approved of Israel’s attack on Iran, there is no question that U.S. support still made it possible.
We also know that despite its recent massive attacks against countries and forces linked in some way to Iran—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria since the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, the Houthis in Yemen, and of course Hamas in Gaza (whose earlier ties to Iran were largely eroded)—leaving them significantly weakened militarily, Israel remains very isolated in the region. For example, Trump launched the Abraham Accords in his first term—agreements for Arab states to gain increased access to U.S. weapons sales in return for normalizing relations with Israel. Now Trump still favors the Gulf States, but he’s abandoned the condition that they be friendly with Israel—convenient for Arab governments given the public outrage toward Israel because of its genocide in Gaza. Trump’s willingness to leave Israel off the table as a condition for privileged access meant he did not even visit Israel on his recent trip to the Middle East—stopping in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.
What We Don’t Know
We don’t know for sure whether Rubio’s “we didn’t do it” and don’t mention Israel, or Trump’s “I told them not to” and “of course we support Israel…” statement most accurately reflects U.S. policy. We don’t know if Trump even saw Rubio’s statement, issued hours before the president’s own. Neither even hinted at any serious pressure to prevent an Israeli assault on Iran—and we know that U.S. military aid remains intact regardless of Israeli actions U.S. presidents may not like.
We know Netanyahu strengthens his domestic political position by attacking Iran, and that some Israeli officials believe a provocative attack leading to Iranian retaliation might bring the U.S. into the war. Those are likely both part of Netanyahu’s calculus—but we don’t know which is more important.
With the world’s attention pivoting to Israel’s war against Iran, the need to end the on-going genocide in Gaza is likely to slip far from the center of attention where it needs to be.
There are thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the region—a small number in Israel but thousands in surrounding countries. Right now the U.S. is sending two additional destroyers to the coast of Israel. While a military response from Iran is already underway, we don’t know if they will make good on their threat to attack U.S. targets as well as Israeli—and if they do, will the U.S. move from behind-the-scenes to direct military involvement, perhaps including airstrikes or troops on the ground?
What we do know is that Israel remains the main destabilizing force in the Middle East. Just in the last 20 months it has attacked and occupied new swathes of territory in Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. It has bombed Iraq and Yemen. And now it is raising the level of instability to a qualitatively new level, directly confronting the other most powerful military and political force in the region.
As is true with Gaza, we in the United States bear a particular responsibility to try to stop it—because, whatever the president or the secretary of state or any other official says or refuses to say, Washington is supplying the weapons and preventing accountability for Israel’s wars. We have a lot of work to do.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Authoritarianism Drags US Democracy Into Darkness
Without independent media we are doomed. Just read the corporate press under Trump to find out why.
Jun 13, 2025
The Trump administration has proceeded, and is proceeding, at a furious pace to employ executive power attack and undermine central pillars of American democracy, rendering a system already threadbare and fragile even more weakened.
This past week’s deployment of National Guard troops, and then U.S. Marines, on the streets of Los Angeles, in defiance of California Governor Gavin Newsome and LA Mayor Karen Bass, is but the latest example.
Tomorrow—Saturday, June 14—the administration is planning an enormous military parade on the streets of Washington, D.C., to celebrate “Flag Day,” the U.S. Army, and especially to celebrate Trump and his birthday.
As I argued this week in The Bulwark, the entire spectacle rests on historical fiction, and is designed to celebrate neither the army nor the republic, but Trump himself. It symbolizes an arrogation of authoritarian power that borders on monarchism—which is why activists across the country have billed the day as “No Kings Nationwide Day of Defiance.”
The Washington Post ran a new article Wednesday on Trump’s planned celebration entitled “Trump’s White House opens door to historic military deployment on U.S. soil.” The headline itself immediately gives one pause, because Trump already opened this door earlier this week, not with a parade but with the actual deployment of armed soldiers to quell protests and detain protesters.
But even more concerning is this passage: “’This kind of thing doesn’t happen in democracies, and it’s becoming a routine part of our politics,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University, who has long warned that Trump poses a threat to American democracy. (Federal campaign finance records show that a person named Steven Levitsky who works at Harvard has made small campaign donations to Democratic candidates.)”
Two things are remarkable about this passage.
The first is that what Levitsky says is straightforward and incontrovertibly true—and he should know, since he is a renowned expert who has published best-selling books on the topic with co-authors Daniel Ziblatt and Lucan Way, which is presumably why the WaPo reported sought his quote.
The second is the parenthetical insert at the end, which can have only one purpose, and which almost certainly was inserted by editors—to weaken the credibility of the quoted expert, by implying that he is biased, and to bolster the favorability of the newspaper with the White House, by demonstrating that it investigates the tax records of the liberals it quotes and properly reports results if it quotes them.
This is not an isolated instance.
Last week the Post published another article, entitled “The 9-11 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term.” Here the reporter quotes Ilya Somin, a prominent libertarian legal scholar: “’What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,’ said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration . . . “
Read that again.
While in Levitsky’s case the irrelevant and diminishing information is placed in parentheses, in Somin’s case it is included directly in the text, as if it is actually part of the news report.
This sort of thing is a very recent development, and it actually makes Levitsky’s point about the Trumpist assault on liberal democracy. For we have reached a point where the most important legacy newspapers, with WaPo in the lead, are practicing anticipatory compliance, in subtle ways cow-towing to the MAGA agenda by diminishing the credibility of Trump’s critics.
Similar things can be seen in the New York Times, and heard even on NPR. And of course, on cable news channels, especially CNN, such things have been completely normalized.
What we are seeing is FEAR. Fear of an increasingly and unquestionably dictatorial regime. And a kind of cowardice that only serves to further empower the authoritarians.
Without independent media we are doomed. Yes, legacy corporate media are corporate, and they are not really fully independent. But until recently, they were at least independent of the government in power. This is now quickly changing. And it poses enormous challenges for everyone who cares about democracy and seeks to defend it in the face of the MAGA movement’s genuinely authoritarian assault.
It has been said that “democracy dies in darkness.”
The Post these days is surely doing its part to further darken our public life.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular