

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Looking back at exemplary moments of American liberalism to counter MAGA rhetoric is an entirely understandable and even comforting move to make, but there is no golden age to return to.
Stephen Miller misses no opportunity to exult in racism and xenophobia. Friday’s Common Dreams headline gets right to the point regarding Miller’s most recent offense: “’Horrible Racist’ Stephen Miller Slammed for Using Classic TV Christmas Special to Bash Immigrants.”
Apparently Miller spent Christmas day watching a 1967 holiday special called “Christmas with The Martins and The Sinatras” and, being the miserable misanthrope that he is, the show—featuring Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, two very famous children of first-generation Italian Americans—prompted him to wax nostalgic about a world in which America was Great and there was no mass immigration. Everything that Miller says or does deserves outrage, and his X post was no exception. One form the justified outrage has taken recently crossed my Facebook feed:

The Sinatra video that has gone viral is a clip from a 10-minute film short that premiered in November, 1945 called “The House I Live In.” It’s a powerful film, featuring a young and very charismatic Sinatra both speaking and singing against bigotry and for toleration and cultural pluralism.
The film begins with Sinatra, playing himself, in the studio recording a love song. He then takes a break, goes outside, and encounters a group of boys on an unnamed American city street who are very much modeled on Hollywood’s 1940s “Dead End Kids.” He finds them taunting a young, somewhat different-looking boy who is pretty clearly Jewish, and stops to interrupt the taunting and to engage them in conversation about the meaning of “America.”
When the boys inform him that they are bullying the (Jewish) boy because “we don’t like his religion,” Sinatra teases them: “You must be a bunch of those Nazi werewolves I’ve been reading about.” When one of the boys incredulously suggests he is “screwy” to think this, Sinatra replies: “Not me, I’m an American.” When the boys insist that they too are Americans, and one of them volunteers that his father had indeed been wounded in the war, Sinatra points out that the dad had probably needed a blood transfusion, and then points to the excluded boy: “Maybe his pop’s blood saved your dad’s life.”
Sinatra then delivers a monologue:
Look fellas. Religion makes no difference, except maybe to a Nazi or somebody who’s stupid. Why, people all over the world worship God in many different ways. God created everybody. He didn’t create one people better than another. Your blood’s the same as mine, mine’s the same as his. Do you know what this wonderful country is made of? It’s made up of a hundred different kinds of people and a hundred different ways of talking. A hundred different ways of going to church. But they’re all American ways. Wouldn’t we be silly if we went around hating people because they comb their hair different than ours?... My dad came from Italy. But I’m an American. But should I hate your father because he came from Ireland or France or Russia? Wouldn’t I be a first-class fathead?
He then tells them a story about how, after Pearl Harbor, American airmen had inspired the entire country by bravely bombing a Japanese battleship: “They sank it, and every American threw his head back and felt much better. The pilot of that ship was named Colin Kelly, an American and a Presbyterian. And you know who dropped the bombs? Meyer Levin, an American and a Jew. You think maybe they should have called the bombing off because they had different religions?”
Sinatra then heads back to the recording studio. But before entering, he stops to sing for the boys the song he is recording inside, “The House I Live In.” Here are the lyrics:
What is America to me?
A name, a map, the flag I see,
A certain word, "Democracy."
What is America to me?
The house I live in,
A plot of earth, a street,
The grocer and the butcher
And the people that I meet,
The children in the playground,
The faces that I see;
All races, all religions,
That’s America to me.
A place I work in
A worker by my side
A little town or city
Where my people lived and died
The howdy and the handshake
The air of feeling free
And the right to speak my mind out
That’s America to me
The things I see about me
The big things and the small
The little corner newsstand
And the house a mile tall
The wedding and the churchyard
A laughter and the tears
And the dream that’s been a growing
For 180 years
The town I live in
The street, the house, the room
Pavement of the city
Or a garden all in bloom
The church, the school, the clubhouse
The millions lights I see
But especially the people
That’s America to me.
Sinatra then smiles, returns to the studio, and the boys walk off together, inviting the Jewish kid to join them, while the music of “America the Beautiful” plays in the background.
The film is very powerful and uplifting. It is emblematic of the spirit of American liberalism in the immediate aftermath of WWII, a spirit perhaps symbolized by the stardom of Sinatra, the child of working-class Italian immigrants who grew up in Hoboken, New Jersey. Critics of Miller, and of President Donald Trump, are right to invoke the film, and to evoke the idealism of Rooseveltian liberalism, as a reproach to MAGA xenophobia.
At the same time, there are at least three important ways that the film exemplifies the limits of Rooseveltian idealism and the depth of the forms of illiberalism repudiated in the very lyrics of “The House That I Live In”—forms of illiberalism with which we are still reckoning today.
The first relates to the political circumstances surrounding the song itself. The music was written by Earl Robinson, a composer and folk musician from Seattle who belonged to the Communist Party from the 1930s through the 1950s; collaborated with Paul Robeson, Pete Seeger, and other well-known leftist artists and performers; and was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. And the lyrics were written by Lewis Allan, the pseudonym of Abel Meeropol, also a Communist at the time, who also composed the lyrics to “Strange Fruit,” the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday, and later adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after their parents were executed as Soviet agents in 1953.
Robinson and Meeropol were two of the hundreds of writers, artists, musicians, and performers who made seminal contributions to American culture during the 1930s and 1940s in connection with the Popular Front, described by historian Michael Kazin as “a vigorously democratic and multiracial movement in the arts and daily life that was sponsored but not controlled by the Communist Party.” The patriotic rhetoric of “The House I Live In”—both the song and the film—bears the traces of Popular Front leftism even as the connections to the left, and to anti-capitalism, were as disguised, and erased, as the actual name of the lyricist.
The second is the way in which the film’s repudiation of antisemitism, and its message of tolerance, is advanced—through an understandable anti-fascist patriotism that is juxtaposed to evil “Nazi werewolves” and invading “Japs.” Sinatra’s uplifting story of the bombing of the Japanese battleship Hiruma three times uses the racist term “Japs.” Erased from the story are some very memorable recent events: the wartime incarceration of well over 100,000 Japanese Americans; the 1945 American fire-bombing of Tokyo that killed over 100,000 Japanese civilians; and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, months before the film’s release. (It is worth nothing that the film’s producer-director, Mervyn Leroy, also produced the 1944 film “30 Seconds Over Tokyo,” a glorification of the 1942 “Doolittle Raid,” the first US bombing of Tokyo, starring Spencer Tracy). The film’s valorization of American democracy is thus linked to a racially-tinged narrative of American innocence with increasingly illiberal ramifications as the Cold War evolved.
And there is, finally, the striking fact that while Sinatra powerfully gives voice to the idea that “God created everybody, he didn’t create one people better than another,” and that “your blood’s the same as mine, mine’s the same as his,” every person in the film—Sinatra, the boys, the studio orchestra—is white.
To point these things out is not to disparage “The House I Live In,” a very important cultural creation that contained genuinely progressive elements while also condensing some of the contradictions of its time. It is simply to note the complexity of the recurrent historical contests over what it means to be “an American,” and the lack of innocence of even the most appealing episodes of the past. Trumpism is xenophobic, racist, deeply anti-liberal, and literally reactionary. Looking back at exemplary moments of American liberalism to counter MAGA rhetoric is an entirely understandable and even comforting move to make. Rewatching “The House I Live In” this holiday season was genuinely uplifting for me. But post-WWII liberalism at its height was no Golden Age, and we can no more return to it than we can to the time of Andrew Jackson, or William McKinley, or 1920s racist Madison Grant, or George Wallace, or Bull Connor, or whoever it is that warms Stephen Miller’s deformed and shriveled heart.
If the first 25 years of the 21st century have proved anything, it is that America was emotionally, morally, and intellectually incapable of acting as a global leader.
It is tempting to distill all the chaos, hatred, and blood spilled in 2025 into the small frame of one man: Donald Trump.
It is true that Trump richly deserves the accolade of being the worst, but also the most consequential president in modern US history.
This president has bombed Iran, allowed Israel to invade Southern Syria, finished the decimation of Gaza, and embarked on the annexation of the occupied West Bank. The Emirati-funded and armed ethnic cleansing of Sudan means little to him. A death toll of up to half a million Sudanese is of no consequence.
Three months after unveiling his "big beautiful peace plan," a reality is established on the ground in Gaza that is its parametrical opposite—an ugly, petty recipe for war without end.
Never has so much been expected of a mind that is truly so small.
Israel is not even content to leave over 2 million Palestinians in Gaza shivering and starving in tents. When storms flooded them out, Israelis cheered.
Killing Palestinians has become an Israeli national obsession.
Israel Katz, the defense minister, has just announced plans to settle northern Gaza permanently: “We are deep inside Gaza and we will never leave all of Gaza; there will be no such thing. We are here to protect and prevent what happened," Katz said.
So much for any hope of a full withdrawal envisaged by the Trump plan.
Bounced like a pinball between Moscow and Kyiv, Trump has been unable to secure in Ukraine in a year what he promised as a candidate to achieve within days.
When Bob Reiner, a Hollywood director and long-time critic, was killed along with his wife by his son, in a family tragedy so deep it should elicit sympathy from any parent, Trump’s bile could not contain itself.
Reiner’s death was his own fault because he had driven others "crazy" with his obsession with Donald Trump, the president declared on Truth Social.
This is the mentality of the man to whom every rich Arab state in the Middle East has paid good money and now looks to for salvation.
Never has so much been expected of a mind that is truly so small.
This is the man whom Syria expects to force Israel to stop arming the Druze in Sweida, as a Washington Post investigation disclosed.
This is the man whom Turkey hopes will force the Kurds to join the as-yet nonexistent national armed forces of Syria; the man whom Qatar hopes will install an international stabilization force on the borders of Gaza, the man from whom Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear reactor, the man on whom the leader of Egypt—most likely the next Arab leader to fall—depends on for his very survival.
The only power that profits from this chaos is the power that is not involved: The meta story of 2025 is the confirmation of China as crown prince, as a world leader in waiting—a rise that has been handed to it on a silver plate.
More valuable to China than all its own strategic patience, planning, and thinking added together has been the moral collapse of America. All China has had to do is weather Trump’s tariff tantrums and watch the US collapse unprompted under its own weight.
How did the US pluck defeat from the jaws of victory? Arrogance, hubris, the belief that as the last man standing, we were the only man standing, are all part of the story.
So the outgoing liberal elites of America and Europe, who have been in power for so long, are surely deluding themselves if they ascribe the chaos of 2025 to the rise of the extreme right at home and abroad.
We are not only seeing out one terrible year, but the first quarter of the century. It has been a terrible start.
The wars fought in defense of democracy destroyed all belief in the system at home.
If you compare how powerful America and the West were in Christmas 1991, when I watched the Soviet flag descend on the building of the Russian Supreme Soviet and chart a course to where they are now, you can only come to one conclusion: that when America had the chance to become the world’s uncontested leader, it blew it.
In 1991, America held the monopoly over the use of force abroad. Today, there are as many drone attacks as there are state actors or non-state actors who own them.
In 1991, Russia was on its knees. Today, its forces menace not just Ukraine but the whole of Western Europe.
In 1991, the streets of Russia were so pro-Western that there was a debate in the media as to whether they should continue using the word West, as Russia was now part of it.
Today, they are prepared to sacrifice a whole generation of Russian youth in a war that is framed in Moscow as a war with America.
Losing wars is another part of the jigsaw.
The Pentagon and NATO headquarters in Brussels should really have asked themselves a long time ago, why Western alliances "of the willing" have not won a war since Kosovo in 1998.
Interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Syria have all been defeats. Whether those interventions were declared or undeclared, whether they were led from the front or from behind closed doors, the result was the same.
The quick thrill of toppling regimes was followed in each country by the sober reality of insurgency, civil war, and ultimately military withdrawal.
Ideology also played its part. I do not mean the ideology of "radical Islam," but the ideology that made the US and its allies such an aggressive world force.
It goes far beyond 19th-century imperialism, which, by comparison, was fairly limited in its ambitions.
It is the belief that at any one time in history, Western liberal democracy is faced by an implacable, transnational, and existential foe.
During the Cold War, it was communism. After it, al-Qaeda became a world threat. Then came Daesh, or the so-called Islamic State.
Today, it is the Muslim Brotherhood; and soon, it will be Islam itself.
Even though these imagined foes have nothing in common with each other, they are given the same characteristics.
During the Vietnam War, it was the Domino theory, a theory that warned if the dominoes of Southeast Asia were allowed to fall to communism, Australia would be next.
In the days of al-Qaeda, this was replaced by "the crescent of crisis," which stretched from Iraq to Somalia.
This ideology preexisted major events like the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, and helped transform what should have been a limited anti-terrorist operation into an all-out "war on terror."
It was critical to this project that the West did not define the enemy.
Hence, Vladimir Putin’s first bloody war as prime minister and later president of Russia, the war he launched on Chechnya, was merrily folded into George W Bush’s "war on terror."
The then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair was duly sent by Washington to invite Putin to meet Queen Elizabeth II, as the horrors of Russian counterinsurgency were tried out on the Chechens 22 years before the same techniques were applied to the Ukrainians.
But what did it matter, Western intelligence calculated. They were only Muslims.
Now, 25 years on, America seems congenitally incapable of learning from its mistakes.
When Dick Cheney, the former vice president and the architect of the war on terror, died recently, the tributes came in thick and fast.
Former President Bill Clinton extolled Cheney's "unwavering sense of duty," while former Vice President Kamala Harris called him a "devoted public servant" who gave "so much of his life to the country he loved.” CNN's front-page story lauded him for helping "his daughter stand up to Trump."
They praised a man who constructed an elaborate double lie as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he had links with al-Qaeda.
We only need a real financial collapse to recreate the conditions of the 1930s.
In 2004, Cheney said: "I continue to believe, I think there's overwhelming evidence [of a]… connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government."
There have been many attempts to assess the human cost of the Iraq war. The latest in 2023 by Brown University researchers, using United Nations data, concluded that the invasion of Iraq and related "war on terror" campaigns killed more than 4.5 million people.
This figure includes about 1 million direct deaths and 3.5 million indirect deaths. The wars also killed 7,000 US troops and 8,000 contractors, according to the study.
There is something in the psyche of an imperial power in terminal decline that blocks out the obvious truth: The wars fought in defense of democracy destroyed all belief in the system at home.
Even before a new generation of ideologues assumed power in Washington, the old regime of liberal Zionists, like Joe Biden, had armed and allowed Israel to do most of the killing in Gaza, the West Bank, south Lebanon, and Syria.
So, the collapse of moral governance is truly a bipartisan achievement. The year 2025 capped 25 years of failure.
What happens next? It is alas very far from being goodbye to all that, because all of the unfinished business in the Middle East and Ukraine will keep on coming back to haunt the retreating West.
You can only keep on supporting Israel by blinding yourself to the daily reality of what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
Even if Israel changes its prime minister and slows down its settlement scheme, it will become evident that the Palestinian state recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 of the 193 UN member states is impossible to create.
It is to the West Bank, not Gaza, that all eyes should be turning in 2026.
Israel’s mission to annex the West Bank can be as clearly seen through Christian eyes as it is through Muslim ones, as Middle East Eye's Lubna Masarwa and Peter Oborne report on how Christians in Bethlehem face an existential threat.
The pressure on governments by their people will grow. They will do their best to outlaw demands for Palestinian justice. But the more they seek to oppress, the more of a domestic civil rights issue Palestine will become.
The real sin of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has not so much been to keep as close to Washington as possible on Israel, but to establish the infrastructure of an authoritarian government that will be fully used by his potential successor, Nigel Farage.
The late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to grant "special category status" to the 1981 Irish hunger strikers is being replicated today, even though her response led to the death of 10 men, including the MP Bobby Sands, and a government capitulation on the core demand.
No matter.
Lord Timpson, the UK's prisons minister, is intrepidly following in Thatcher's footsteps in the way he is dealing with the hunger strike by youths on remand for taking part in direct action on behalf of Palestine Action.
Timpson said: "We are very experienced at dealing with hunger strikes. Unfortunately, over the last five years, we have averaged over 200 hunger strike incidents every year, and the processes that we have are well-established and they work very well—with prisons working alongside our NHS [National Health Service] partners every day, making sure our systems are robust and working—and they are."
We will see in 2026 how long that confidence in the system lasts if one of those hunger strikers dies. We will also see the divide that has opened up between Israel and the Jewish diaspora getting wider.
If 2025 was the year when the fig leaf around Israel’s true genocidal character dropped away, the first years of the next quarter of this century will be dominated by more Jews in America demanding and creating an entirely different political leadership.
The ideologues of "Israel First" are fighting an ugly and vicious losing battle, and they know it.
This is supposed to be America’s century. If the first 25 years have proved anything, it is that America was emotionally, morally, and intellectually incapable of acting as a global leader.
At the moment that failure is leading to the rise of the extreme right all over the West and potentially the rise of fascists. We only need a real financial collapse to recreate the conditions of the 1930s.
If that, in turn, spurns a new generation of leaders capable once again of governing with authority, morality, and modesty, then it will have been a lesson worth waiting for. But at what price?
By undermining core constitutional legislative processes, authoritarianism supplants democracy, thereby clearing a path to fascism.
After nearly five years of the Trump reign, the siege on democracy intensifies. Citizens have learned much about the intentions and the trajectory of the rebellion. This is not an unconstitutional assault, it is an anti-constitutional assault.
The perpetrators of the coup have also learned a great deal about organizing and escalating their crusade against democracy.
Who would have thought we would be facing the democratic struggle of our lifetime? Well, actually large sectors of our society are all to familiar with this battle; the historically marginalized have always fought to win the fruits of democracy. The Constitution never explicitly mandated economic or political rights for all. Throughout history people achieved their basic rights by relentless effort and at times mortal conflict.
The doctrinal system choreographed by political and economic elites hoodwinked about 30% of adults into believing a willfully ignorant, narcissistic buffoon would protect their interests. Now combine these manufactured perceptions with the barbaric reality that this rich country has never afforded all people access to the power needed for real advancement.
Can a republican government be devised that could withstand the depredations of genuinely despotic leaders?
A toxic storm brews, into the cauldron mix a large economically vulnerable population, an unresponsive and corrupt political system, a carnival barking demagogue and the consequences are obvious.
Malevolent leaders and a malignancy in the system produces an authoritarianism that could metastasize into an American style fascism. In 1919 Irish poet W. B. Yeats, writing about their struggle for democracy against British imperialism, wrote:
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
This paper examines today’s struggle to defend democracy by exploring the existential war on the Constitution, in particular the legislative process, the heart and art of representative government.
The founders constructed a new form of government, one with appreciable democratic attributes albeit with limited public participation. Just ask the enslaved, women, Natives, and other assailed classes.
These men of “property and standing” curiously were interested in the vagaries of human nature, in particular virtue as it related to a new republican form of government. As such a dialectic was formulated about the role of morality in the public sphere—the government and the private sphere—citizens.
To account for human nature, the founders felt virtuous leaders would be needed to influence and guide citizens thereby ensuring a virtuous society. James Madison said as much in Federalist No.10 and No. 57, “sufficient virtue among men for self government… can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” He continued, a constitution requires rulers who possess “wisdom and virtue to pursue the common good…”
This brings us to what this writer calls “Madison’s Nightmare”; can a republican government be devised that could withstand the depredations of genuinely despotic leaders? The founders were a nervous but optimistic bunch. They supported Benjamin Franklin’s plea at the end of the convention “to place trust in our own fallibility,” as such they ratified a constitution they believed would promote public and private virtue.
The Constitution was a pioneering and bold experiment especially in those dark days of monarchy, it was also plagued by undemocratic characteristics. Any fair appraisal recognizes its reliance on imperialism, slavery, the primacy of private property, sexism, racism, and classism.
Essential features lauded as Enlightenment constructs—the Social Contract, Popular Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances—have always been stronger in concept than reality. History has eroded and now with this coup is destroying these foundational principles.
The Social Contract Is in Default: The founder’s theorist, John Locke, devised a deal: The government would provide order and security in exchange for citizen loyalty and compliance. This contract is in default as the government can not or will not provide the security of opportunity for citizen development.
Today the people’s grievances are with a political economy that serves elite interests first and foremost, and with an oligarch masquerading as a champion of the people and democracy.
Sovereignty Isn’t So Popular: Consent of the governed is no longer required. There is a crucial disconnect between what citizens need and what the government is willing to provide. Basic needs go unsatisfied—health, housing, employment, environmental protection, and civil rights.
Powers Are No Longer Separated: The corporate and political state are joined at the wallet by mutual interests. Do not the wealthy elites have a louder political voice to determine polices in each branch and don’t these interlocking interests blunt the independence of each branch?
Checks Don’t Balance: The rule of law is flaunted with galling impunity. Congressional oversight, funding control, advice and consent, and oversight are seriously compromised or outright ignored.
The coup reveals systemic vulnerabilities. Listen to renowned conservative legal lion, retired federal Appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, decry the “end of the rule of law” and how the Constitution “never contemplated and therefore, didn’t ever provide for a process… to withstand an attack from within” (“Judge Warns… Peril,” Michigan Law School, U of Michigan, 9/28/25)
So Madison’s nightmare haunts us.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson enumerated a “long train of abuses,” 28 specific grievances against King George. Today the people’s grievances are with a political economy that serves elite interests first and foremost, and with an oligarch masquerading as a champion of the people and democracy.
As Noam Chomsky reminds us, Adam Smith in his 1776 study, The Wealth of Nations, warned about the “masters of the universe,” the elite corporate class who naturally align with the political elite to run a country. They hold to a “vile maxim” that states “all for ourselves and nothing for other people.”
Today in our country the vile maxim manifests itself in warped budget priorities that give record tax breaks to the rich while ignoring basic human needs. Since the 1980s there has been a $50 trillion transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1%(Price and Edwards, ”Trends in Income…,” Rand, 9/12/20).
How is this remotely a democratic arrangement?
The Trump-Republican coup is ravaging the abilities of our leaders of virtue to defend the constitutional principles that protect us from anti-democratic impulses. This is abundantly evident in the treacherous ways the coup overseers are deliberately crippling traditional legislative functions. This occurs in two distinct ways: by the short-circuiting or bypassing of traditional lawmaking and by destroying the congressional hearing oversight process.
Article II, Sec. I gives the president vague and expansive power to declare an emergency. By doing so some 125 statutory powers are unlocked for the president’s use or misuse. This empowers an autocrat to declare an emergency then sign an executive order that bypasses the will of Congress. President Donald Trump has signed a stunning 440 executive orders, far exceeding his immediate predecessors. These orders, among others, have abolished historic agencies, imposed executive tariffs, and authorized the sacking of thousands of civil servants without due process all the while "saving" Americans from subversive “DEI and woke” policies (See Brennan Center of NYU on “Presidential Emergency Power”).
Other bypass procedures include impoundments, the illegal refusal to spend congressionally authorized funds. Coup kingpins also detour Congress by using “prefab,” canned legislation written by corporate shills like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heritage Foundation. Heritage’s Project 2025 comprises a substantial portion of the Trump agenda. These right-wing entrepreneurs design bills to get national healthcare, public schools, civil and voting rights, and unions off our backs.
The real genius here is the people’s irrepressible desire for justice, not the ability of a government to withstand leaders who lack virtue.
Another innovation in autocracy is the establishing of a shadow government within the government, then hiring a corporate mogul, Elon Musk, to drive it. DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, is a gleefully cruel scheme to eliminate human service programs, fire thousands of civil servants, and “shrink the size of government so it can drown in a bathtub,” as croaked Grover Norquist, a Republican strategist who first surfaced during the Reagan era.
The despots also circumvent normal legislating by concocting an omnibus bill, a massive stew of taxing and spending initiatives too comprehensive and complex for human digestion. Then fast-tracking a vote with little opportunity for debate. The “Big Ugly” budget bill of 2025 was over 1,000 pages and given to members less than 24 hours before the vote.
A vital element in the lawmaking process is Congress’ power to conduct oversight, hearings, and investigations. This is where the “loyal opposition” can exert influence on policy. Today the Republican strategy is obvious, throw a monkey wrench at these duties of accountability.
Trump handmaidens Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel, Department of Defense head Pete Hegseth, and Health and Human Services director Robert Kennedy, et al.—when called to testify before Congress—arrogantly engage in a circus of noncompliance. These toadies offer nonanswers, ad hominem attacks, and audacious lies.
Congressional oversight powers are so mutilated that even diligent and effective Democratic watchdogs such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), et al. are now reduced to mere eloquent barking. Thus the opposition’s oversight powers are fatally neutralized.
Coercion, decrees, mandates, and shakedowns replace analysis, debate, and compromise, which are the usual ingredients for legislating. As Maureen Dowd of the New York Times observed, Trump “rules he does not govern.” By undermining core constitutional legislative processes, authoritarianism supplants democracy, thereby clearing a path to fascism. (Opinion Section, NY Times, 11/9/25)
Historic and contemporary flaws in our political economy, combined with tyrannical leaders, have culminated in the crisis of our lifetime. The structural guardrails are corroded, and leaders of good will struggle to restore what is lost.
This, the wealthiest country in the world, has never adequately addressed the basic security needs of large sectors of our population. Predictably then, our most vulnerable citizens searching for better opportunities become susceptible to the conjurings of a demagogue and to the manipulations of an increasingly unregulated economic and media ecosystem.
Across the nation good people are committed to defending and extending democracy.
While never a vigorous representative democracy, this system has intermittently and begrudgingly responded to citizen initiatives to force the county to live up to its founding ideals. The real genius here is the people’s irrepressible desire for justice, not the ability of a government to withstand leaders who lack virtue. The legacy struggles of our people to win an equal place in society represents the most dynamic and honorable expressions of democracy we have. This country is its most democratic when we fight for it.
Today an impressive percentage of the population is heeding Martin Luther King’s warning: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” Across the nation good people are committed to defending and extending democracy. In these perilous times, the rapid and broadening resistance to the Trump-Republican coup can accelerate the reclaiming and reimagining of democracy in the United States, bringing us to a place where, as Yeats wrote, a “terrible beauty is born.”