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
civil society
American Society Has Proven Too Weak to Stop Dangerous, Unstable, Violent, and Egomaniacal Trump
In face of such destruction and evil, the resistance from civic society has not risen to the deadly challenge either quantitatively or qualitatively.
May 02, 2026
What are the indicators of a presumed democracy either faltering or fortifying itself against the buffeting or destructive forces of dictatorial autocracy, plutocracy, and oligarchy?
Certainly, the commercial or corporate economy has developed thousands of indicators to ascertain whether the overall economy or its many subeconomies are getting better or worse. Far more than GDP, employment, profits, or inventory levels, these indicators spot trends at astounding microlevels in real time.
Who is developing the indicators for the civic community? Some groups inform us about voter turnout in micro-terms or how much commercial campaign money is flowing to candidates, or the sinking levels of local journalism, etc. But these indicators are far too few and too inadequate.
Let’s try one category of indicators that could be very useful for an introspective civic community and its supporters. The question is: “When conditions worsen, does the resistance get stronger or comparatively weaker?” Democracy in its concrete manifestations for people’s livelihoods, preparedness, and posterity decays or recovers and deepens, depending on the answer.
Space precludes citing more instances of civic resistance getting weaker while the exploiters and greedhounds get bolder, richer, more ravaging, and out of control.
The outlook is not good. With the advent of dictator Donald Trump and his dangerously unstable, violent, egomaniacal personality, the resistance from civic society has not risen to the deadly challenge either quantitatively or qualitatively.
Examples: Are many more new citizen groups (call them startups) forming all over the country to push for the removal of Trump from office via Impeachment? Are there expanding demonstrations of massive revulsions over Trump wrecking, weakening, and endangering America and the world? No. Three demonstrations with the weak moniker of No Kings, without follow-up civic mobilizations in congressional districts, doesn’t cut the mustard.
A detailed report in March by the respected V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden concluded that Trump and his administration are dismantling democracy in the US at a speed that “is unprecedented in modern history.” (See Common Dreams: “Trump Is Dismantling US Democracy at a Speed ‘Unprecedented in Modern History’: Watchdog”.)
The institutional resistance of checks and balances collapsed before January 20, 2025, but has worsened continually since that woeful day—Congress, the Supreme Court, and many state governors and legislators AWOL or actually enabling Trump.
Let’s get into specifics on the ground. Advertising dollars are controlling more content on and access to the media than ever, with fewer public critiques, regulatory action, or resistance from civic watchdog groups.
More programming and promotions are harming children (via smartphones especially) through direct marketing to children bypassing parental control than ever, yet there are few adequately staffed civic groups or parents countering this assault. There are outcries in the media, state legislatures, and congressional hearings, but the intensity of these electronic child molesters (pushing violence, pornography, junk food and drink, and mental anguish) continues without countervailing enforced regulations and substantial powerful civic and educational responses and protections of our vulnerable children.
Our public airwaves and public lands are under more corporate dominance than ever, yet the Federal Communications Commission, the federal forest and land management protectors are either asleep at the wheel or they are supporting corrosive corporatism. The public interest watchdog presence is almost zero on the public’s access to radio and television, and is overwhelmed by the relentless encroachment on the public lands by fossil fuel, mining, timber, and other commercial predators.
A swollen, unaudited Pentagon budget fueling the ever more aggressive American Military Empire has too few civic organizations resisting the annual violation of federal law requiring all federal agencies to provide an annual auditable budget to Congress.
The burgeoning corporate welfare subsidies, handouts, and taxpayer bailouts (government-guaranteed capitalism) are running amok. Large companies and mismanaged corporations go to Washington, not to bankruptcy court, which is the common option for small businesses. The conservative National Taxpayer Union reflects passivity.
More dark money PACs corrupting electoral campaigns has not provoked new civic groups of any size to stop this devastating selling of our elections that twists people’s votes and blocks progressive agendas. Even though 842 local government resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United have been passed since the 2010 Supreme Court Ruling; 22 States and Washington DC have called for a Constitutional Amendment; and 121 Members of Congress are co-sponsoring legislation to overturn Citizens United, much more needs to be done.
Gambling is now accessible everywhere and spreading from college and professional athletics, to youngsters’ smartphones. The greedy “gaming” industry and its recent sleazy cousin—the “predictions market”—are a menace and out of control. Where is the countervailing civic power to oppose this decaying of our culture? Organized religion—long the bulwark—mostly gave up its role in countering the gambling craze years ago.
After 12 students and one teacher were killed in 1999 at the Columbine Colorado High School many American families demanded gun safety controls. The story of this tragedy was all over the media for days. Now there is an average of one mass shooting a day while Congress yawns. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence, “In 2022, 48,204 people died due to gun violence in the US, the second highest total ever recorded. Each day, an average of 132 people died from gun violence—one death every 11 minutes.” Again, no new powerful civic organizations are being started.
There are more tax escapes for big business and the super rich than ever. Major profitable corporations, like Tesla, paid no federal income tax last year. Meanwhile the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) budget shrinks, and demands for rigorous congressional hearings and investigations go nowhere. No start-up civic groups, other than Patriotic Millionaires. Where are the new start-ups to join with existing tax reform groups to stop the attack on the IRS? Candidates for office don’t spend much time talking about these gigantic tax escapees to mobilize focused public opinion to stop tax abuses by corporations and wealthy individuals which expand deficits and starve public budgets.
Space precludes citing more instances of civic resistance getting weaker while the exploiters and greedhounds get bolder, richer, more ravaging, and out of control.
Our Ralph Nader Radio Hour will soon devote a program to the absence of civil society indicators and the collapsing civic resistance to the overthrow of representative government by the corporate state.
Stay tuned and, by your questions and demands, get your politicians to make this deterioration front and center in their campaigning for this November’s election.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Frontline Groups Have the Solutions to the Climate Crisis, Not Corporate Profiteers
As people throughout the globe prepare for the First International Conference for the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April, a frontline-led just transition must be given center stage.
Feb 17, 2026
On February 12, 2026, the US Environmental Protection Agency repealed the Endangerment Finding, a key determination for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This decision follows the EPA’s January 2026 announcement that air quality protections will be determined based on corporations’ bottom lines, not people’s health. These harmful decisions join a dizzying number of other regulations essential for environmental justice that have been dismantled, deregulated, or destroyed.
In these times, it would be easy to despair about how the tireless movement organizing labor that made these strides possible over many years has now been eroded. However, we cannot accept defeat. My decades of frontline organizing with workers and environmental justice communities toward a just transition shows that transformations come from our collective power. No matter the obstacles, we have the real solutions needed for the crucial work ahead, including during the upcoming Santa Marta conference.
Last year marked a huge moment for just transition. This movement and the principles that inform it often took center stage in grassroots organizing and during the United Nations Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025. The popularity of this concept, practice, and process reveals both promising and harmful co-opted outcomes for Indigenous Peoples, frontline workers, and fenceline communities. The language can be amplified by those most impacted, used to communicate their demands and desires, and it can be used as a tool for trying to undermine the hard work of community organizations and frontline communities.
At COP30, while we welcomed progressive news media coverage and the labor of journalists to cover such an intense few weeks of climate justice and just transition advocacy, we also witnessed reporting by some Global North journalists and news outlets that worked to minimize the credibility of frontline groups and community-based organizations, while amplifying the voices and positions of false solutionists and disaster capitalists.
Unlike some researchers who argue that the negotiations can be improved by using generative artificial intelligence for creating treaty drafts, we know who has the real solutions and who must be centered in building pathways toward just transition.
Much mainstream coverage of COP30 has not adequately addressed the indispensable role of grassroots organizing in pushing toward the successful implementation of a Just Transition Mechanism within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Several days before the official start of COP30, the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas held the IV International Encuentro (Meeting) of People Affected by Dams and the Climate Crisis. This global gathering resulted in the launch of an international movement. Similarly, the Peoples’ Summit, including a just transition axis, was integral in building relationships and movement power. These mobilizations and knowledge sharing spaces worked synergistically with the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice, which occurred on November 15, with people of the world overflowing into the streets of Belém. It was these preceding and concurrent gatherings that energized Just Transition cross-constituencies and that shaped the direction of the Just Transition Work Programme negotiations and the resulting Just Transition Mechanism.
Many celebrate the institutionalization of just transition as one of the greatest successes at COP30. However, much work remains in the implementation process for the new mechanism to actually advance a just transition. Without a commitment to and practice of Indigenous Principles of Just Transition and Just Transition Principles, this mechanism will become another failed effort and abuse of the labor of frontline peoples and grassroots groups who have fought so hard for so long.
Unlike some researchers who argue that the negotiations can be improved by using generative artificial intelligence for creating treaty drafts, we know who has the real solutions and who must be centered in building pathways toward just transition. Groups practicing agroecology and Landback, as well as waste pickers and many other frontline workers, are creating collective power that brings together the most affected workers and environmental justice communities, rather than pitting them against each other.
Additionally, as knowledge holders, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Indigenous Peoples hold inherent and collective rights; accordingly, they should not be conflated as part of “civil society.” We know that Indigenous Peoples and civil society members must be the ones consulted and centered in these key United Nations negotiations and texts, not the corporate profiteers and their political cronies who pollute just transition possibilities at every COP and at many other conferences.
