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
left-wing
What Progressives Can Learn From Mexico About Avoiding a Right-Wing Backlash
Mexico’s continuity may reflect not only the material results achieved by the government, but also the broader narrative through which those results were understood.
Jun 26, 2026
The recent presidential election in Colombia highlighted a striking political paradox. New data from the country’s national statistics agency shows that the national poverty rate fell to 28% in 2025, the lowest level ever recorded. Nearly 1.8 million Colombians moved out of poverty in a single year, while extreme poverty and income inequality also declined. The figures represent a significant social achievement and continue a multi-year trend of improving living standards.
Yet, despite this advance, Colombians elected right-wing lawyer and businessman Abelardo De La Espriella, whose nationalist and law-and-order platform marks a sharp contrast with the policies of outgoing President Gustavo Petro. The outcome suggests that even significant social and economic progress does not necessarily translate into electoral support for the government that helped produce it.
Nor is Colombia unique. Across the region, electoral cycles have repeatedly shown that social progress does not necessarily produce lasting political loyalty. Similar patterns can be seen in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, and elsewhere in South America, where periods of progressive governance have often been followed by the election of more conservative leaders or governments with markedly different priorities.
Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa offered one explanation for this phenomenon. He argued that when people escape poverty and enter the middle class, many become primarily concerned with preserving their newly acquired status. As a result, they may become less supportive of policies aimed at extending similar benefits to others. Whether or not one accepts this interpretation, it highlights an important political challenge: The very success of progressive social policies may alter the interests, expectations, and priorities of the people they benefit, making long-term political continuity more difficult to sustain.
The very success of progressive social policies may alter the interests, expectations, and priorities of the people they benefit, making long-term political continuity more difficult to sustain.
There is, however, one notable exception: Mexico.
Mexico presents an important counterexample. The presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador was followed by the election of Claudia Sheinbaum, who belongs to the same political movement and has pledged to continue much of the same agenda. Rather than producing a backlash, the governing project maintained broad popular support through a successful leadership transition.
Why Was Mexico different?
Part of the answer may lie not only in policy outcomes but also in political identity. While many progressive governments in South America have defined themselves primarily through ideological labels such as socialism or the left, Mexico’s governing movement increasingly describes itself through the concept of Mexican Humanism. Although its policies share many objectives with progressive governments elsewhere, the language is notably different. Mexican Humanism emphasizes dignity, community, solidarity, and national culture rather than ideological affiliation.
This distinction may matter. Political projects framed primarily in ideological terms can reinforce divisions between supporters and opponents. Projects rooted in shared cultural and ethical values may be better positioned to build identification across traditional political boundaries. From this perspective, Mexico’s continuity may reflect not only the material results achieved by the government, but also the broader narrative through which those results were understood.
The Colombian election therefore raises a broader question for Latin America. If poverty reduction, lower inequality, and improved social indicators are not enough to guarantee political continuity, what is missing? Is the decisive factor economic performance, security, media influence, political organization, or something deeper within a nation’s culture?
Mexico suggests that political durability may depend on more than effective governance alone. It may also require a shared sense of identity and purpose that transcends conventional ideological categories. The most interesting question may not be why some countries move from the left to the right, but why Mexico has not.
This article was first published on Pressenza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colombians Voted Against Their Collective Memory on Sunday
But the support for Ivan Cepeda offers some hope for the country's future.
Jun 23, 2026
It’s still hard to swallow, almost 24-hours after one of the most intense, indeed stressful election days in Colombia that I’ve witnessed, albeit from here in New York.
Colombian right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella does appear to have clinched a very narrow victory in Sunday's presidential election, at least according to the initial ballot count that still needed to be officially verified as of this writing.
De la Espriella had 49.66% of the vote while his rival, Senator Ivan Cepeda, trailed by roughly 250,000 votes at 48.70%, according to the national registrar's tally of just under 100% of ballots in the runoff election.
In trying to make personal sense of the closest presidential elections in recent Colombian history, I can’t help but think that the final results are a reflection of how Colombia has failed to acknowledge its stained history of state-sponsored, politically motivated violence, even ten years after a fragile peace accord was signed that put an end to one aspect of the decades-long conflict.
What we must not take away from this electoral outcome is that de la Espriella is an “outsider” who, by challenging the political status quo in Colombia, will bring something new in his approach to governing the country.
This latest election represents a national rejection—albeit by a very narrow margin—of the policies of “total peace” of the current administration of President Gustavo Petro. The results are an affirmation of and an open call for “total war,” reminiscent of some of the darkest days of the widespread regional violence that occurred throughout the country at the turn of the century and the early stages of this century.
A portion of the Colombian electorate—almost half—continues to view the country’s troubles through a fractured lens of national security, of unrepentant militarism, and of the firm belief in the need to apply the heavy hand of the state to confront criminality. These Colombians have essentially vetoed their collective memory of generational violence, of a civil war whose origins have always been traced back precisely to the lack of a state presence where it is most needed—in a sustainable public health system; in accessible housing and education; in the opportunities that come with equitable distribution of land, the protection of human rights, and universal support for robust democratic participation across the citizenry, regardless of race, class, or political affiliation.
Instead, they’ve voted for a person openly committed to gutting 40% of the already weakened state in all these sectors. De la Espriella has blamed Petro, the former M-19 guerilla leader and outgoing president, for the country's current economic and security troubles. The growth of these armed groups throughout the country in recent years are attributed to Petro’s attempt to negotiate directly an end to the violence during his time in office. Rarely are the policies of Petro’s predecessor, Ivan Duque, mentioned in this context, despite his deliberate efforts to jettison just about every aspect of the 2016 peace accords between FARC and the Colombian government, leading in many ways to the expansion of these groups.
And now, the president-elect has vowed to end all talks with the armed criminal organizations, while boosting the oil and gas sector, lowering taxes for the middle and upper classes, and building massive prisons to detain indefinitely all the criminals they can find in the process, a la strongman Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. He pledges to fortify the military and manage the state security forces with an iron fist, something that will be made much easier by a blank-check insurance policy granted to him by the Trump-Rubio-Hegseth Western Hemisphere doctrine of domination and control.
The opposing candidate of the left-of-center coalition known as Pacto Historico, Senator Ivan Cepeda, 63, had pledged to continue many of the policies of President Petro, the country's first leftist president. Those policies included state pension payments for the poor, union-backed labor reforms, a moratorium on new oil projects, and continued peace talks with armed groups to try to put an end of the ongoing violence. Some analysts think Cepeda should have distanced himself a bit more from Petro on the campaign trail, given how the media openly embraced the Kryptonite narrative that Petro represents for the left in Colombia. Instead, Cepeda, himself the victim of state-sponsored violence, stuck to a set of arguments tied to building peace through social justice, human rights, and most importantly, not returning to the past.
Despite the youthful energy and visible enthusiasm of the very diverse range of supporters who came out for Cepeda’s candidacy, it was not enough to put a pause on the establishment’s profound, almost religious hatred of left-wing leaders with social movement connections, who are almost instantaneously written off as puppets of guerrilla terror, branded threats to the Colombian homeland. In many ways, it’s much like the simplistic MAGA refrain for attacking their opponents as un-American or enemies of the people, except in the Colombian context, it is a recipe for extreme violence, death sentences for many of those on the receiving end.
Over 12 million Colombians did not vote for this reactionary, ahistorical vision for the country. More than 12 million voters placed their bets on a future of peace and dignity for all Colombians.
What we must not take away from this electoral outcome is that de la Espriella is an “outsider” who, by challenging the political status quo in Colombia, will bring something new in his approach to governing the country, a tantalizing myth that somehow caught traction during the campaign in the Colombian corporate press and their counterparts in the US media. De la Espriella may not have the privileged political pedigree of the openly nepotistic tradition that has characterized over a century of Colombian political history, but to call him an outsider in 2026 is to ignore the foundation of his success as a defense attorney, a businessman, and of the fortune that allowed him to fund his campaign independent of the “mainstream” power bosses of the Colombian political elite.
He is an entrenched insider within the right-wing, para-state apparatus that had metastasized like a slow-moving blood cancer into every part of the governing class in Colombia since the early 2000s. This para-state infrastructure was built on the backs of the millions of internally displaced Black, Indigenous, and peasant communities; tens of thousands of forcibly disappeared; and the many innocent civilians murdered in countless massacres that brought fear to the countryside for decades.
While FARC rebels were guilty of much of the violence in Colombia since the mid-1990s, it was the brutal reaction to FARC criminality carried out by the unholy alliance between large landowners, narco-traffickers, and the military that blew the lid open for the widespread terror we saw from 2000 to 2010.
Behind this was a public discourse framed by the term “democratic security,” coined by former two-term President Alvaro Uribe Vélez, and backed wholeheartedly by the US under its Plan Colombia project. It was followed by eventual “negotiations” between the paramilitaries and the Uribe government, as well as a major scandal where it was exposed that almost half of the elected members of Colombia’s Congress had direct ties with the paramilitary organizations that were responsible for the above-mentioned crimes. De la Espriella understood this when he defended many of the paramilitary leaders and narco-traffickers implicated in these crimes. This is an insider who made his mark in this process. There’s no denying this.
The tough-guy approach to national politics that the “Tiger” so openly declared on the campaign trail is the continuation of a long process of authoritarian, right-wing extremism that emerged in the early 1990s, one that sees any opposition to their political, economic, or territorial control of the country as the equivalent of terrorism that must be liquidated militarily. This is the profound danger I see right now in the days, months, and years ahead for Colombia.
Nevertheless, with all these dark clouds on the horizon, for the millions of people who supported Ivan Cepeda in these elections, there is room for some optimism, albeit with considerable caution.
That is the fact that over 12 million Colombians did not vote for this reactionary, ahistorical vision for the country. More than 12 million voters placed their bets on a future of peace and dignity for all Colombians. They hit the streets and attended rallies and posted online videos recalling the darkest days of the war, shouting the names of the victims of this violence, saluting the brave mothers who still demand justice for their sons killed by state security forces.
They did not vote against their collective memory.
They are a very powerful force today, and for the future of Colombia.
They will not be backing down any time soon.
For they’ve faced the barrel of many guns in the past, and they’re still here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Will Colombia Be the Next Country to Embrace Right-Wing Authoritarianism?
The pattern set by Trump in the US, Milei in Argentina, Bukele in El Salvador, Noboa in Ecuador, and now Asfura in Honduras, seeks to replicate itself with Abelardo de la Espriella in Colombia.
Jun 01, 2026
The results that began to surface around 5:30 pm Sunday May 31 of this year in the first round of the Colombian presidential elections left many perplexed, as Abelardo “El Tigre” de la Espriella, won an uncanny number of votes, 10,359,902 as of this writing, over 670,000 votes above the front-runner Ivan Cepeda and his vice-presidential partner Aida Quilcué, with 9,687,508 votes. Paloma Valencia and her running mate Daniel Oviedo came in a distant third, much weaker than expected with 1,639,421 votes. Sergio Fajardo, the perennial symbolic centrist candidate, came in with 1,008,864 votes. The blank vote came in fifth with 406,955 votes, while Claudia Lopez, the neoliberal former Bogotá mayor, scrounged 225,480 votes, just above Santiago Botero’s 206,128. Mauricio Lizcano came in eigth with a handsome 53,839 votes. The remaining 50,000 votes were shared among a handful of remaining candidates.
Ivan Cepeda questioned the results shortly after the first round was called: “There is a discrepancy that we want to verify with respect to the electoral results. This isn’t just any old discrepancy. We are talking about 885,000 people or ID numbers.” He added, “There is information that indicates atypical votes from an undetermined number of tables. [...] Let us emphasize that only when the commission analysts clarify this discrepancy clearly and rigorously, will we share our conclusions on the results of this election.”
The electoral commission is required to clarify the situation within 72 hours. Similar concerns were raised after the March primaries and congressional elections, when 600,000 votes were recovered by Cepeda's party after they flagged irregularities, leading to 20 additional congressional seats.
Out of approximately 24,000,000 votes cast in the first round, the challenge will be how to get the 3 million or so votes in play, while also mobilizing new voters for the second round. Paloma Valencia, formerly the chosen successor of Alvaro Uribe, has already endorsed Uribe’s new horse (tiger?) Abelardo de la Espriella for the second round of the race, presumably giving him close to 11,000,000 votes for the second round. However, Valencia’s running mate, Daniel Oviedo, has indicated he will not support de la Espriella. Where his nearly 1,000,000 voters from the march primaries will align remains uncertain. He was a kind of neoliberal semi-progressive centrist before aligning with the heiress of the paramilitary political tradition in Colombia. Ironically, Valencia, in her attempt to appear centrist, seems to have lost more votes to de la Espriella than she gained from Oviedo. In the immediate aftermath of the first round results, Sergio Fajardo was coy about where he would try to direct his million-plus votes. If they were to go to Cepeda, he would be in striking distance of de la Espriella. Claudia Lopez’s votes would be an additional boost to whomever she endorses, while Santiago Botero’s 200,000 votes will likely go to de la Espriella, due to his narrow political profile as a businessman accused of domestic violence.
In the background, questions lurk about US intrusion, after threats made by President Trump and Colombian-born Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) toward Colombia as a whole if they vote the left back into office.
In 2022 Gustavo Petro won 8,542,000 votes in the first round, more than 2,000,000 votes behind the combined right-wing frontrunners, Rodolfo Hernández and Federico Gutiérrez. In the second round, he increased his vote count to 11,281,013, an increase of more than 2,700,000 votes from the first round. This means the focus over the next three weeks will be on turnout, beyond the jostling and backroom negotiations for support from the rest of the first-round candidates. Whoever can increase their turnout more dramatically will be the victor, assuming a clean election.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a Jekyll and Hyde character construction: imagine Alan Dershowitz wrapped up in the Batman comic book version of The Joker, in a bipolar bind with billionaire Bruce Wayne.
Of the current right-wing authoritarian archetypes, de la Espriella fits neatly between the evil clown, represented by President Donald Trump and Argentinian President Javier Milei, and the sadistic heir represented by presidents Nayib Bukele and Daniel Noboa (and Trump) in El Salvador and Ecuador (and the US), respectively. You could also say he is a non-senile version of Rodolfo Hernandez, the “outsider” right-wing real estate tycoon candidate who “surprised” the right-wing establishment by coming in second for the first round of the 2022 elections, which Petro ultimately won.
De la Espriella became wealthy while representing the dregs of Colombian high society, paramilitaries, cocaine capos, money launderers, pyramid schemers, mass murderers, and the like. In the carefully produced image de la Espriella has cultivated over the course of the campaign, he flaunts his lavish lifestyle, always with a twist of misogyny, while promising Nayeb Bukele-style policies, including persecution of the left, 10 new maximum security prisons, and Mileiean cuts of 40% of the public sector.
The pattern set by Trump in the US, Milei in Argentina, Bukele in El Salvador, Noboa in Ecuador, and now Asfura in Honduras, seeks to replicate itself with de la Espriella in Colombia.
Ivan Cepeda is a philosopher and politician, whose father was assassinated in 1994 as a senator for the Union Patriotica during a genocidal purge of the left-leaning political party by the same mafia elite that de la Espriella made his name defending. Cepeda has spent much of his time as a congressman, revealing the crimes of de la Espriella’s forebear, ex-president and paramilitary boss Alvaro Uribe, and aligning with popular President Gustavo Petro’s political economic program, which has initiated the process of land restitution to victims of Colombia’s decades-long civil war, and raised minimum wages in a country with the fifth most extreme wealth disparity on the planet. That is down from the third most extreme wealth disparity Colombia claimed leading out of the previous (Uribista) Duque administration into the Petro administration.
Cepeda recognizes that the road out of extreme wealth inequality requires the long-term continuity of a political project that makes solving this most fundamental of socioeconomic problems its top priority. Cepeda’s proposals build on the groundwork laid by the Petro coalition, seeking to expand public education and healthcare, while continuing the redistribution of land to millions of Colombians displaced by decades of the armed conflict promoted for so many years by Uribe and his mafia.
In the background, questions lurk about US intrusion, after threats made by President Trump and Colombian-born Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) toward Colombia as a whole if they vote the left back into office. The recordings released by HONDURASGATE and Red Diario of former Honduran president and convicted drug and weapons trafficker, Juan Orlando Hernandez, paint a picture of a US-Israel backed plan to topple left-wing governments in the region, with a particular focus on Colombia and Mexico, to pave the way for mafia states to ensure easy access by US and Israeli multinational corporations to oil and gas and key minerals for the construction of their rapidly expanding techno-fascist infrastructure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s New 'Counterterrorism' Strategy Is a Sweeping Attack on Domestic Dissent
The administration is using national security as a pretext to target protesters, civil rights groups, and vulnerable communities. Here is how we fight back.
May 15, 2026
On May 6, 2026, the Trump administration released its latest conspiracy-laden attack on “the left,” this time in the form of a “counterterrorism strategy". While laughably lacking in evidence or regard for laws, the “strategy” will have serious, deadly consequences. It sets our country’s counterterror apparatus and racist, anti-Muslim goals against the Global South, Europe, and all those here at home who have the nerve to demand their rights and oppose full-fledged autocracy.
In this post, I will focus on the domestic implications, although the global impacts are both frightening and impossible to fully separate, as the strategy conflates everything from domestic resistance movements to people with disfavored ideologies to drug trafficking with international terrorism.
The strategy is authored by Sebastian Gorka, a known anti-Muslim bigot whom former counterterrorism officials pan as “ill-informed” and a “huckster.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this so-called “strategy” is basically a cocktail of fearmongering and post-9/11 playbook, but on steroids. It incorporates and expands on the president’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, which casts a sweeping set of dissenting views as (domestic) terrorism, plays up fears of a “new alliance” between leftists and “Islamists,” and completely ignores the documented threats of right-wing and white supremacist extremists.
This is all hauntingly familiar. For generations, federal agencies have surveilled, monitored, and targeted Black, immigrant, Muslim, Middle Eastern, Asian, Indigenous, and other people of color, using surveillance as a tool of intimidation and enforcement that deepens racial inequities instead of making people safer.
Communities that have historically borne the brunt of government overreach will once again suffer the greatest harm. But this sweeping attack on dissent affects everyone, threatening the foundations of our free society.
For example, the strategy promises to wield massive law enforcement, surveillance, and other counterterror powers to “map” and "neutralize" groups it describes as "anti‑American, radically pro‑transgender, and anarchist." In the post-9/11 era, the New York Police Department attempted to map all Muslims and their institutions in the Tri-State Area, for which Muslim Advocates, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Gibbons P.C. successfully sued in 2012. We have long seen our community and sacred spaces violated by informants and oppressive surveillance.
The document also states that the US government will "[i]dentify terror actors and plots before they happen,” (emphasis added) which sounds dystopian, but is the same false logic underlying the notorious Countering Violent Extremism program that targeted American Muslims in the post-9/11 era.
In Gorka's reported comments to the press, he doubled down on targeting "ideology” and preventive policing: “We see a threat… we will crush it, whether it is the cartels, the jihadists, or violent left-wing extremists like antifa and like the transgender killers, the non-binary, the left-wing radicals.”
These practices have caused lasting trauma and generational impact for Muslims, stifling our religious and political expression and wrecking intra-community trust. Now the government is wolfishly expanding while few seem to notice. Gorka himself said, “We are moving so fast, they just can’t keep up with us, which is delicious.”
A Sweeping Attack on Dissent
Indeed, the breadth of attacks on protesters, dissenters, and civil rights organizations is overwhelming. A few examples:
- This administration slandered Renee Good and Alex Pretti as domestic terrorists after its own officers shot each of them dead in broad daylight, contravening overwhelming bystander and video evidence.
- Prairieland case: Eight anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protesters were convicted of material support for terrorism; raided; and had their flyers, zines, and use of encrypted chats cited in the indictment as evidence of their connection to terrorism.
- “Domestic terrorist” database: In January, an ICE officer told a legal observer, “[W]e have a nice little database, and now you're considered a domestic terrorist." When pressed at a congressional hearing, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons denied that a database of American “domestic terrorists” exists, but in a subsequent hearing, former Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to deny it.
- In late April, federal prosecutors indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has documented violent white supremacists for decades.
Communities that have historically borne the brunt of government overreach will once again suffer the greatest harm. But this sweeping attack on dissent affects everyone, threatening the foundations of our free society.
What can we do?
Make noise: Call attention to the harms of this counterterror “strategy.” Its release during congressional recess let it fly under the radar, although Ranking Member of House Homeland Security Committee Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) noted its lack of strategy and called again for a hearing with officials. Other elected officials should likewise take action to condemn this latest attack on dissent, demand transparency about its implementation and adherence to the Constitution, and protect our rights.
Congress also has an immediate opportunity to curb vast surveillance powers enabled by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702. Congressional leadership has so far blocked bipartisan efforts to pass a warrant requirement for searches of people in the US, and before accessing our intimate details through data-broker purchases. Lawmakers have until June 12 to enact basic protections for people in the US. This counterterror strategy—along with the recent whispers of its potential use against right-wing dissenters from Trumpism—shows exactly why we must urgently rein in the government's massive counterterror arsenal, starting with 702’s warrantless spy power.
Demand that local governments refuse to cooperate with the federal government, divest and remove surveillance technology, and withdraw from Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF’s), which deputize local law enforcement to do the feds’ bidding and share information pursuant to its permissive interpretations of federal law.
Collectively, we must continue to demand our rights: to protest, to speak, to commune, and to live free from Big Brother—especially Big Brother with a gun. Remember: The overwhelm we feel isn’t an accident; it’s tactical. Refuse to allow the administration’s intimidation tactics to succeed. Our mass, unapologetic refusal to comply, is what’s truly “delicious.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Stop US Wars, Saying No Is Not Enough
The US left needs a foreign policy platform that projects a positive global role for the US and can gain enough popular support to catalyze a deeper resistance to Trump 2.0 and then shape the policy of a post-MAGA government.
Apr 09, 2026
The US-Israeli attack on Iran put an exclamation point on the Gaza genocide. It sent a message to the world from the regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv: We will do anything that our military strength allows us to do. There are no rules or international laws we are bound to respect.
Most European governments, many regimes elsewhere, and major sections of the Democratic Party leadership offer only a few “process objections” to this level of ruthlessness but go with the flow.
This is a road to global catastrophe. Despite the fragile (and welcome) ceasefire, It is accelerating a process that was already underway where every government in the world is deciding that their overriding priority must be increasing their military strength. And that security requires cracking down on opposition movements within their own countries as well.
An Interconnected World
To halt and reverse this course, it is essential but not sufficient to build mass opposition to the war on Iran and all the other evils perpetrated by Washington, The US left also needs a foreign policy platform that projects a positive global role for the US and can gain enough popular support to catalyze a deeper resistance to Trump 2.0 and then shape the policy of a post-MAGA government.
In today’s world, there will be security for no one unless there is security for all.
That vision starts with the reality of an interconnected world where humanity’s very survival is in doubt. Viruses and the fallout from nuclear explosions know no borders. An interruption of supply chains in the Middle East threatens food security across the globe. Destruction in the Amazon Basin wreaks havoc on the climate worldwide.
In today’s world, there will be security for no one unless there is security for all. Weaving the fight for human survival together with peoples’ struggles for self-determination and against all forms of oppression, and with the fight for working class power, workers fighting for their rights, is a complex task. Yet in a world where diplomacy and inter-state cooperation predominate, movements for democracy and social justice have more favorable conditions to achieve their goals.
Without softening our critique of the US-dominated world order that is passing away, developing a forward-looking platform entails assessing the heightened dangers faced under Trump 2.0. It means breaking down the largely artificial division between domestic and foreign policies. When militarism, racism, and misogyny is practiced abroad, these pathologies inevitably come home.
Competing Visions as the Old Order Collapses
Today this quote from Antonio Gramsci is popular throughout the Left: “The old order is dying, and the new one is struggling to be born.” The different factions of the oligarchy are rushing into this “interregnum” to shape what comes next.
MAGA-Trump 2.0 argues that considering values like democracy or human rights when formulating policy is naïve if not treasonous, and that multilateral institutions are simply shackles on US power. It sees staying No. 1 in global “lethality” as the road to safety and prosperity for the “heritage Americans” who will dominate the country after removing or subordinating the various “others” who now live here.
The anti-MAGA wing of the US elite insists that the “rules-based” world order of the last 80 years produced a great American way of life. A few “mistakes” (Vietnam, Iraq) just need to be corrected to get back on the right track. Their program is to preserve NATO and other Cold War-era alliances; keep China at bay; and use “soft power,” sanctions, and “smart wars” to remain the world’s dominant power.
The left has trenchant critiques of the racism and exploitation inherent in both variants of Washington’s imperial project. But we won’t win popular support if we don’t go beyond critique to offer a positive vision of what the world can look like if we are shaping US policy.
Global Cooperation vs. American Exceptionalism
That vision has to address the hopes, fears, and pressing needs of the majority of US people. It has to be compelling enough to counter the American exceptionalist ideology that permeates US culture. Resting on the longstanding position of the US as the hegemonic global power and promoted unceasingly by the political class and mainstream media, the idea that the US is an inherently virtuous nation which always acts as the world’s “good guy” has long defined US “common sense.”
Anti-war and solidarity movements targeting Washington’s role in Vietnam, South Africa, Central America, Iraq, and Palestine have spotlighted the destructive role the US has played in each case. At times, energetic social movements have built mass support for arms control agreements and aggressive steps to fight climate change. But we have yet to win a durable majority to a structural critique of imperial behavior and support for an alternative world order where all countries are on equal footing, conflicts are resolved via diplomacy, and a transition away from fossil fuels is a worldwide priority.
The left has always stressed the common interest of the global majority in fighting imperial exploitation. But in a period when the most dangerous threats to human life—climate change, nuclear war, global pandemics, obscene degrees of inequality—can only be addressed by joint action by all countries, the arguments against American exceptionalism and the way it makes US national sovereignty absolute become stronger and more urgent.