This year marks 35 years since I served on the drafting committee of the Principles of Environmental Justice and 30 years since I contributed to the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing. These principles and the relationships and lived experiences that gave them life continue to inform and fortify our movements toward just transition and a livable world where we all can thrive. Let’s not forget these principles and the frontline peoples who made them possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Reimagine the United Nations Rather Than Replacing It With a Farcical 'Board of Peace'
Let us now weave a garment of our own, one suitable for weathering the storms, exploring the vistas, and reaching for the promise of the 21st century.
Jan 24, 2026
In April of 1945 a number of grand historical projects were simultaneously underway. In Europe, more than ten million battle-hardened soldiers were converging upon Germany, from the east and from the west, to drive the final nail into the coffin of the odious Nazi regime. (They succeeded on May 8th.) In Asia and the Pacific, a similar effort was underway to force Imperial Japan to accept “unconditional surrender.” (They succeeded on August 15th.) In the deserts of New Mexico and elsewhere in the United States, in total secrecy, thousands of scientists were laboring to invent a bomb that could destroy a city in a second, and give humanity for the first time the ability to bring about its own extinction by its own hands. (They succeeded on July 16th.)
And at the same time, hundreds of individuals were preparing to convene in San Francisco to invent a new global political body, which might – as the eventual United Nations Charter they produced boldly proclaimed – “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” (They succeeded, at least with the new international organization part, by signing that Charter on June 26th, and bringing the new United Nations into being on October 24th.)
But on April 12th the president of the United States died.
The conference opened as scheduled on April 25th. But just four days into their project the framers made a trek across the Golden Gate Bridge, to spend some time, in quiet and contemplation, among some of the oldest living things on Earth. And they set into the ground there a heavy metal plaque, which contained these words.
“Here in this grove of enduring redwoods, preserved for posterity, members of the United Nations Conference on International Organizations met on April 29th, 1945, to honor the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Thirty Second President of the United States, Chief Architect of the United Nations, and Apostle of Lasting Peace for All Mankind.”
ARCHITECTURAL RENOVATION? MEET POLITICAL OBSTRUCTION
Now we have passed the 80th anniversary year of the United Nations. The scourge that apostle chose to confront is at least as acute today as it was eight decades ago. And a whole host of new challenges have emerged, ones not on anyone’s radar screen in 1945. So as abundant as our admiration for FDR and his fellow architects might be, the time has come to take a look at the structural integrity of that edifice for the challenges facing humanity in 2025 and beyond. As we will see, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the United Nations is long overdue for some renewal, renovation, and rejuvenation.
There’s only one problem. What in the world can we do, about the San Francisco Charter’s Article 109 Clause Two?
That provision decrees that anything that might come out of a conference to review that Charter must be approved by all five of the Security Council’s “permanent members” – France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and the United States. These five states were already given the ability in Article 27 Clause Three to command the whole of humanity into inaction and impotence. This is “the veto,” which many observers have long asserted to be the greatest flaw in the San Francisco Charter. It degrades the democratic legitimacy of the entire construction. It insulates those five members from any kind of UN sanction (e.g., Russia regarding its war in Ukraine since 2022), as well as other states those five wish to protect from UN sanction (e.g., the United States regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza since 2023). And even when not actually cast, veto calculations dominate virtually every decision the Security Council makes, because it’s always necessary to get all five on board. It's what the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, citing the renowned late political scientist Walter Dean Burnham, often called “the politics of excluded alternatives.”
And when we turn our view from Article 27 to Article 109, we learn that these five states can also veto any kind of modification to their unique perch overlooking the rest of humanity. In 1992, as similar conversations were brewing in anticipation of the organization’s impending 50th anniversary, The Economist magazine tossed a cold bucket of water on UN makeover enthusiasts, when it reminded them that “the vetoers would veto a veto veto.” Is there any way out of this enduring cul-de-sac of realpolitik?
THE CASE FOR REINVENTING THE UNITED NATIONS
Let’s take a look beyond the veto, at several other incongruities between the United Nations design of yesterday and the big questions of today.
The absence of any reference to climate or environment in the UN Charter, and the absence of actual success (by the UN or anyone else) in surmounting our looming climate catastrophes.
Piecemeal and insufficient national regulation of the multiple potential dangers from runaway artificial intelligence, which clearly won’t be enough to constrain this quintessentially global technology.
A funding system both inadequate and unreliable, dependent exclusively on voluntary national contributions. Sometimes they arrive. Sometimes they don't. But either way they give major donors the ability to bully and blackmail the recipient.
Pervasive gender oppression in many areas of the world, a country like Afghanistan openly depriving half its population of the right to education, and the outside world wholly impotent to do anything more than express outrage.
Perpetual poverty, inequality and injustice for billions, propagated by the globally unregulated might of global capital.
Lessons hopefully learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, which must now be incorporated into global public policy preparation for the next ones which are sure to come.
A UN General Assembly with three fundamental flaws. First, its basic operating principle – where India’s 1.45 billion and Vanuatu’s 327,000 people exercise the same “one nation one vote” – could hardly be more undemocratic or absurd. Second, it holds no power whatsoever to enact (let alone to enforce) binding international law. Finally, it provides no voice for anyone beyond “ambassadors” appointed by the executive branches of national governments – e.g., parliamentarians, the economically impoverished and other marginalized groups, and every single voter who did not support the current head of state.
The UN playing virtually no role in confronting what we might call “the scourge of perpetual preparation for war,” in forever newly-invented technologies of mass slaughter.
And if the looming competition between China and the United States increasingly emerges as the centerpiece of international relations in the second quarter of the 21st Century – a new and even more dangerous Cold War – one can confidently predict that the UN will most likely again be relegated entirely to the sidelines.
So a creative package of amendments to the UN Charter beckons to us as both practical necessity and moral imperative. Because many of these problems of the modern age are coming at us like a runaway freight train, brakes out, heading downhill. And in the immortal words of Neil Young, our Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch and a wheel on the track.
VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO
A number of civil society initiatives have emerged in recent years, aimed at inventing new tools of global governance that might help to slow down these multiple locomotives of future catastrophe.
One of these is the “Coalition for the UN We Need,” launched during the UN’s 75th anniversary year in 2020. Its name conveys its central conviction that the UN we got ain’t what we need. It focuses largely (but not exclusively) upon innovations that wouldn’t require Charter amendment – precisely because of the political realities this article explores. And its “coalition” consists today of 382 organizations, focusing upon a widely-differing array of issue areas themselves, from dozens of countries around the world.
Another is the “Article 109: For a Renewed UN Charter” coalition, launched just last year. Perhaps the most important word in its name is “a.” It does not push any specific “renewed Charter” complete in every detail. It argues instead that peace, justice, planetary protection, and widespread improvements in the human condition can be pursued by transforming the UN Charter – and that the provision included by the framers themselves for doing so is the vehicle to make that happen. It’s already been endorsed by hundreds of prominent global affairs thinkers and practitioners, more than 40 civil society organizations, and dozens of former diplomats, ministers, heads of state, and Nobel laureates.
And finally, in 2023 a transnational NGO known as the Global Governance Forum initiated a project to frame a “Second United Nations Charter.” This one also enlists a somewhat different group of former ministers, heads of state, and Nobel laureates among the framers. It offers a specific and comprehensive package of amendments, performing a line-by-line revision of the present Charter from beginning to end.
Some of their proposals, drawing upon longstanding conceptual ground tilled by others, are quite ingenious. One is an "Earth Systems Council," to address the health of our imperiled planetary biosphere. Another is a “UN Parliamentary Assembly,” to represent those left out of the present General Assembly and perhaps to encourage the emergence of transnational political parties. And another is a standing “UN Peace Force,” that could initially intervene in places like Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, Sudan and Haiti today, and who knows where tomorrow – conflagrations where no states appear willing to put their own forces at risk for conflicts that have nothing to do with them – and eventually serve as the United Nations arm for peace enforcement.
In addition, in order to cultivate a sense of planetary patriotism, the framers decided to replace the opening line of the present Charter, “We the peoples of the United Nations,” with their own formulation, “We the People of the World.” The project seeks to strike just the right balance between optimal outcomes and contemporary political reality. Perhaps we might call this the Global Goldilocks Zone. A reimagined international organization not too hot (and thus politically unlikely to be realized), not too cold (and thus unlikely to make much difference surmounting big problems), but perhaps just right.
THE OBSTACLE OF 109 (2)
There is, however, sometimes an air of weary resignation among these global governance innovators. “A redesigned, democratized, and empowered United Nations could tackle so many of humanity’s problems! But we need to lower our sights. We’ll never get anything like that, because the P5 will forever block that.”
Or will they?
Article 109 Clause Two reads: “Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
But cold calculations of national self-interest might lead to P5 calculations beyond intractable opposition to change. The veto could only serve as a tool of absolute self-interest if it was held not by five states, but only one. The U.S. government, e.g., might benefit from its ability to block UN activities it does not desire. But it also suffers from Moscow’s and Beijing’s equal ability to put a stop to Washington’s pursuit of its own objectives through the United Nations. The benefits of the power to wield the veto must be balanced against the costs of one’s own initiatives being vetoable.
In addition, let’s consider the calculations specifically in Washington at perhaps its apogee of political and economic power. A Republican or Democratic administration just might conclude that the moment might be fleeting for the U.S. to shape and lead an emerging UN Charter review process. Better, perhaps, to seize that leadership role today, rather than letting China do so tomorrow.
And finally, surely someone inside the councils of P5 governments will someday make the case that the veto isn’t actually going to serve anyone’s national interest if the planet is on fire, if WWIII is over the horizon, if the killer AI robots are coming for us all.
And even in the face of implacable P5 opposition to change, civil society can ramp up the pressure upon them. When I talk to my buddies at the bar, most of them know vaguely that five countries can block the UN from doing pretty much everything, but none of them know those same five can also block the UN from ever changing anything about the UN. (More than once I’ve talked to global affairs professionals who don’t know that either.) Public education and civil society agitation about the monstrous unfairness of 109 (2) can surely turn up the heat on the P5.
Especially because there is more to Article 109 than its second clause.
THE OPPORTUNITY OF 109 (1)
The first clause of Article 109 reads: “A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. …” That word “any” opens up a universe of possibility. The summoning of a comprehensive UN Charter review conference is not, repeat not, subject to the veto. This is unlike almost everything of major consequence at the UN, where the P5 always seem to wield decisive influence. Here is one thing, of potentially infinite consequence, where they don’t. Even if all those five states vote nay, an Article 109 conference still might be called to order.
My buddies at the bar (and some of those global affairs professionals) don’t know that either. Just as we should draw public attention to the inequity of Clause Two, we should do the same regarding the potential of Clause One. Because the call to activate Article 109 could become a powerful mobilizing force in civil society.
It can provide something tangible and specific to urge upon policymakers, while leaving open what might ultimately emerge from the process. It can bring together a wide variety of activist organizations already working on other issues, who could pursue imaginative planetary governance upgrades to advance their own particular agendas. It can assemble a broad coalition of supporters who might hold widely different visions of the human future, but who could all agree on pursuing the process laid out in the Charter itself to define the most appropriate vision for our unfolding 21st century.
All these calculations, regarding both Clause Two and Clause One, may eventually bring us to the stage of vote counting, where enough states are poised to vote yea for a “General Conference.” As momentum grows, from what we might call the “P188” states, from civil society pressure inside the five states, and from a surging world public opinion, it just might mobilize a grand global movement that the P5 will find impossible to resist.
And so they may show up to that General Conference, whether they had voted to summon it or not. And they may negotiate in good faith at that General Conference, rather than adamantly refusing even to discuss any diminution of their Article 27 special privilege. And if an imaginative world organization proposal emerges from that General Conference, one obviously more fit for present purposes than the present Charter, they may choose not to deploy their Article 109 special privilege to prevent its establishment.
Especially when they realize that the General Conference may not need their votes after all.
LET HISTORY BE OUR GUIDE
Has anything like this ever happened? Yep. Twice. (At least.) And the protagonists both times found a way to dodge their own veto dilemmas.
As every American schoolchild learns, when delegates from the 13 newly independent American states met in Philadelphia in 1787, their official purpose was to amend the 1777 Articles of Confederation. After they had invented their very new kind of government, it was assumed they would use the amendment process set out in those Articles to legally bring their new nation into being.
What was that process? It was unanimity. All 13 needed to agree on everything in order for anything to go forward. (Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs recently suggested that we might call them “the P13.”) So the American framers chose a different path. Their new document contained its own procedures for coming into force. When 9 of the 13 state legislatures had voted to join the new federation, the United States Constitution would take effect. That happened on June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire voted yea. And on March 4th, 1789, a new thing in history was born.
Our second example is more recent and even more apropos. It is the invention of the United Nations. The framers in San Francisco might have set out to establish what they created via the amendment procedures set out in the League of Nations Covenant of 1920. That document required both a majority of its “Assembly” and unanimity from its “Council” for amendments. But the UN Charter instead contained its own procedures for coming into force. It required the approval of a majority of the San Francisco signatories, and all of the newly designated five permanent members. And when that requirement was met on October 24th, 1945, a new thing in history was born.
In addition, note well that in both cases the framers could have chosen a piecemeal revision of the old document. Instead, they wrote a new one from scratch. An Article 109 conference might adopt either approach. The reframers might choose to dive into the San Francisco Charter and make line-by-line revisions (the method chosen by the Second Charter Project). Or they might choose to draft a brand new document (the approach taken in Philadelphia in 1787 and San Francisco in 1945).
So let us imagine an Article 109 UN Charter review conference unfolding in much the same way as these historical precedents in 1787 and 1945. This isn't the only possible scenario, but it's certainly one scenario. The conference is convened - perhaps with the participation of all the P5 or perhaps with none. The conference produces a new document - perhaps with an elaborate package of amendments or perhaps written out on a blank sheet of paper. But that new document makes no reference to Article 109 (2). It contains its own rules for entry into force. And at some point, those criteria are met.
What might happen after that is anyone's guess. Yes, it's possible that after all that, all of the P5 will stand obstinately apart indefinitely. But perhaps it’s just as likely, as the far greater suitability of this new organization for our 21st Century world becomes apparent, that more and more states, eventually including the P5, will conclude that coming aboard will serve their individual national interests and the common human interest, will turn the tide from despair to hope, and will give homo sapiens a fighting chance to save ourselves from ourselves.
And then a new thing in history will be born.
HELP WANTED: ARCHITECTS AND APOSTLES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
My buddies at the bar may not know much about Article 109, but they know the name of the President of the United States. And whenever I talk about this stuff with them (not often), it doesn’t take long before one of them says, “Trump’s not going to go for that.” But this work is not about this political hour. These are likely not immediate objectives, but instead a positive and hopeful vision of what humanity might do to build the future we need, desire and deserve. Someday, perhaps, the prevailing political winds will all be blowing together in the right direction. Maybe even before it’s too late.
So after you make your visit to that FDR plaque among those ancient and towering redwoods, make your way back to San Francisco, take the BART over to Oakland, climb aboard an Amtrak, and don’t get off until you arrive at Union Station in Washington, D.C. Then stroll over to the Tidal Basin and step inside the Jefferson Memorial. There you will find emblazoned upon the walls an abbreviated version of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Samuel Kercheval in 1816. That was not 80 years, but only 27 years after the launch of the U.S. Constitution. But his sentiment about that document already?
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. … I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. … But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind … We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
So let us now weave a garment of our own, one suitable for weathering the storms, exploring the vistas, and reaching for the promise of the 21st century. Let us now act as chief architects of a reinvented United Nations. And let us now serve as apostles of lasting peace for all of humankind, as we proceed on our endless journey from the caves to the stars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
FIFA Must Revoke Trump's Peace Prize
If a government can pressure a global sports institution into legitimizing its leader under the banner of peace, then global civil society must be capable of compelling that same institution to correct its course.
Jan 18, 2026
In December, US President Donald Trump was awarded FIFA’s newly created “FIFA Peace Prize–Football Unites the World” by FIFA President Gianni Infantino. The decision immediately sparked disbelief and criticism worldwide, raising a fundamental question: What does FIFA mean by peace?
If football is truly meant to unite the world, then this prize—and the process that produced it—must be seriously reconsidered.
The awarding of the Peace Prize did not emerge from a transparent or democratic process. It reflects a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has exerted political and diplomatic pressure on international institutions to secure legitimacy and public endorsement. In other words, bullying. FIFA, despite its claims of neutrality and independence, appears to have yielded to that pressure.
But power imposed through coercion can be reversed through organized, collective, nonviolent action. If a government can pressure a global sports institution into legitimizing its leader under the banner of peace, then global civil society must be capable of compelling that same institution to correct its course. It is not about punishment or humiliation. It is about legitimacy.
Peace Cannot Be Performed
The United States’ current posture toward the rest of the world—marked by sanctions, coercive diplomacy, military threats, and disregard for international norms—stands in open contradiction to the values the Peace Prize claims to represent. One cannot credibly speak the language of peace while practicing domination.
Revoking this prize would send a clear message: Peace is not a public-relations exercise, nor a political trophy extracted through pressure.
When intimidation succeeds without challenge, it becomes precedent. When it is challenged collectively and nonviolently, it becomes brittle.
Revoking this prize would send a clear message: Peace is not a public-relations exercise, nor a political trophy extracted through pressure.
A World Cup Under Question
This controversy unfolds as the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches. Scheduled from June 11 to July 19, it will be the first-ever 48-team tournament, with 104 matches across 16 cities, 11 of them in the United States, the others in Canada and Mexico.
International fans, activists, and political figures are questioning whether the current US political climate—particularly immigration enforcement practices, travel restrictions, and border policies—makes the country a safe and welcoming host for a global celebration meant to unite humanity.
Calls to boycott the 2026 World Cup are spreading across social media, as supporters report canceled travel plans; withdrawn ticket purchases; and growing fears of arbitrary detention, visa denials, and hostile treatment at borders. Human rights organizations have repeatedly warned about detention practices and the erosion of civil liberties—concerns that take on heightened urgency when millions are expected to cross borders for a global event.
A Nonviolent Proposal for a Global Reset
If there is one nonviolent action in 2026 with the potential to shift global consciousness, it is an international campaign demanding accountability from FIFA itself.
Such a campaign could call for:
- The revocation of the FIFA Peace Prize awarded to Donald Trump;
- A one-year postponement of the 2026 World Cup; and
- The relocation of the tournament to a coalition of African host countries—such as South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, and Algeria—regions with deep football traditions and long-standing exclusion from global sporting power.
FIFA is not a neutral body floating above politics. It is a global institution with 211 member associations, whose decisions reflect values, alliances, and power relations. What FIFA chooses to reward—and whom it chooses to honor—sends a message to billions.
Broadcasters: Withdrawing the Economic Consent
One of the most powerful nonviolent levers lies beyond stadiums and borders: broadcasting. The World Cup exists not only as a sporting event, but as a global media product. Television networks and streaming platforms pay billions in licensing fees that finance FIFA’s operations. Without those fees—and without audiences—the tournament loses its economic foundation.
A coordinated nonviolent campaign could therefore call on broadcasters to:
- Suspend World Cup coverage;
- Refuse to pay licensing fees while FIFA legitimizes coercive political power under the banner of peace; and
- Publicly explain their ethical position to viewers, advertisers, and citizens.
This action would not target players, fans, or workers. It would target the financial and symbolic infrastructure that allows FIFA to operate without accountability. This is not censorship—it is ethical refusal.
A Universal Campaign: Social Media as Nonviolent Infrastructure
For such a campaign to succeed, it must be global, visible, and coordinated. That is why social media is not secondary—it is essential. Social media platforms are today’s nonviolent infrastructure. They allow millions of people to act together across borders, languages, and cultures without centralized control. When used strategically, they transform isolated actions into universal pressure.
A global campaign could:
- Coordinate shared messages, visuals, and hashtags across continents;
- Amplify testimonies from fans, players, journalists, and human rights advocates;
- Expose contradictions between FIFA’s rhetoric and its actions in real time; and
- Apply sustained public pressure on FIFA leadership, broadcasters, sponsors, and advertisers.
This is how nonviolent movements grow: through visibility, participation, and persistence—until silence becomes impossible.
In order to succeed, however, this must be more than a media moment. It must become a grassroots nonviolent movement.
Football clubs, supporters’ associations, players, national federations, and fans everywhere should be called upon to stand—not against the sport, but for human dignity. This is about withdrawing consent from illegitimacy and restoring meaning to the game. Football has always been more than a game. It reflects who we are—and who we choose to become.
After all, people are not football fans first. They are human beings first.
The question now is simple: Will FIFA continue to serve power—or will it revoke the Peace Prize and reclaim the game for humanity?
This article was first published in English on Pressenza and is now available in: Spanish.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Live in an Age of Public Bullying; What Can We Do About It?
Bullies, starting with super-bully Trump, need to “get some of their own medicine.”
Oct 19, 2025
Professor Emeritus Roddey Reid could have retired from the University of California San Diego to a life of deserved leisure. Instead, he has just published a handbook on "Political Intimidation and Public Bullying," which is increasingly dominating government, business, and civil society.
A guest this week on my radio show and podcast, Professor Reid was followed by Professor of Law Robert Fellmeth from the University of San Diego, a leading critic of unbridled anonymous speech fostered by Silicon Valley companies to boost profits.
Reid argues, Newt Gingrich launched this political onslaught in 1994 when he took over the GOP, led the Republicans to victory and became house speaker. “To be clear,” Reid continues, “political intimidation and public bullying are forms of psychological and physical political violence… meant to injure, humiliate, isolate, coerce, and even destroy opponents and entire communities.” These interviews should spark a civic rebellion.
The political intimidation operates in both open sight—from the belligerent bully-in-chief Donald Trump, and in the shadows with serious anonymous threats to members of Congress, judges, and their families. Combined, this viciousness has meant the difference in razor-thin votes in Congress. For example, the violent-talking, unfit secretary of defense being confirmed by the Senate. Other Trump nominees, who are also staggeringly inexperienced, totally obeisant to Trump’s wrecking of America in daily violation of the Constitution and federal laws, have also squeaked through Senate confirmation votes.
Political bullies focus on the weak, vulnerable, and powerless. You don’t see Trump going after and cutting programs servicing big-time corporate welfare kings through subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and bailouts in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Reid is systemic and illustrative in his fast-paced book titled Confronting Political Intimidation and Bullying–privately published to make it very up to date through August 2025. In his last chapter, he conveys 13 strategies for citizens to use locally in response.
Cumulatively, this mass “callout” could descend upon Congress and state legislatures for a more systemic regulatory agenda.
Such legislative activity in Sacramento, California is already taking place to deal with the central delivery mode of such bullying—ANONYMITY—according to Professor Fellmeth. A long-time advocate of curbing the dangers of internet anonymity, including to children. Fellmeth urges a decisive ban on most anonymous assaults, leaving open some exceptions for whistleblowers and others with a need to protect their privacy and self-defense. To accomplish this selectivity has to involve regulation of the Silicon Valley profiteers and electric child molesters, led by the duplicitous Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of META. His major declared mission is to drive people from reality and live their lives in his virtual reality. A quick safeguard is to require anonymous speech to be pursued by law enforcement when it embodies physical threats and deliberate psychological torture. Naming and prosecuting the perpetrator will serve as deterrent to other potential anonymous predators.
Moreover, Fellmeth, who has written several articles on AI’s rapidly intensifying damage to youngsters, wants a regulation mandating identifying AI creations as such to forewarn the public. (See Professor Fellmeth’s article: "AI is already harming our children. Are California lawmakers going to do something?" January 30, 2025).
Bullies, starting with super-bully Trump, need to “get some of their own medicine.” That means those attacked with nicknames need to counter with nicknames, rebutting phony allegations and revealing the brutal impacts of their bullying on innocent people and families in both red and blue states by the vicious and cruel Trumpsters. Otherwise, the “Big Lies” without rebuttals become soliloquies, and therefore believable to millions of people and influence millions of susceptible voters. (See our prescient and useable book Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All.)
Political bullies focus on the weak, vulnerable, and powerless. You don’t see Trump going after and cutting programs servicing big-time corporate welfare kings through subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and bailouts in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
His latest vindictive cuts—some boomeranging against his own desired policies—were outlined in a recent Washington Post feature by lead reporter Hannah Natanson. His latest “firings”—suspended by a federal district judge in California–targeted services for students with disabilities, inspectors who check the defects of federal housing, and employees who help regulate hazardous waste and pollution, according to the Post. Frothing at the mouth, Trump called those fired “people that the Democrats want,” as if conservative Trump voters and their families want to breath and otherwise be exposed to dangerous pollutants. The same flailing dismissals will strike what the Post described “as vulnerable Americans–school children, low-income families, homeless people, and senior citizens.” Trump is steered by the seriously hateful Russell Vought, the White House Budget chief and preparer of the Heritage Foundation’s notorious Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s fascist dictatorship. It doesn’t matter that these and previous firings, without cause, are illegal in numerous ways. After all, didn’t Trump tell you in July 2019 that “With Article II, I can do whatever I want as President”?
Here is an illustration of the institutionally insane wielding of the axe by indiscriminate haters that is hurting Trump voters and families alongside their Democratic counterparts. Trump and Vought want to layoff “workers with top secret clearance responsible for monitoring and protecting the United States from biological, chemical, and nuclear threats.” Earlier Trump and Vought drastically cut federal health scientists, safety regulators, and critical benefit dispensers in the tens of thousands.
Another instance of mindlessly cutting federal support for slammed hard-pressed community colleges, the recipient of lavish praise by Trump over the years for their job training curricula.
He is betraying Trump voters, with regular treachery! It is time for the people to say, “Donald Trump, you are fired.” (See my May 2, 2025 column: “YOU’RE FIRED!”–GROWING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE REJECTING TRUMP)
You can listen to these interviews on radio stations in central cities or by visiting RalphNaderRadioHour.com.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Israeli Impunity Still Shapes Global Politics
Every time the world looks away, it signals to other aggressors that crimes can be committed without consequence, as long as the perpetrator has the right allies.
Jul 11, 2025
In a world increasingly defined by calls for accountability, human rights, and a rules-based international order, one glaring exception continues to shape global norms: Israel’s impunity. Despite decades of United Nations resolutions, extensive documentation of war crimes, and near-universal condemnation from civil society, Israel has consistently avoided meaningful consequences for its actions in occupied Palestine and beyond.
This impunity is not just a regional concern—it is a systemic issue that corrodes the credibility of international law. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the consistent shielding it receives from powerful allies like the United States create a precedent where international law becomes selectively enforced. In 2023 and 2024, Israel’s assault on Gaza reached levels of devastation previously unseen. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed, and more than a million displaced. According to Amnesty International, Israel used starvation as a weapon of war against civilians, a war crime under international law.
The bombing of hospitals, refugee camps, and humanitarian corridors was condemned by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, but the global response remained muted. Instead of sanctions or diplomatic isolation, Israel continued to receive arms and military support from the West. The United States, in particular, increased military assistance and used its veto power to block multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire, most recently in June 2025.
The struggle for Palestinian rights is, ultimately, a struggle for the soul of the international system.
The consequences of this selective enforcement go far beyond the borders of Gaza. First, it emboldens authoritarian regimes worldwide to dismiss international law, citing the double standard applied to Israel. Second, it undermines the legitimacy of multilateral institutions, especially among Global South nations that have long decried Western hypocrisy. How can justice be demanded from others when it is not applied evenly?
This imbalance also undermines emerging efforts toward multipolarity. Coalitions like BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement have made rhetorical commitments to a just world order. However, their credibility depends not only on economic cooperation but also on moral consistency. When they remain silent on Israel’s violations, they risk perpetuating the same hierarchy they claim to resist.
The issue is also deeply embedded in Western domestic politics. In the U.S., the so-called ”Palestine Exception” means that standard principles of free speech, human rights, and legal accountability are suspended when applied to Israel. Politicians and activists who question unconditional support for Israel often face severe professional and personal consequences. Meanwhile, countries like Germany and France have suppressed peaceful pro-Palestinian protests under the guise of combating antisemitism—even when such protests are rights-based and nonviolent.
Critics are not merely challenging Israeli policy; they are questioning a larger structure of Western dominance that hinges on exceptions. Israel’s impunity acts as a litmus test: Those who support it are often invested in preserving U.S.-led hegemony, while those who challenge it advocate for a global system based on equal rights and accountability.