This is a framework that draws on the insight of Albert Einstein at the beginning of the nuclear age (“Everything has changed except our thinking”). It embraces the outlook of the United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which expressed the most advanced thinking in the coalition that defeated fascism in World War II.
Amid a continuing genocide in Gaza and seeing the disaster of the war on Iran, the numbers of people saying “stop” to the guardians of empire is growing by the day. Fanning those flames of opposition and offering these millions a vision to fight for is the combination needed to accumulate the political power to transform the US role in the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can Sheinbaum Avoid A Death Spiral After the El Mencho Killing?
On one hand, demonstrating the ability to confront organized crime may help counter the narrative that progressive governments are soft on violence. On the other, history suggests that decapitation strategies rarely defeat cartels.
Mar 04, 2026
On February 22, 2026, Mexican special forces in Tapalpa, Jalisco, authorized by left-wing President Claudia Sheinbaum and acting on intelligence from the US military, killed Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, Nom de Guerre “El Mencho,” the 59-year-old leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and the most-wanted man in Mexico.
Within hours, the cartel put up roadblocks, arson attacks, and running gun battles across a dozen states, ravaging Tapalpa and other cities. By the time the violence subsided, over 70 people were dead, including 25 Mexican National Guard troops. The entire country is holding its breath as it prepares to enter a new phase of its decades-long Drug War.
Does decapitating a cartel end the Drug War?
The operation was also the culmination of a strategy that Claudia Sheinbaum's predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, had promised to abandon, namely, the militarized war on drugs that since 2006 has left between 350,000 and 400,000 Mexicans dead and more than 130,000 disappeared. Instead, while making some initial welcome gestures, he militarized the Southern Border, created the National Guard, and continued the War on Drugs.
Removing El Mencho may weaken CJNG in the short term. But it could also ignite the next phase of Mexico’s drug war, one that extends far beyond the country’s borders and deeper into the Western Hemisphere.
The Mexican drug war has never been Mexico's responsibility alone. It is the product of an insatiable American thirst for drugs that has only intensified with the opioid crisis, as fentanyl has flooded US streets, claiming tens of thousands of lives annually, with support from Big Pharma. The United States remains the world’s largest consumer market for narcotics; American demand generates billions of dollars annually for trafficking organizations.
Mexican cartels such as the CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel now supply fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin to a US market whose demand keeps increasing, according to new reporting.
American guns are also at the center of this crisis. There are exactly two legal gun stores in all of Mexico, operating under strict military supervision. Across the border, in the four US border states, there are more than 9,000 legal gun sale points.
An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 guns are trafficked from the United States into Mexico each year. Roughly 70% originate north of the border. These include .50-caliber rifles capable of piercing armored vehicles and downing helicopters; many of them were from the American military. A new raid on a CNJG ammo depot revealed that 47% of the ammunition came directly from one US Army plant in Kansas City. That very same ammo was used to kill 13 police officers in Michoacán in 2019.
The CJNG now dominates 23 out of Mexico’s 32 states, with operations stretching from the Pacific Coast all the way to the Northern border. The cartel's estimated worth exceeds $20 billion, drawn not only from drugs but from a diversified portfolio of extortion, petroleum theft, human trafficking, and kidnapping.
It has used extreme force and military-level tactical planning against its rivals, including the state itself. In 2015, it shot down a Mexican military helicopter in Jalisco. It has assassinated mayors, attacked police convoys with improvised armored vehicles, and used drones and explosives against state security forces.
Internally, polls suggest support for the operation is between 80 and 90%. After years of feeling helpless before cartel violence, many Mexicans welcome any action that produces “results.” With this, we see the rise of “penal populism” across Latin America, where electorates increasingly embrace tough-on-crime approaches, even when those approaches destroy democracy and human rights.
The high popularity of El Salvador's right-wing dictator Nayib Bukele, whose approval ratings have hovered around 90%, testifies to the political appeal of iron-fist tactics, regardless of their clear governance costs. Bukele's mass incarceration model, where tens of thousands have been jailed without due process in inhumane conditions where torture is common, has become a model that politicians across the region now invoke, including in Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Peru.
That comes despite his success being predicated on secret deals with gangs, not on a War on Drugs—most countries that have tried his militarized tactics have suffered increases in the violent crime and homicide rates, at the same time as their economies have become increasingly unequal and democratic societies have cratered.
Externally, President Donald Trump has made clear his view that “cartels are runnning Mexico” and that Sheinbaum and other Latin American leaders should go to war with them, otherwise he will do it for them. His administration has designated Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and considered military intervention in Mexico. A US intervention would be disastrous for both Mexico and Sheinbaum, so the El Mencho operation is the price they settled on.
To add insult to injury, this summer, Mexico will host numerous World Cup matches, including four in Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco state. The Sheinbaum government is trying to give the allure of tightening security ahead of the games.
She has modeled aspects of her approach on Brazil. Before the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, Rio de Janeiro launched aggressive “pacification” campaigns in favelas, military occupations that temporarily suppressed violence but failed to address its roots while killing high rates of civilians and eroding civil liberties. The War on Drugs has not stopped there, either. We have to wait and see if Mexico follows this tragic pattern.
Across Latin America, the right has successfully framed security as a question of toughness versus weakness, where, as Bukele would put it, “All the gangs know is violence,” and thus must be met with violence. This framing leaves progressive governments perpetually on the defensive, forced to prove their bravado by adopting policies that at the very least, in theory, fly in the face of leftist principles.
The left's consistent (and successful) approach, emphasizing socioeconomic development, public health interventions, drug decriminalization, negotiation, and targeted intelligence rather than mass militarization, has struggled to gain traction in a climate driven by right-wing narratives and fearmongering.
The fundamental problem is that leftist programs take years to bear actual results, while voters demand immediate security. The right, meanwhile, offers quick and strong-handed solutions that reassure voters. It is harder to kill monsters with microloan programs and harm reduction clinics than with tanks and M-16s.
When Former Mexican President Felipe Calderón launched his war on drugs in 2006, he targeted the Gulf Cartel and its armed wing, Los Zetas. The kingpin strategy eliminates cartel leaders, but each decapitation meant groups splintered, and each splintering produced more violence, creating an endless loop of violence until neoliberal President Enrique Peña Nieto was able to sign pacts with certain gangs before resuming the military approach.
During this period, the number of major cartels grew from about half a dozen to more than 200, operating across the country and the entire world. The homicide rate tripled, while many border cities have homicide rates well over 100 per 100,000. Now, hundreds of thousands are dead as a direct result.
Mexico finds itself once again at this crossroads, where it must choose wisely. El Mencho’s bras droit, “El Tuli,” was killed in a clash with security forces hours after. But, the pattern suggests that new leaders will emerge, and the violence will continue. Cartels are resilient, and can adapt to new leadership, new business structures, and market forces very reactively. Taking out one leader, or even the drug trade, won’t put them out of business.
Left-wing governments have struggled to respond without appearing weak. Some voices, particularly those outside of direct political power like academics, human rights advocates, and a few leftist intellectuals, have pointed out the dangers of returning to kingpin strategies, the inevitability of retaliation, and the way military operations invariably claim civilian lives.
So far, however, the Sheinbaum coalition and the left in Mexico have, for the most part, supported the operation, praying that embracing these shows of force can help the left reclaim dominance over the security debate. But, ceding ground to the right on security might risk alienating the rest of the left; shifting the Overton window to the right; and making politics, rather than policy solutions, determine the direction of Mexico’s Drug War.
Sheinbaum’s operation thus creates a profound paradox.
On one hand, demonstrating the ability to confront organized crime may help counter the narrative that progressive governments are soft on violence. On the other, history suggests that decapitation strategies rarely defeat cartels.
Removing El Mencho may weaken CJNG in the short term. But it could also ignite the next phase of Mexico’s drug war, one that extends far beyond the country’s borders and deeper into the Western Hemisphere.
Can you win the politics of security without reproducing the failures of the war on drugs? It may buy Sheinbaum and the left time to continue expanding the welfare state, strengthening institutions, and foolproof Mexican democracy, but it may also open the door for further weaponization of security to destroy that very progress later on.
The better alternative may be to instead embrace a true leftist, principled defense of nonviolent solutions, or, to theoretically and politically justify a security progressivism. Such will be the test of the Latin American left in the wake of rising right-wing populism on the back of security fears.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Catherine Connolly's Win in Ireland Proves Good Things Can Still Happen
In a world of strongmen, a voice for peace and a beacon of hope shines through.
Nov 01, 2025
On November 11 2025, independent Member of Parliament Catherine Connolly will become the new president of Ireland after winning an overwhelming victory over the fiercely unpopular Heather Humphreys.
In her acceptance speech, President Connolly vowed to remain rooted in service, stay humble, and actively practice neutrality. She is anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-reunification, an advocate for disability rights, and fluent in Irish. She has also been openly critical of the European Union's inaction on Gaza, and is distrustful of France and the United Kingdom due to their massive armament programs.
In her words, Connolly strives to be "a moral compass in a world increasingly driven by profit and spectacle. A voice for those too often silenced."
Who is Connolly?—The Politician Not Afraid to Stand Against the Consensus
As a former barrister, from a humble background, Connolly has spent her years volunteering with the elderly and taking night classes to train in law. She formally entered politics in 1999 with the mission of tackling Ireland's dire housing shortage crisis.
After serving 17 years as a councillor in Galway for the Labour Party, she left, citing a lack of support, and began her journey as an independent. In 2020, she became the first woman elected to chair debates as deputy speaker in the Dáil Éireann.
Rather than pandering to corporate interests, the wealthy elite, or a personal ego trip bent on abusing power (naming no names), Connolly offers a hopeful vision for a more compassionate and responsible approach to politics.
Connolly's victory marked an important moment for independent candidates around the world. As the world slides to the right, her humble message of peace, inclusivity, and democracy is a powerful reminder that there is light. We must continue to draw attention to and support those who stand up against the establishment.
Connolly has shown that it is possible for well-deserving underdogs such as Zohran Mamdani, Jeremy Corbyn, Zack Polanski, and Bernie Sanders to bring common-good policies into the mainstream.
2025 Irish Presidential Election—Game-Changing for this Divided Nation
In a demonstration of her ability to unify opposing voices, Connolly's landslide win came after she secured the support of opposition parties Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, and even her former party, Labour.
As an independent, Connolly pledged, in her opening speech, to be a '"president for all." Her victory was secured after gaining the largest number of first-preference votes ever—the equivalent of 63%.
When we look at the bigger picture, however, it tells the story of a divided, disillusioned, and apathetic Ireland tired of the two-party system. Voter turnout was just 45.8%, and a huge 213,738 votes were either invalid or spoiled. This accounted for almost 13% of the overall vote, notably, more than 10 times the number in the last presidential election.
In the run-up to the election, violent riots broke out in the capital for two consecutive days. They took place in front of a hotel housing asylum seekers in an anti-immigration sentiment being witnessed across large parts of Europe. This is just one example of the ongoing immigration tensions in Ireland.
Irish citizens are frustrated with the government after years of austerity measures, the ongoing housing crisis, poor public services such as healthcare, and the fact that key candidates, such as Maria Steen, were not on the ballot.
Connolly's Policies—A Progressive Ireland Led by a Moral Compass
With Connolly's left-wing, progressive, and anti-war stance at the reins, the world eagerly awaits to see if Ireland can be the guiding light that so many nations need right now. In the face of fascist, authoritarian leaders such as Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Nicolás Maduro, we desperately need a new playbook.
Some of Connolly's stances include:
- Strong advocacy for Irish reunification through a peaceful and democratic process;
- The legalization of same-sex marriage. She stands for equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation;
- Providing access to safe and legal abortion services. She advocates for reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose;
- A compassionate and humane approach to immigration;
- A universal healthcare system that is accessible to everyone;
- Addressing the housing issue and getting people experiencing homelessness off the streets;
- The promotion and preservation of the Irish language by encouraging its integration into education and public life;
- Comprehensive and urgent climate action to reduce carbon emissions, promote renewable alternatives, and support conservation efforts;
- Implementing a wealth tax to address economic inequalities and fund public services;
- Enhancing democratic processes to ensure transparency, accountability, and increased public participation;
- Promoting peace through diplomatic means and maintaining neutrality. She is critical of NATO and other military alliances; and
- Vocal advocacy for peace in Gaza, ending the blockade, and promoting humanitarian efforts to end the suffering of the Palestinian people. She supports a more ethical approach to international arms sales and highlights the complicity of those weapons which are used to commit war crimes, genocide, and create long-lasting human suffering.
With her pledge to be accountable to the citizens of Ireland, her policies are people-and-planet focused. Her commitment to justice, equality, and transparency is a refreshing change from the status quo. Rather than pandering to corporate interests, the wealthy elite, or a personal ego trip bent on abusing power (naming no names), Connolly offers a hopeful vision for a more compassionate and responsible approach to politics.
Let's hope that her recent win bolsters the campaigns of other progressive candidates and serves as a reminder that positive change is possible. This is a huge win for the left; let's keep the momentum going.
In the words of Catherine Connolly: "Use your voice in every way you can, because a republic and a democracy need constructive questioning, and together we can shape a new republic that values everybody."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Counter-Campaign for Democracy from Below
How the left can fight Trump’s authoritarian crackdown.
Oct 10, 2025
President Donald Trump is done pretending. In the past few weeks, the administration has made its intentions plain: Critics will be punished, media will be silenced, and the left will be targeted as an enemy to be crushed.
The pattern is crystal clear. As of this writing, at least 145 people have been fired or suspended across K-12, universities, corporations, and nonprofits for exercising freedom of speech related to Charlie Kirk’s death. In one of the highest profile examples, The Jimmy Kimmel Show was briefly suspended after a tame joke.
Trump has openly threatened to strip licenses from broadcasters that dare criticize him. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr, a longtime opponent of net neutrality and author of the telecommunications section of Project 2025, is saying coercive things such as, “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” He has stated that reporting that critiques him is illegal, demonstrating a clear opposition to the First Amendment.
These moves come as he has run over university students for exercising free speech such as Mahmoud Khalil, invaded majority Black cities like DC and Chicago with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement agents connected to a massive deportation machine, and directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political rivals despite a lack of evidence.
The Authoritarian Playbook
Trump’s crackdown isn’t just about silencing dissent—it’s about shoring up his base through racism. The administration has turned Charlie Kirk into a martyr of white grievance, celebrated openly by white supremacists. It is attacking immigrants and poor people to justify ICE raids and threats to Medicaid and SNAP. This is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: Use racism to divide, then use division to dismantle democracy. Groups like Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) organize the white working and middle class because we are clear that we have more to gain by rejecting this politics of scapegoating and joining a multiracial fight for freedom.
How do we build a mass movement that isn’t just symbolic protest but concretely defends and expands democracy to fully meet the needs of the multiracial working class and shift the conditions that led us here?
The Trump administration has been signaling escalation: using RICO charges, injunctions, and going after unions, nonprofits, and movement organizations. This isn’t “cancel culture.” It’s not the “culture of consequences.” It’s authoritarianism. What’s happening now isn’t just an attack on a late-night comedian or a few unlucky workers. It’s a campaign to dismantle the infrastructure of dissent itself.
We’ve seen this before. Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s blacklist destroyed the livelihoods of radicals and artists. COINTELPRO infiltrated and dismantled Black freedom organizations. Each time, repression worked best when the left was fragmented and unprepared. Each time, resistance gained ground when people refused to be isolated by organizing and fighting back together.
So what the hell do we do about it now? How do we build a mass movement that isn’t just symbolic protest but concretely defends and expands democracy to fully meet the needs of the multiracial working class and shift the conditions that led us here?
South Africa: Democracy from Below
For historical inspiration, let’s look to South Africa under apartheid. In 1955, the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies—including socialists, trade unionists, and township organizations—convened the Congress of the People and adopted the Freedom Charter. The Freedom Charter was based on the demands of millions of South Africans, collected by the ANC and allies.
The charter declared, “The people shall govern!” It demanded not just the right to vote, but to publish freely, live without racial segregation, the right to organize unions, and share in the wealth of the land. This was a vision of radical multiracial democracy written under conditions where simply handing out a leaflet could land you in prison.
The South African Communist Party played a central role in pushing the liberation struggle to link democratic rights with economic justice. Despite repression, arrests, and bannings, they built underground newspapers, coordinated legal defense, and organized international solidarity. Their insistence on a mass, united front strategy meant that democracy was never reduced to just elections, but tied to social and economic transformation. The front pushed for inclusion of working people’s demands in the charter.
Even as the apartheid state criminalized dissent through surveillance and treason trials, the Freedom Charter kept alive a positive vision of democracy worth fighting for. And when the system finally cracked in the 1990s, it was that vision that helped shape South Africa’s transition.
What the US Left Must Do
The South African lesson is both simple in concept and hard in making: Repression can be survived if the left insists on turning defense into a broader offense. It means looking beyond this crushing moment to the horizon.
- Make Freedom a Mass Issue. We can’t let Trump define this as a spat among elites. The left should hammer home that attacks on free speech and association aren’t abstract: They mean workers losing jobs for speaking their mind, neighborhoods losing organizations that fight evictions, and entire communities being silenced. Defending these rights is defending bread-and-butter survival.
- Defend the Infrastructure of the Left. The administration is betting that nonprofits, unions, and grassroots groups will fold under pressure. Instead, we need to treat their survival as a collective responsibility. That means legal defense funds, rapid response networks, solidarity actions, and mutual aid across organizations. An injury to one really must be an injury to all.
- Use Elected Allies Aggressively. Progressive elected officials have a role to play beyond issuing statements. They can pass city and state resolutions protecting targeted organizations, refuse cooperation with federal crackdowns, and put the administration on notice that repression will be met with political consequences.
- Escalate and Broaden the Fight. Every authoritarian move should be met with resistance that is both robust and expansive when red lines are crossed. If workers are fired, organize walkouts. If nonprofits are hit with injunctions, mount solidarity strikes and mass protests. The goal is not just to defend ourselves, but to show millions that democracy itself is under attack.
- Build Cross-Movement Solidarity. Democratic Socialists of America, unions, immigrant rights groups, racial justice campaigns—we can’t afford siloed struggles. What we need is a Defend Democracy united front that can mobilize thousands at short notice: rallies outside TV stations, pickets at workplaces where critics are fired, coordinated campaigns against companies that kowtow to White House threats.
- Build a Mass Multiracial Working Class Base. We must organize working class people who have the most to gain from ending authoritarianism into a self-conscious bloc that can drive deep change. This will require confronting white supremacy in order to inoculate against the right’s attempts to divide the working class, and building a shared interest in winning a world where we all live full lives.
Beyond Defense: A Democratic Offensive
For years, SURJ has organized white communities to recognize our collective shared interest in rejecting racism and authoritarian populism. The white working class has more to gain by defending a multiracial democracy that centers tangible public goods than it does by clinging to the false promises of MAGA strongmen. One of the strongest tools the right uses against us is white supremacy to divide the working class and convince white people we have more in common with billionaires than with neighbors. Authoritarianism offers division, scapegoating, and declining standards of living. Multiracial democracy offers solidarity, higher wages, and genuine freedom.
Trump’s strategy is clear: Isolate the left, silence its organizations, and terrify people into submission. Our response must be just as clear: Unite, defend one another, and broaden the fight for real democracy. It can start in the here and now: organizing in cities, counties, and states politically and in the streets.
That means not only resisting repression but demanding more democracy. Public funding and democratic guarantees for independent media. Expanded protections for whistleblowers. Real rights for workers to organize unions without retaliation like the PRO Act.
The choice is between authoritarianism and a revitalized democracy rooted in working-class power. We cannot wait this out. We must have a counter-campaign now —not just to survive, but to fight for the kind of freedom that can’t be canceled.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Latest Big Lie: 'Radical Left Violence'
The GOP is using this lie to censor speech, ban comedians and commentators, prosecute people who’ve spoken out against Trump, violently attack protesters, and to justify the monopolization of our media by right-wing billionaires.
Sep 30, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s assault on our elections system and the GOP’s successful 2024 effort to deny at least (according to official US government statistics) 4.2 million Americans their right to vote (which gave Trump the election and Republicans the House and Senate) was based on his 2020 Big Lie that our elections were corrupted by “millions” of “illegals” voting, along with “massive” voter fraud.
They’re continuing that Big Lie (which the GOP first embraced in the 1960s with Operation Eagle Eye that intimidated mostly Hispanic and Native American voters) going forward, with some observers expecting as many as 10 million Americans being denied their vote in 2028.
But corrupting and stealing elections was just their first effort, starting back in the 1960s, the one that brought them to power. Now, with that power, they’re doing their best to gut the basic guardrails of our 250-year-old constitutional system with brand-new Big Lies.
The newest Big Lie for 2025 is that America is racked by “radical left violence” leading to the disintegration of law and order in our cities and the spread of terror among politicians and anybody else who dares speak out about the issues of our day.
Republican Big Lies have caused enormous damage, from FDR’s era through Joe McCarthy’s witch hunts to George W. Bush lying us into two illegal and unnecessary wars to today.
They’re using this to censor speech, ban comedians and commentators, prosecute people (including lifelong Republicans like Comey, Krebs, and Taylor) who’ve spoken out against Trump, violently attack protesters, and to justify the monopolization of our media by right-wing billionaires.
Most recently, when a Trump-supporting (Trump sign in his yard, Trump “Make Liberals Cry Again” T-shirt) straight, white, self-proclaimed Christian who thought Mormons were the anti-Christ murdered worshipers in a Latter Day Saints church in Michigan, Trump’s first response was to claim it was “anti-Christian violence.”
Instead, it appears this former Marine war vet with PTSD thought he was defending Christianity. But instead of asking if he was “radicalized” by preachers like Trump’s guy “Pastor” Robert Jeffress (who goes on and on about how the LDS Church is a “false religion”) or the algorithms on YouTube, Facebook, or X, right-wing media is today filled with rants about “attacks on Christianity,” blaming “the left” even for this attack.
It echo’s the GOP’s efforts to portray the two people who tried to assassinate Trump, Charlie Kirk’s killer, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shooter last week, and other political violence as originating from the “radical left.”
Which is really and truly another Big Lie.
First, there’s basically no “radical left” in America anymore. The anti-capitalist pro-violence subset of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) that I knew back in the 1960s when I was part of Michigan State University’s SDS are long gone and well discredited (and a few imprisoned).
Second, the “far left” folks who are still around aren’t violent, by and large. Lefties are more interested in protecting Social Security, getting a national healthcare system into place, raising taxes on the morbidly rich, and getting guns off the streets instead of pointing them at people. The last high-profile “leftie” shooter was the mentally ill guy who took a shot at Republican Congressman Steve Scalise back in 2017.
Even the FBI and the Department of Justice themselves had acknowledged the fact that the vast majority of politically-inspired violence in America was coming from the right, at least until puppy-killer Kristi Noem or one of her lickspittles (or her boyfriend) ordered the reports removed from the government websites.
The independent and nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies analyzed 893 terrorist plots that took place between 1994 and 2020. Their report concluded:
Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994.
But don’t expect to hear that from anybody in the administration or on Fox “News” or other right-wing media outlets. Instead, they’re using “far left violence” as their excuse to dismantle our rights, impose soldiers on cities run by Democrats, and pour your tax dollars into extreme policing and militarization of our society.
This isn’t the first time the GOP has used the Big Lie technique to sway public opinion in a way that demonizes Democrats. On September 23, 1944 President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the Teamsters and said:
“he opposition in this year has already imported into this campaign a very interesting thing, because it is foreign. They have imported the propaganda technique invented by the dictators abroad.
Remember, a number of years ago, there was a book, Mein Kampf, written by Hitler himself. The technique was all set out in Hitler’s book—and it was copied by the aggressors of Italy and Japan.
According to that technique, you should never use a small falsehood; always a big one, for its very fantastic nature would make it more credible, if only you keep repeating it over and over and over again.
He then did what Democrats—and what honest news media we have left—need to be doing today: He called out their lies and exposed their technique:
Well, let us take some simple illustrations that come to mind. For example, although I rubbed my eyes when I read it, we have been told that it was not a Republican depression, but a Democratic depression from which this Nation was saved in 1933.
That this Administration—this one today—is responsible for all the suffering and misery that the history books and the American people have always thought had been brought about during the twelve ill-fated years when the Republican party was in power.
He followed that with a list of four other Republican lies, including their assertion that he’d tried to get America into WWII, that he was secretly planning to prevent GIs from leaving the service when the war was over, and even a lie about his dog (Fala, after which his speech was named in the press). He summed it up:
Well, I think we all recognize the old technique. The people of this country know the past too well to be deceived into forgetting. Too much is at stake to forget.
They’re still doing it. Which raises the question: What will be Trump’s and the GOP’s next Big Lie?
They’ve already tried convincing Americans that:
- Immigrants are a major source of crime (when crime rates regarding immigrants are about half that of natural born Americans);
- Democrats are the party of rapists and pedophiles (ahem…Trump’s “best friend” Jeffrey Epstein, E Jean Carroll);
- Democrats want to defund the police (when they’re fighting for more cops in virtually every city in America);
- Are in favor of abortion “after birth”;
- That former President Joe Biden wanted to ban gas stoves and gasoline cars;
- Biden wanted to “ban meat";
- Democrats plan on huge tax increases on the middle class;
- "Antifa” (“Anti-Fascist”) is a domestic terrorist organization;
- Democrats are “deranged pieces of shit"; and
- Liberals want to “force taxpayers to fund transgender surgeries for minors’ nationwide” and, yesterday, Trump said Democrats want to “reopen the wall.“
This after promoting the Big Lie that got three police officers killed and 140 hospitalized on January 6 about the 2020 election was “stolen” and their Big Lie about immigrants voting that resulted in over 4 million citizens being denied their right to vote last year.
Republican Big Lies have caused enormous damage, from FDR’s era through Joe McCarthy’s witch hunts to George W. Bush lying us into two illegal and unnecessary wars to today.
It’s way past time that Democrats and the media start calling these Big Lies exactly what they are, and pointing out that the strategy originated in the modern era with Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler.
Enough is enough.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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