The human cost is incalculable. Families have been wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, generations traumatized. And yet, the global community continues to debate whether the threshold for genocide has been crossed, rather than acting to stop it. A column in The Guardian recently described Gaza as a “killing field where people are being starved.” The language is clear, but the political will remains absent.
Ending Israeli impunity is not only a matter of justice for Palestinians—it is essential for restoring faith in international law. Selective justice is no justice at all. Every time the world looks away, it signals to other aggressors that crimes can be committed without consequence, as long as the perpetrator has the right allies.
Civil society has a role to play. Pressure must be maintained on governments to cut military aid, impose sanctions, and support international investigations into war crimes. Institutions like the International Criminal Court must be empowered, not obstructed. Media must resist censorship and double standards in their coverage.
As we face interconnected global crises—from climate collapse to growing authoritarianism—allowing one state to remain above the law undermines collective survival. The struggle for Palestinian rights is, ultimately, a struggle for the soul of the international system. It asks a simple question: Will we uphold justice, or allow power to define who deserves it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fear Is the Point': Alarm as Republicans Launch Probe of 200+ Immigrant Charity Groups
"An attack on civil society is an attack on us all," said Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We must dissent."
Jun 13, 2025
Congressional Republicans this week launched an investigation into more than 200 immigrant charity organizations, a move that Democratic lawmakers and the targeted groups condemned as an egregious effort to intimidate opponents of the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.
"Terror is the point. Cruelty is the point. Fear is the point," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Friday in response to the probe, which was announced earlier this week by top Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security (CHS).
"The actions of Republicans on CHS unlawfully target organizations standing against their authoritarian power grab," said Ramirez. "An attack on civil society is an attack on us all. We must dissent."
On Tuesday, Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) sent letters to at least 215 organizations in a purported effort to "determine whether these NGOs used taxpayer dollars to facilitate illegal activity."
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Make the Road New York, Catholic Charities USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Haitian Bridge Alliance, and Global Refuge were among the organizations that received investigatory letters from the House Republicans.
"Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."
The letters give the targeted groups two weeks to respond to a survey that, according to the House Republicans, includes questions on "government grants, contracts, and disbursements they have received" and "any legal service, translation service, transportation, housing, sheltering, or any other form of assistance" they have provided to undocumented immigrants since January 2021.
A link to the survey is redacted in the GOP's letter to CHIRLA, an organization that was also targeted this week by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the group of providing "logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged" in Los Angeles protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
In a statement Wednesday, CHIRLA said that "we categorically reject any allegation that our work as an organization now and during the past 39 years providing services to immigrants and their families violates the law."
"Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values," the group continued. "We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our First Amendment rights."
A CHIRLA representative told the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid that first reported the House GOP investigation into the 215 charity groups, that the organization has "not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles," apart from holding a rally last Thursday before the protests exploded.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, issued a joint statement with Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) on Thursday condemning their Republican colleagues' investigation as "little more than a campaign to intimidate these groups so they'll stop the good work that our communities rely on."
"The fact that they sent demand letters to groups that have never received federal funding, and others that received money specifically provided by Congress to assist immigrants, shows how unserious their investigation is," Thompson and Thanedar said, adding that "most of the information they have requested is publicly available."
"More detailed records on the funding—including receipts—are owned by DHS, which their party controls. It raises the question—are they too lazy to pull this information themselves, or is the intent simply to bully groups they hate?" the Democrats continued. "Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Movement-Based Opposition Can Take on Trumpism and Win
Social self-defense against the MAGA juggernaut can be the starting point for creating the world we want beyond MAGA.
May 25, 2025
On January 1, 2025 I published a report called “Defending Society Against the MAGA Assault: A Prospectus for Action.” I am happy to say that many of the proposals I made there for what I called “social self-defense” are already being initiated. Recent and upcoming Strike! Commentaries take stock of what has been accomplished so far and lay out strategic perspectives on the next phase of the struggle to protect society against MAGA devastation.
What We Can Expect
U.S. President Donald Trump and his enablers are conducting an “administrative coup” against Congress, courts, and civil society. This assault is being conducted on multiple fronts. It seeks unlimited power; the demolition of any possible base to restrict its power; unlimited accumulation of wealth for its followers; and a cultural revolution to enshrine autocracy, repression, racism, sexism, hatred, cruelty, and disinhibition as internalized values of the American people. So far it has met significant but spotty resistance.
Trump’s actions have been and will most likely continue to be unpredictable, ill-considered, self-contradictory, and often self-destructive. The sheer incompetence and vacillation of Trump’s behavior make his future actions likely to have effects that contradict their intentions. Furthermore, his actions go out into a world order that was already deeply enmeshed in what has been called “the polycrisis,” marked by great power geopolitical struggle over control of lesser countries and global economic networks. Trump’s erratic behavior and the chaos of the polycrisis render any predictions uncertain. At most we can identify a range of possibilities that we must prepare for. Even then, the timelines for the manifestation of such possibilities remain for the most part obscure.
Growing opposition may develop the power to limit and ultimately overcome Trumpian tyranny.
A Trump presidency that successfully creates a new national and international order is one of the least likely outcomes. Also unlikely is a basic course correction that changes the overall thrust of the Trump administration so far. More likely is that Trump, in the face of declining power and support, will increasingly utilize repression and violence. Internally this would mean a fuller suspension of civil liberties and the rule of law; a more brutal war on dissent; martial law; use of the military in domestic conflict; and a mobilization of violent MAGA supporters for direct vigilante action. Internationally it would mean escalating use of violence, leading to accidental or deliberate wars—not excluding accidental or intentional nuclear escalation. This is all happening in a context of global economic chaos that is already widely expected to lead to significant recession with the looming possibility of stagflation or depression.
Trump’s actions are already having harmful effects on a wide range of people. Some of these are specific, like the firing of federal employees and the destruction of the programs they administer that are depended on by tens of millions of people. Others affect almost everyone, like the stagflation emerging from tariff gyrations and the suspension of the rule of law that is making everyone, including everyday people who are law-abiding citizens, vulnerable to arbitrary targeting and arrest. Given reasonable expectations about the future, these harms are destined to rapidly escalate.
Where will all this lead? Trump may establish a lasting fascist dictatorship that demolishes all bases of effective opposition—the very definition of totalitarianism. Certainly this is possible if potential opposition forces are sufficiently intimidated and submissive.
Conversely, growing opposition may develop the power to limit and ultimately overcome Trumpian tyranny. This could happen in any of several ways.
- Growing opposition could interfere by a variety of institutional and direct actions that would make it difficult or even impossible for the Trump regime to implement its objectives, creating a situation of deadlock or dual power.
- If democratic institutions remain sufficiently robust, Trump’s supporters could be voted out of office in 2026 or thereafter; this could be followed by legislative reversal of Trump’s actions or even impeachment of top officials.
- Unpopular dictatorial regimes have often been swept from the stage of history by mass “people power” uprisings or “social strikes” mobilizing the whole collective power of the people against the regime. We have seen this most recently in South Korea, where the president’s attempt to establish a dictatorship was rapidly defeated by mass mobilization of the people in the streets, supported by trade unions, parliament, and the courts.
Social Self-Defense
The goal of social self-defense is to make a persistent fascist dictatorship less likely and its restriction and elimination by direct counteraction, electoral repudiation, or social strike more likely. Because of pervasive uncertainties, we can’t know precisely what process will achieve that objective. Fortunately, while different tactics can at times lead to tensions, efforts to change the balance of power in various ways are for the most part synergistic. We know that a chain will break at its weakest link, even if we don’t know what link that will be. Thus the overall strategy for social self-defense is to change the balance of power by strengthening the forces opposing the regime and putting increasing pressure on the regime and its allies.
A variety of polls around the end of Trump’s first 100 days show that popular repudiation of Trump has begun. Trump’s overall approval ratings, already low on election day, have fallen sharply, especially among independents and non-MAGA Republicans. More important, two-thirds of respondents view the Trump regime so far as “chaotic” and think Trump is engaging in “overreach” of his legitimate powers in area after area. While a majority still support the deportation of “illegal immigrants,” large numbers oppose the many publicized Immigration and Customs Enforcement abuses of due process. Large majorities say Trump must obey the courts. A majority fear the impact of Trump’s tariffs on inflation. Many fear or are already feeling the impact of Trump policies on them personally.
As detailed in the previous two Strike! commentaries, over the course of 100 days participation in anti-Trump demonstrations has increased from hundreds to millions. The demands echoed broad popular concerns, drawing together fear of autocracy, opposition to billionaire domination of government, and direct personal impacts through gutting of government services and economic chaos. These mobilizations combine the specific concerns of specific constituencies, concerns shared by multiple constituencies, and broad, widely shared concerns about the destruction of democratic governance.
These days of action have been coordinated in two ways. Two very similar coalitions involving about 200 organizations initiated and promoted the Hands Off! And Mayday mobilizations. The 50501 actions and the Tesla Takedowns were organized on Reddit and other social media by self-organized groups. Leadership for all of them primarily took the form of setting dates, framing raps, and communicating with local groups and activists. So far coordination has focused on specific days of action. While individual organizations have more extensive programs of action, so far the social self-defense movement as a whole is only beginning to develop means of continuous coordination and planning. Local groups, often drawing together or cutting across distinct national organizations, initiate and recruit for both nationally and locally initiated activities.
Historical experience has repeatedly shown that unified opposition from civil society institutions plays a critical role in the resistance to authoritarianism. Trump’s agenda is totalitarian in that it aims not only to devastate the constitutional order, but to destroy all bases of potential opposition in civil society. He has targeted universities and other educational institutions, medicine, law firms and the American Bar Association, media, courts, organized labor, and virtually every other institutional sphere of civic life. The response of these institutions has been vacillating and ambivalent—exemplified by Harvard’s effort to submit to Trumpian demands, followed by its statement of refusal and suit against government interference, then followed by its proposed new restrictions on freedom of expression. There are stirrings of collective resistance, however. For example, faculties at Big 10 universities have voted for a Mutual Defense Compact to jointly resist and support each other. Business has been ambiguous, divided, and largely paralyzed, initially swinging to support Trump, then backing away, especially after the tariff debacle. Future developments will depend on the balance between outrage at Trump’s attacks on civil society and fear of his vengeance against those who oppose him.
The governance system has so far provided important but limited protection of society against the MAGA assault. Many rulings by lower courts have forbidden, or at least stayed, illegal and unconstitutional Trump initiatives. Supreme Court decisions have been ambiguous, attempting to limit blatant illegality without providing a consistent defense of constitutional governance, perhaps out of fear of opening the door to outright defiance and a serious constitutional crisis. The Republican-controlled Congress has forcefully abetted Trump’s attacks on law, the Constitution, and people, with only a handful of legislators opposing even the most extreme measures and many more playing attack dogs on those who Trump targets.
Most Democratic politicians have followed the dubious advice to try to work with Trump rather than take him on. A few members of Congress have started making serious efforts to encourage a mass opposition to Trump and MAGA, exemplified by the massive rallies held by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A slowly increasing number of Democratic politicians, under substantial pressure from enraged members of their own party, are starting to join them. Similarly, a few blue state governments have taken significant initiatives to challenge Trump’s depredations, while many of them and nearly all red states have acquiesced or furthered Trump’s agenda.
A Movement-Based Opposition
If there is one thing we can confidently assert, it is that Trump is unlikely to voluntarily remove himself from power. He is unlikely to abdicate, and his allies are unlikely to purge him. Even his growing unpopularity and self-inflicted wounds will not automatically lead to his removal from office. That will require an opposing force that can take what steps are necessary to diminish and eventually terminate his power.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has so far proven not to be such a force. Despite exceptions, most of its leadership has deliberately acquiesced in Trump’s juggernaut. The Democrats’ deep dependence on corporate and fossil fuel monied interests has impeded any effort beyond rhetoric to appeal to the interests of ordinary Americans, let alone to stand up to the likes of Trump and Elon Musk. The result is that, as polls demonstrate, most people regard the Democratic Party with scorn. A recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that nearly 70% of Americans view the Democratic Party as out of touch “with the concerns of most people”—a higher share than said the same of either Trump or the Republican Party. Just 40% of Democrats approved of the way their leaders in Congress were handling the job, compared with 49% who disapproved, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. In a Harvard survey, only 23% of the young Americans polled who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris approve of congressional Democrats’ performance.
The Democratic Party, unless and until it makes significant changes, will be a poor vehicle for the anti-Trump resistance. But given the structure of America’s legally enforced two-party system, a progressive third-party challenge in the electoral arena, if it drew significant support, would most likely split and thereby weaken the anti-MAGA vote.
There is a natural synergism between large national actions that draw public attention and demonstrate broad public support and frequent or continuous small actions that show the opposition to be more than occasional flashes in the pan.
A possible solution to this predicament might be a “movement-based opposition” rooted in civil society. Sometimes called a non-electoral or independent opposition, such a movement-based opposition would be a convergence of social movements that performs some of the classic functions of an opposition party without the goal of taking power in government. It would draw diverse constituencies out of their silos to combine their power but use direct action rather than electoral politics as its means to exercise that power. Like a political party, it would bring together different constituencies around common interests, expose existing leaders and institutions, and present alternatives. Such a non-electoral opposition played an important role in blocking Trump’s attempted coup in January 2021.
The movement for social self-defense is already performing in a rudimentary way the functions of such an opposition both nationally and locally. It draws together different constituencies, defines common interests and concerns, pools their power, and coordinates joint actions. So far it does so only intermittently, with reluctance to define itself as the leading protagonist of the struggle to defeat Trump’s assault on society. It is positioned, however, to acknowledge what it has become and start to act like a continuous opposition. That movement-based opposition would include all those who participated in and those who called and coordinated Hands Off!, 50501, Mayday, and similar actions locally and nationally.
The elements of the movement-based opposition already include a significant infrastructure of communications, research, publicity, training, and member mobilization. These have proven effective in the early 2025 days of action. These groups cooperated with each other and developed an effective division of labor, for example with some providing de-escalation training; some guidance to local groups for media outreach; some training on legal dimensions of protest; and others helping with the nuts and bolts of posters, picket signs, food, water, and porta-potties.
Such cooperation can be extended and made continuous. For example, different partners can produce materials and organize actions focusing in rotation on their concerns and constituencies, with the other partners featuring or joining them. This is in large part what happened with the May Day days of action, with the wider movement turning out for events that were focused on workers and immigrants, as well as on the whole MAGA threat to democracy and human well-being. Partners can form a “shadow cabinet” of spokespeople from each participating sector who could amplify the concerns of each sector while providing a common voice for the movement-based opposition as a whole. All the activities of the movement-based opposition can support its individual elements while unifying them into a coordinated bloc.
Expanding the movement-based opposition is crucial for amassing the power to effectively counter MAGA. The starting point is to focus attention on the harms that are being done to individuals, constituencies, and the people as a whole. This was central to the message of Hands Off!, 50501, and Mayday actions, which called out specific harms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients; veterans; federal employees; and other MAGA-targeted groups while relating them all to the MAGA attack on constitutional governance.
An important next step is to convey why supporting and joining the movement-based opposition is an effective way to fight against that harm. That involves developing the mass power needed to counter MAGA and to block particular harmful initiatives. The opposition needs to encourage and support harmed constituencies to organize themselves and participate in the wider movement. Such self-organization is already under way, for example the federal workers cross-agency, cross-union organization Federal Unionists Network; the lawyers National Law Day of Action; and military veterans’ “Unite for Veterans, Unite for America” rally planned for June 6; and the outreach to workers growing out of the May Day day of action. These constituencies are already to a considerable extent organized, such as the large proportion of veterans who are linked online through social media organized by military units and the seniors linked through senior centers and senior residence facilities.
The movement-based opposition aims to halt and undo the harm that has been done by the Trump regime, but it is not directed toward returning to the world as it existed before Trump.
There is a natural synergism between large national actions that draw public attention and demonstrate broad public support and frequent or continuous small actions that show the opposition to be more than occasional flashes in the pan. Some of these have been emerging locally, like regular small weekly demonstrations and large signs regularly displayed on highway overpasses.
The extraordinarily peaceful demonstrations for social self-defense have projected power and discipline while discouraging attempts at governmental or vigilante repression. Carefully designed civil disobedience actions, like those by union members in Philadelphia on May Day and those planned by a climate coalition for this summer, can escalate the pressure without arousing public fears of even more chaos. Such actions can be a way of influencing and recruiting harmed constituencies. For example, sit-ins by present and future Social Security recipients could help mobilize large numbers of others to write letters, make phone calls, take part in demonstrations to protect Social Security, and join the wider movement.
While intended to increase his power, many of Trump’s actions have actually undermined it. To take one example, his threats to Canada have led to majority disapproval in the U.S. electorate while provoking a wave of anti-U.S. nationalism and the unexpected election of a prime minister dedicated to freeing Canada from U.S. domination. At some points combined opposition from courts, powerful institutional actors, and the public have forced him to back down. Examples include withdrawal of the nomination of Matt Gaetz for attorney general; the retreat of Elon Musk in the face of massive unpopularity and the economic harm done to Tesla by anti-MAGA protests and boycotts; the unexpected freeing of Mohsen Mahdawi; and Trump’s repeated backdown on parts of his tariff proposals in the face of massive business and consumer opposition. With sufficient mobilization and good targeting, social self-defense can defeat further Trump initiatives by mounting opposition that undermines his “pillars of support.” It can make his supporters quail and threaten to withdraw their support if he doesn’t back down. This process does not need to wait until Trump is removed from office. What is necessary is to make his initiatives undermine instead of increasing his power.
Trump’s plunging popularity means that if there are fair elections they are likely to end Republican dominance of Congress in 2026 and defeat Trump’s successor in 2028. The current electoral system is highly unequal, however, and MAGA is working hard to further distort it, among other things adopting measures that will simply exclude millions of citizens from the vote.
The weakness of electoral opposition is further augmented by the failure of the Democratic Party to mount an effective opposition that would mobilize large numbers of people and institutions to ensure fair elections and the defeat of all candidates who continue to support Trump. Although it does not run candidates for office, the movement-based opposition can have a major impact on the electoral process. It can dramatize the harmful effect of MAGA actions on millions of people. It can encourage them to register and vote. It can pressure Democrats to court their support by forcefully opposing MAGA. And it can dramatize and resist efforts to exclude people from voting and make the electoral system more unequal. Ending Republican control of even one house of Congress in the 2026 elections would put a significant brake on the Trump juggernaut.
In many parts of the world, when institutional democracy has been unable to overcome dictatorial regimes, people have turned to what has been variously called “people power” uprisings, general strikes, or as I will call them here, “social strikes”—strikes by society as a whole against the forces that threaten it. These involve mass withdrawal of acquiescence manifested in general strikes, occupations of capital cities, shutdowns of commerce, and other disruptions of everyday life. In cases like Poland, Tunesia, Brazil, and most recently South Korea these have successfully brought down dictatorial regimes.
Popular uprisings have recently been broached by such mainstream figures as New York Times columnist David Brooks and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. In the event that electoral and direct action techniques are not sufficient to defend U.S. society against the MAGA assault, such social strikes may be necessary. A movement-based opposition can play a critical role in laying the groundwork for such actions. It can draw in mass participation from people in all walks of life; cultivate an understanding of the need for cooperation and solidarity; develop the ability to coordinate action; and organize escalating actions that can culminate in social strikes.
The movement-based opposition aims to halt and undo the harm that has been done by the Trump regime, but it is not directed toward returning to the world as it existed before Trump. That is clearly not what the people want, and it offers little hope of solving our real problems. The movement-based opposition includes many different groups with different visions of the future. It is based on agreement about the immediate aim, plus agreement to disagree about other things. It should encourage discussion of areas of disagreement while bracketing them when they might interfere with immediately necessary collaboration. The process of working together and defining common interests itself can help identify new areas of agreement and encourage mutual acceptance of differences. Social self-defense against the MAGA juggernaut can be the starting point for creating the world we want beyond MAGA. As Abraham Lincoln said of the Civil War, it can become the means for a new birth of freedom.
This is part of a series of Strike! Commentaries on social self-defense against the MAGA juggernaut. It originally appeared on the Labor Network for Sustainability website on January 21, 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Other Countries Can Teach Us About Defending a Democracy in Crisis
In recent years, autocrats have been defeated in Brazil, Poland, and South Korea. What can we learn from the brave people who stood up to the dragon and saved their villages?
Apr 28, 2025
The best way of preventing authoritarian leaders from overthrowing democracies is to make sure that they never get into power in the first place. That’s what the French did last year when parties on the left united and then made a second-round pact with the centrists to prevent Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Rally from winning a parliamentary majority. And now the courts have convicted Le Pen of corruption and barred her from running for office.
Americans have obviously screwed the pooch on that particular method of preventing autocracy. Voted out of office, slapped with multiple suits, convicted of a felony, denounced by dozens of his former appointees, Donald Trump nevertheless managed to use these setbacks as evidence that even a billionaire ex-president can be an “outsider” who’s taking on the “establishment” and sticking up for the “little guy.”
A decade of Trump? That’s a sobering prospect. A 100-year-old president-for-life presiding over the dying embers of American society? A horror story indeed.
On the eve of the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, the challenge has now become infinitely more difficult. America is now living through that horror movie cliché where the call is coming from inside the house. The seemingly indestructible culprit has returned for a more horrifying sequel to destroy U.S. democracy from within. Worse, all the failures of his first term are now helping him craft more successful disruptions in his second.
With a cowboy president shooting from the hip in all directions, what can Americans do to prevent Trump from taking down democracy (not to mention the economy, the international system, and the planet)? Even New York Times columnist David Brooks, who admits in a staggering understatement that “he’s not a movement guy,” has recently declared that “it’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising.”
Alas, America has no history of such uprisings from which to draw, except perhaps the American Revolution and that was a long time ago. With few domestic examples to inspire, everyone is now searching the globe for cases of successful resistance to authoritarianism.
Unfortunately, most examples of such uprisings involved years and years of organizing. It took a decade to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, nearly two decades to oust Augusto Pinochet in Chile, slightly more than two decades to overthrow Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and more than a half-century to depose the Assad’s father-and-son regime in Syria.
A decade of Trump? That’s a sobering prospect. A 100-year-old president-for-life presiding over the dying embers of American society? A horror story indeed.
But there are other examples of more compressed resistance from which Americans committed to a national civic uprising can take inspiration. In recent years, autocrats have been defeated in Brazil, Poland, and South Korea. What can we learn from the brave people who stood up to the dragon and saved their villages?
Dumping Bolsonaro
Like the United States, Brazil is a deeply divided country, with an even larger wealth gap. As Oxfam reports, “Brazil’s six richest men have the same wealth as the poorest 50% of the population; around 100 million people. The country’s richest 5% have the same income as the remaining 95%.”
The leftist Workers’ Party successfully mobilized the have-nots to win a series of elections in the 2000s. But in 2018, buoyed in part by Donald Trump’s win in 2016, an aggressive, nationalist outsider, Jair Bolsonaro, capitalized on voter frustration with corruption and persistent poverty to become the country’s president. The leading reason for voters to back the sexist, homophobic, religiously conservative Bolsonaro was anti-incumbent sentiment, a profound dissatisfaction with the political status quo.
Once in office, Bolsonaro threatened to pack the Supreme Court with his supporters and, when that failed, to ignore its rulings. He praised the country’s past military dictatorship and threatened to send troops into the streets to restore “order.” He ramped up the disastrous deforestation of the Amazon. Like Trump, he failed to address the Covid-19 pandemic, pushing Brazil to the top of the list of countries with the most fatalities (after the United States and Russia).
There were plenty of protests against Bolsonaro. But his allies in Congress provided a legislative shield against impeachment. Which meant that the most effective form of resistance turned out to be judicial. And that judicial resistance largely boiled down to one person, Alexandre de Moraes, a member of the country’s Supreme Court. As Jon Lee Anderson explains in The New Yorker:
After Bolsonaro took office, in 2019, de Moraes led an ever-expanding series of investigations into him and his family. As Bolsonaro’s supporters formed “digital militias” that flooded the internet with disinformation—claiming that political opponents were pedophiles, spreading blatant lies about their policies, inventing conspiracies—de Moraes fought to force them offline. Granted special powers by the judiciary, he suspended accounts belonging to legislators, business magnates, and political commentators for posts that he described as harmful to Brazilian democracy.
These actions went a long way toward constraining Bolsonaro’s power and reducing his overall popularity, so that by the time the next elections rolled around in 2022, the strongman lost his reelection bid.
U.S. Supreme Court justices don’t have the same kind of power as their Brazilian counterparts. The court as a whole has an even more limited ability to constrain the Trump administration if the latter decides not to implement the decisions it doesn’t like. It’s also going to be difficult to rein in Trump’s digital militias, given Elon Musk’s control of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg’s capitulation to Trump over at Facebook.
But one lesson from the Brazilian case is the need to launch immediate investigations into government corruption and misconduct. This can be done in the United States by way of congressional requests for reports by the Congressional Research Service, which for instance deemed the defunding of USAID to be unconstitutional, or to the Government Accountability Office, which has been tasked to study the impact of the mass firings of federal workers. Lawmakers can also hold informal hearings on the unconstitutional actions of DOGE and the executive branch.
Don’t wait and play a defensive game. Be as bold as the Brazilians against Bolsonaro and go on the offensive.
Displacing Law and Justice
The right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS) took electoral advantage of the discontent of Polish voters, particularly in the countryside, who had not benefited from the country’s rush to capitalism after 1989. Poland A did well by the liberal reforms; Poland B didn’t and took revenge at the polls by voting for PiS.
Like Donald Trump and his MAGA forces, PiS had a first taste of power when it governed for two years in a coalition government and didn’t accomplish much. When it came roaring back in 2015, PiS knew exactly what to do. First, it went after the courts. PiS was determined to destroy the country’s constitutional order and remake Polish society according to conservative, nationalist, and religious principles.
The first target was the constitutional court, which had blocked PiS initiatives in that first administration. As Christian Davies writes:
The ruling party’s strategy played out in three parts: First, to deny opposition-appointed judges from taking their place on the court. Second, to pass laws designed to paralyze the court and prevent it from functioning effectively. Third, to force through the appointment of judges loyal to the ruling party. All this was done in open defiance of the law, the constitution, and multiple rulings issued by the Tribunal itself.
This attack on the judiciary, which was also accompanied by assaults on the media, free speech, and nonprofit organizations, precipitated a battle with the European Union, which put pressure on the Polish government to reverse its judicial “reforms.” But with the courts now aligned with its agenda, PiS looked as though it would consolidate its power indefinitely. In the 2019 elections, it even expanded its legislative majority in the lower house of parliament.
Four years later, thanks to its control of the media and other methods of rigging political outcomes, PiS again came out on top in the 2023 parliamentary elections with 35% of the vote. But this time, three opposition parties were able to unite to sideline PiS and form a new government. Poland’s constitutional crisis had come to an end.
How did the Polish opposition manage to beat a clearly still-popular party?
Perhaps the E.U. pressuring from the outside might have helped. But part of the PiS base was Euroskeptical, so the party could use E.U. pressure to rally its nationalist supporters.
More influential was the ability of the Polish opposition to overcome its fractiousness and bring together leftists, liberals, Solidarity true believers, traditional conservatives, and interest-group advocates like environmentalists and pro-choice feminists. In 2015, after the PiS government refused to follow a Constitutional Court verdict, major street protests broke out and a journalist called for a new civic movement patterned after the communist-era dissident group, the Committee for the Defense of Workers (KOR). “We have to remember, the goal isn’t to overturn the legally elected authorities of the country, but rather the defense of democracy,” the journalist wrote.
Out of this ferment came the Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KOD), which organized a series of massive protests around the country. Within a few months, it had garnered the support of 40% of the population. Because it wasn’t a party, KOD could appeal to a large segment of the population that had become disgusted with electoral politics. It successfully promoted the message that PiS was no ordinary party pushing for an ordinary platform of policies. Rather, PiS was a threat to the very legacy of the Solidarity movement that had liberated the country.
The United States needs just such a nonpartisan umbrella organization that can appeal to the largest swath of the anti-Trump community. Let’s call it the Society Organized to Save American Democracy (SOSAD). It stands for mom, baseball, apple pie, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, fairly compensated work, equal rights for all: in short everything that makes America truly great.
Reversing a Coup
To overcome a parliament that blocked his policies, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on the evening of December 3, 2024. The president ordered police to seal off the parliament and special forces to enter the building.
But the coup lasted for only a few hours. Enough members of parliament managed to get into the building that night and hold a vote to lift martial law. Meanwhile, spurred by news spread rapidly by electronic means, citizens began to gather in public places to protest Yoon’s actions.
South Koreans saved their democracy because of brave legislators and determined civil society activists. The country has a long history of civic engagement, going back to the democratization movement of the 1970s and 1980s and efforts to bring down former President Park Geun-Hye through months of candlelight vigils.
The defense of democracy perhaps feels more urgent in countries where it’s not taken for granted.
“The speed of this latest democratic defense suggests that lessons learned during decades of mobilization have strengthened South Korea’s institutional guardrails and nationwide vigilance against executive abuse,” writes Darcie Draudt-Véjares.
This month, the country’s constitutional court upheld the parliament’s impeachment and officially removed Yoon from office.
The lessons from the South Korean case are clear. U.S. legislators have to step up—as Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) did with his 25-hour filibuster and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have been doing with their recent rallies. Meanwhile, civil society must organize rapid responses, not just within silos (like the recent letter from university presidents) but across institutions.
One key lesson from the South Korean experience is the role of labor. After Yoon’s martial law announcement, the main trade union confederation immediately called for a general strike until the president stepped down. The prospect of a significant hit to the Korean economy was a wake-up call for many who hadn’t yet made up their minds about Yoon.
U.S. labor has had a love-hate relationship with Trump. Many labor leaders refused to back the candidate even as support among rank-and-file members surged. Several key unions—Teamsters, UAW—have been enthusiastic about Trump’s tariffs.
Any opposition to Trump must appeal to working people who feel ignored and undervalued by politicians and the elite. They are a core part of Trump’s support, but they are certainly persuadable. When the costs of Trump’s actions begin to rise—at the pump, in the grocery store, through reduced checks from Medicare and Medicaid—they may well be ready for a political change.
Why were Poles, Koreans, and Brazilians able to turn back authoritarianism where others have failed? All three have histories of strong civil society engagement in politics. All three had credible leaders—Donald Tusk, Lee Jae-myung, Lula—who could step in as alternatives.
And all three countries have had rather short experiences of democratic rule. In 1981, South Koreans were living in the shadow of martial law, which had been declared the previous year. Poles entered a martial law period in December of that year. And Brazilians were living under a military dictatorship that wouldn’t collapse until 1985.
The defense of democracy perhaps feels more urgent in countries where it’s not taken for granted. So far, America is failing the stress test that Trump is applying to the country’s democratic institutions. But if Americans are willing to learn some lessons from Brazil, Poland, and Korea, maybe we can defeat the dragon as well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nation of Sheep? Trump's Fascist Tactics Working All Too Easily
Where are the nationwide protests? The national strikes against the destruction of what is left of U.S. democracy? As for the eerie complacency of the Democrats, it is hardly surprising why there is such a huge loss of trust in the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Apr 18, 2025
Trump’s historic first 100 days are just around the corner. How is the U.S. doing? What are the global implications, including for climate and the environment, of Trump’s policies to create a “new world order” and “Make America Wealthy Again? In the interview that follows with independent French-Greek journalist Alexandra Boutri, political scientist/political economist, author and journalist C.J. Polychroniou argues that both the future of U.S. democracy and of humanity as a whole are at great risk because of an ignorant, self-serving autocrat at the helm of the world’s most powerful nation.
Alexandra Boutri: Trump’s first 100 days are nearing the end. What have we learned so far about Trump’s second term and his direction for the country?
C. J. Polychroniou: The first thing that ought to be said is that there are significant differences between Trump’s first and second terms. This time he has a much clearer agenda, largely thanks to Project 2025, and is better prepared to see it through to the end. The aim is to undo race and gender progress, restore white dominance, deregulate the economy and use whatever means are available to further enrich the super-rich, and use economic coercion to secure U.S. hegemony. It’s a thoroughly anti-democratic, blatantly neofascist vision that spells serious trouble for the future of democracy, especially given America’s fragile democratic convictions. Indeed, one of the most shocking things so far is the ease with which the country is heading toward a 21st century version of fascism under Trump’s second term.
One of the most shocking things so far is the ease with which the country is heading toward a 21st century version of fascism under Trump’s second term.
This disturbing development speaks volumes of the weaknesses of the U.S. labor movement as well as of the overwhelmingly apolitical nature of civil society. Where are the nationwide protests? The national strikes against the destruction of what is left of U.S. democracy? As for the eerie complacency of the Democrats, it is hardly surprising why there is such a huge loss of trust in the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Alexandra Boutri: Are we witnessing a revolution in the making?
C. J. Polychroniou: With regard to what Trump is doing to American society and its institutions, the right word is “counterrevolution.” Trump is carrying out a fascist destabilization of society in order to stop a progressive agenda, establish new forms of political legitimacy, and suppress, if not eliminate, threats from below. With regard to foreign affairs, he sees the world as a zero-sum game. But it would be naïve to think that what he is after are the interests of the average American citizen. Trump has nothing but contempt for working people. He is both after a world order and an economic regime at home that enriches corporations and the ultrawealthy at the expenses of the many.
Trump is carrying out a fascist destabilization of society in order to stop a progressive agenda, establish new forms of political legitimacy, and suppress, if not eliminate, threats from below.
Alexandra Boutri: Why is the Trump administration so keen in controlling education and taking over cultural institutions, such as the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts?
C. J. Polychroniou: Exerting power over education, taking control of cultural institutions and silencing the press are primary aims of every self-respecting authoritarian regime that wishes to take over civil society in order to transform a country’s political landscape and colonize the consciousness of its citizens. Mussolini did so in Italy; Hitler in Germany; Franco in Spain; and even the colonels of Greece. What Trump and the thugs surrounding him are doing are precisely just that: they are trying to suppress ideas they despise, silence dissent, and convert citizens into a nation of sheep. Fascist goals, fascist tactics. Pure and simple. And, sadly enough, he seems to be doing it with great ease as a huge portion of the American citizenry has already been turned into a nation of sheep. Now it's only up to that small but courageous community of American dissenters and radicals to stand up to the ignorant and stupid autocrat.
Alexandra Boutri: China is standing up to Trump’s bullying tariffs, but the same cannot be said about Europe. Why is that?
C. J. Polychroniou: You have here two entirely different situations. China is a single, unified country. The European Union (EU) is a group of 27 independent countries with different histories, cultures, languages, customs, and interests. These member states work together to promote peace, security and economic efficiency. But the EU lacks a unified military and a centralized fiscal authority. Moreover, Europe is more dependent on trade than either China or the U.S. And since the end of the Second World War, Europe’s defense is also too reliant on the U.S. It is thus hardly surprising that EU senior officials have been desperately trying since the start of Trump’s tariff actions to appear conciliatory and even willing to bend over backwards to appease America’s new King. They were forced to impose new tariffs on specific U.S. products in retaliation for Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. But don’t forget that Trump even rejected EU’s offer to drop tariffs. And, of course, the EU has now paused its countermeasures on U.S. trade tariffs as a response to the U.S. delaying by 90 days its so-called reciprocal tariffs.
China is not backing down because it can afford to do so. Its leadership knows that it can deal with the side effects of a trade war far more effectively--and less painfully--than the U.S. can. The extent to which Trump seems to understand the realities of the U.S.-trade relationship, let alone of the mechanisms that the Chinese government has at its disposal to deal with economic side effects, is highly questionable.
Indeed, it’s safe to say that a U.S. trade deal with Europe will eventually take place no matter what. Italy’s neo-fascist but politically savvy prime minister Giorgia Meloni may be able to secure an EU-U.S. trade deal in a fashion that no top EU official could, perhaps only because Trump is smitten with her. But what happens with China is anyone’s guess. There are both economic and geopolitical considerations behind Trump’s hostility towards China. And the Chinese no longer view their country as a semi-peripheral country in the global capitalist world. China’s global influence is growing, so its leaders are not going to be intimidated by Trump’s chicken game over tariffs.
Alexandra Boutri: One last question. How would Trump’s energy and deregulation policies impact the fight for climate change?
C. J. Polychroniou: When all is said and done, this is the most important issue of all facing the future of humanity. We have a planet on the precipice. I hate to sound pessimistic, but the odds are already stacked against us. Trump’s manic energy and deregulation policies, which come on top of a mania to deny climate change, will make the task of net-zero emissions by 2050 simply impossible to achieve.
We have a planet on the precipice. I hate to sound pessimistic, but the odds are already stacked against us.
I say this because Trump’s energy and deregulation policies will encourage other fossil-fuel hungry nations to continue with the further exploration and consumption of the poisons that are destroying the planet. In addition, and indicative of what’s happening on the ground with regard to the fight against global warming, a new study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst reveals that “governments throughout the world continue to subsidize both the consumption and production of oil, coal, and natural gas.” Overall fossil fuel subsidies, for 2023, amounted to $1.1 trillion. Obviously, such a staggering amount in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry seems to indicate that governments across the world only have worries about short-termism and think very little about the future of humanity. But that’s what capitalism is all about, isn’t it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy