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
poverty
Trump's GOP Is Ripping This Nation Apart. The Question Is: Why?
The morality of today’s Republican Party has been laid bare. But it boggles the mind the depth of this destruction and cruelty.
Jul 14, 2026
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill — which gave the top 1% fully $118 billion this year in tax cuts — turns a year old this week and Republicans in Congress actually celebrated the largest cuts to food assistance and Medicaid in American history.
They told us it was about fraud, about lazy people gaming the system, about restoring the dignity of work. Exactly a year later we can now see what it was really about in a line of cars outside a food bank in Phoenix.
That’s where ProPublica found Ana Alvarez on a recent morning, a single mother of five who works at a restaurant and lost her family’s SNAP benefits last September. She reapplied in December and the government still hasn’t processed her application.
She calls the agency every week and gets told to keep waiting, so she clips coupons, her kids don’t go to the zoo anymore, and as the summer heat bears down she’s doing grim arithmetic on rent, the car payment, and the electric bill that keeps the air conditioning running. She’s one reason Arizona has lost more than half of its SNAP recipients in a single year.
In Michigan, a widow named Sarah works two food service jobs to raise her 9-year-old daughter on $219 a month in food assistance, help she’s needed since her husband died suddenly six years ago. Last Christmas one of her employers wrote a single number wrong on her renewal paperwork, one missing zero, and the state cut her off.
And in Atlanta, Human Rights Watch documented a 36-year-old supermarket cashier who was working and meeting every requirement until she gave birth in late 2025, at which point Georgia shut off both her Medicaid and her food stamps, claiming she’d failed to report the job she was standing at every day. She’s spent the months since trying to get her coverage back while the medical bills pile up. In the party of family values, apparently, having a baby is now a firing offense.
None of these women are cheats or freeloaders. They’re workers, mothers, widows: exactly the people these cynical Republicans swear they’re protecting. But the numbers tell the story: more than 4 million Americans have been pushed off SNAP since the bill passed, the steepest drop since Clinton’s 1996 welfare cuts, and in just the 13 states that publish the data, roughly 808,000 children have lost food assistance.
The Congressional Budget Office projects millions more will lose Medicaid as the work requirement paperwork machine grinds through the states, even though more than nine in ten of the people targeted are already working, in school, caring for family, or disabled.
The cruelty built into the bill isn’t a side effect: it’s the whole reason for the “enhanced” paperwork requirements. Every mother who gives up in frustration, every widow tripped up by a typo, every application left to rot in a backlog is a line item of savings that can translate into a larger tax cut for Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg while the poorest households actually see their taxes go up.
That’s the morality of today’s GOP laid bare. They looked at Ana Alvarez’s five kids and Sarah’s daughter and that new mother in Atlanta, and they decided the billionaires needed the money more.
Every day, it seems, we see or hear about another way in which Trump and his lickspittles in Congress and the various federal agencies are tearing down our country, weakening our defenses, pitting Americans against each other, looting our government, and making life harder for everybody except the morbidly rich.
The question nobody seems to have an answer to is, “Why?”
— Is it that, as Craig Unger seems to suggest, that Trump’s been a Russian agent for decades and is setting us up to lose to the newly-forming Axis of Russia and China?
— Is it that he spent so many years burning with rage and embarrassment at not being accepted by New York high society that he’s just come to hate America?
— Could it be that American-values-hating foreign powers that have poured literally billions of dollars into the Trump family are paying him to tear us apart so they’ll never again have to endure the humiliation of having their human, civil, and women’s rights records called out by a future administration?
— Is it possible it’s all just to pay for tax cuts for billionaires?
— Or are his, Vance’s, and Musk’s white supremacist, Christian nationalist, libertarian, and/or neo-Nazi ideologies so intense that they’re willing to essentially burn the country down just to expel immigrants, deny benefits to people of color, elevate the rich, crush unions, and re-subordinate women?
These are serious questions for which I can’t find credible answers that explain the entire spectrum of their behavior. Why would Trump and the GOP:
— Condemn 12 million Americans to sickness and early death by gutting Medicaid (and the biggest cuts don’t even kick in until right after this fall’s election)?
— Destroy American soft power by killing USAID, thus condemning millions to death?
— Fire so many workers at the Social Security Administration that just getting through to sign up or get help has turned into a multi-day slog?
— Gut the State Department at a time diplomacy is most needed for world peace?
— End food assistance (SNAP) for millions when one-in-five American children experience hunger?
— Refuse to enforce laws and rules that allow workers to form unions in their workplaces?
— Propose forcing all new Medicare recipients onto Medicare “Advantage” corporate scam plans?
— Refuse military aid to Ukraine for over a year to give Russia time to finish off their genocidal job?
— Stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from going after fraudsters and banks when they rip people off?
— Eliminate a major NOAA program designed to warn communities about the dangers of flooding and other extreme weather crises?
— Politicize the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Election Commission?
— End net neutrality so none of us are safe online?
— Shut down anti-cyber-warfare operations in the federal government?
— Defund university research that leads to innovation and saves lives?
— Cut unemployment insurance benefits across Red states?
— Terminate support for people with student loans and gut scholarship programs?
— Slash Affordable Care Act outreach budgets and allow junk insurance plans?
— Reverse over 100 environmental rules, including those on clean air, clean water, and chemical safety?
— Weaken Dodd-Frank, including gutting oversight of “too big to fail” banks and stress tests for mid-size financial institutions?
— Dial back OSHA workplace safety standards and inspections?
— Cut taxes to rich people while raising them via tariffs on working class folks?
— Change the Federal Trade Commission to allow more monopolistic, rip-off corporate behavior?
— Make it harder to vote and harass Blue states by demanding their voter information?
— Work to prosecute women who have miscarriages or abortions?
— Make it harder to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)?
— End auto emission standards and increase our reliance on fossil fuels?
— Pack the courts with judges the American Bar Association says are “unqualified”?
— Destroy our faith in our elections and set up election workers for harassment?
— Fire the Inspectors General (who find waste, fraud, and abuse) across multiple federal agencies?
— Weaken whistleblower protections?
— Put the military on the streets of our cities in violation of Posse Comitatus?
— Use state power to punish political opponents and those who’ve investigated Trump’s crimes, alleged Russian collusion, and corruption?
— Create a network of concentration camps across America?
— Allow a shadow cabinet of billionaires and theocrats via Project 2025?
— Attack judges and prosecutors, leading to violence and threats of violence?
— Foment violence (like on January 6th) as a political strategy?
— Destroy our asylum and refugee systems?
— Pardon insurrectionists, rapists, cybercriminals, and other wealthy criminals?
— Defund the IRS so they can no longer audit the morbidly rich, leading to the loss of hundreds of billions in federal revenues?
— Ban books and censor libraries?
— Criminalize trans and queer people?
— Roll back gun safety measures?
— Defund the arts, humanities, and public media?
— Gut vaccine and other programs that keep Americans healthy?
— Nakedly politicize the military?
— Expand federal surveillance powers while kneecapping oversight?
— Criminalize free speech, particularly on college campuses?
— Attempt to revoke birthright citizenship?
— Attack press freedom and bar the Associated Press from the White House?
— Sabotage the US Postal Service?
— Undermine the census?
— Scale back civil and women’s rights enforcement?
— Normalize autocratic language like “vermin,” “scum,” and calling immigrants “animals”?
— Expel millions of brown-skinned immigrants who’ve already gone through the legal process to get work permits and are on a path toward citizenship?
— Create international fiscal chaos with an on-again, off-again TACO tariff policy?
— Cancel the suicide hotline for queer kids?
— Gut our national parks and sell off our federal lands to wealthy friends of the administration?
— Create a vast, secret, unaccountable police force with masked officers whose identity is concealed?
— Allow the president to accept hundreds of millions in obvious bribes from foreign powers in violation of the Constitution?
— Work so hard to conceal the crimes of a notorious sexual predator?
And this, of course, is just a partial list of the ways Trump and the GOP have weakened our nation, reduced our standing and prestige in the world, corrupted our government, and immiserated working class families.
Many of the theories about why Trump and the GOP would enthusiastically do so much damage to our people, our military, and our democracy contradict others.
For example, why would billionaires want tax cuts at the expense of damaging the economy that made them rich? Why would we promote a muscular military policy like bombing Iran while simultaneously destroying morale within the ranks of our military and kneecapping our intelligence agencies?
“Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is,” sang Bob Dylan back in the 1960s.
Today, we’re there.
Why do you think Trump and the GOP are working so hard to ruin our country?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Rally Around ‘Affordability,’ But ‘Precarity’ Is a Better Slogan
Americans need something more ambitious and less transitory than relief at the checkout counter.
Jul 09, 2026
Janeese George’s recent victory in the Washington, DC, mayoral primary and wins by progressive Democrats in New York and Colorado last week are signs that Zohran Mamdani's election was not a one-off, and that populist, “eat the rich” messaging is effective across a broad swath of voters. But as the US heads toward midterm elections, Democrats are having a hard time finding a partywide motto with similar resonance. Since last fall, they have been focusing on “affordability” because the slogan resonates with working-class voters; their main message is that things are too expensive and that the cause is unchecked corporate greed.
But here’s the problem with focusing on affordability: It addresses poor and working-class Americans as consumers rather than as workers. It ignores the stagnant hiring environment and Americans’ widespread anxiety about getting and keeping jobs. And it fails to differentiate between short-run price pressures, such as the ones created by the war in Iran, and prolonged economic trends. Campaigning on affordability could leave Democrats laser-focused on unclogging temporary economic bottlenecks without a strategy for the long term. And affordability candidates must contend with the awkward fact that, by some measures, US wages have actually outpaced inflation. Some big-ticket items, including college tuition and airfare, are more affordable now than they were a decade ago.
If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough. Candidates should instead focus on precarity, the sense that American jobs and the future are hanging by a thread. I am a historian who studies how the economic concepts we use shape the politics we pursue. I have also seen firsthand how low-paying, precarious work and short-term contracts have engulfed higher education and how precarity has become a rallying cry for student workers and contingent faculty seeking to unionize.
If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough.
Precarity has great sloganeering potential. It names a phenomenon that straddles the working and the middle classes. More importantly, precarity messaging could help Democrats connect with younger voters, who are not yet fretting about childcare or housing prices but are very much worried about artificial intelligence, automation, and the lack of entry-level jobs.
Precarity sets in the moment someone begins thinking about entering the workforce. High schoolers and college students across the country ask themselves, “Will there be jobs for me? What can I add to the new A.I. economy?” Affordability rhetoric cannot answer these pressing questions. But running on an anti-precarity agenda would give Democrats the opportunity to lay out bold plans for working- and middle-class Americans, including strengthening safety nets for recent graduates, bankrolling programs that train young Americans for the many well-paying blue-collar jobs that go unfilled, and retraining workers when occupational demand shifts.
They should also capitalize on labor unions’ popularity, which has in the past decade returned to historic highs. Expanding workers’ collective bargaining rights should be a core part of the Democrats’ midterm platform. Only by empowering labor unions and strengthening worker protections will elected officials be able to deliver on eliminating precarity. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ other major campaign slogan, “abundance,” has drawn opposition from workers’ groups. Unions are wary that the push to cut red tape and supercharge new housing and infrastructure construction could come at the cost of hard-won wage and training standards.
Widespread unionization can eliminate bottlenecks and lower prices by ensuring that workers are better coordinated and trained, helping to avoid the accidents, delays, and manpower shortages that cause construction prices to soar. Lawmakers hoping to deliver on promises of abundance should start by creating stable jobs and secure futures for the workers who are expected to build new houses and energy infrastructure.
Of course, Democratic candidates do not have to choose between campaigning on increasing affordability or eliminating precarity. These are complementary messages, and they point to related problems. So far, however, Democratic pollsters have yet to fully test a worker-centered slogan and battleplan. Americans need something more ambitious and less transitory than relief at the checkout counter. Prices go up and down, but secure and satisfying jobs can last years, if not decades.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Paradoxical Utopia of the World Cup
No other event, short perhaps of a nuclear war or a comet strike, could bring the entire planet together.
Jun 17, 2026
Simon Kuper is 56 now. His first memory of a World Cup, if not his first-ever vivid memory—for many of us who grew up outside the United States, the two are often the same—was the 1978 final between the Netherlands and Argentina. “I recall that night as vividly as almost anything else in my childhood,” he writes in World Cup Fever. “A World Cup is like Proust’s Madeleine. Each new World Cup reminds you of past World Cups, and the people you watched them with.” The book is a history of the World Cup through a few dozen madeleines.
For Americans, it’s as good a guide as any to a tournament of paradoxes, this too-big-to-fail quadrennial festival of corruption, cheating, profiteering, nationalist chauvinism, and mostly crappy soccer that nevertheless can hypnotize and transport to a utopia of competition as idealized and convincing as Pelé’s deification of the sport as “the beautiful game.” I think we watch not so much for the thrill—you have to admit that most games at this watered-down level are snoozfests (“such a party off the field but so dull on it,” as Kuper writes) but for the nostalgia of a game that never existed, but that we reimagine with every match.
“So much of a modern World Cup is repetition, especially as you grow older,” Kuper writes. “After decades of tournaments shown live on TV, each new France-Brazil or England-Argentina or Holland-Germany is just a repeat of earlier versions. Each victory or red card or controversy is a quotation of past ones. A match can never mean as much as it did the first time around. Win or lose this one, you know it isn’t the end of the story: At some point in the next few decades, there’ll be a replay. Repetition turns down the emotional dial of World Cups.”
He’s right, with a caveat: The World Cup is like Jorge Luis Borges’s idea that we rewrite every story every time we read one. The very same game will be remembered a billion different times in a way that the World Series or the Super Bowl or cricket’s World Cup never could be, because no other sport has the World Cup’s reach. No other event, short perhaps of a nuclear war or a comet strike, could bring the entire planet together.
It exists to transform illusion into reality. The illusion is that we are one world playing the same game, speaking the same language, respecting the same rules, existing on a level playing field regardless of origin, race, religion, even fifa ranking.
So just as the tournament is a paradox of beauty and foulness, we all have paradoxical relationships with it, even those of us who don’t follow it. Our refusal to follow it is itself a statement, like the citizen who snubs the ballot box on election day. They, too, are making a statement. Like it or not, the World Cup reminds us that we are on the same planet, that we all share the same blood that kicks a ball the same way, but with a billion splendid variations.
No two soccer fans will see the same game the same way or ever agree about anything soccer, just as I had my differences with Kuper’s book and some of his interpretations: “And once your country has won the World Cup once or twice, it’s generally enough. The more you win, the less it matters.” Tell that to the winners. But he’s better placed than most to guide us. His lineage reads like a demographic World Cup. He was born in Uganda to South African parents, spent his early years in England as a British citizen, moved to the Netherlands when he was 7, studied in England and the United States (Oxford, Harvard), was naturalized a French citizen, now living in Paris with his French wife and raising French children who identified as French, and spent most of his career covering soccer for the London-based Financial Times.
The 1978 World Cup was the first of his innumerable crushing disappointments, as World Cups always must be for 95% of fans. Every four years there’s only one winner out of 195 nations. That one stung Kuper more because the Dutch lost the final for the second time in a row, having lost to Germany in 1974. This time they were playing in Argentina, whose team had blatantly cheated its way to the final. It wasn’t unusual for a tournament stitched in fraud and corruption since its first edition in 1930. It still is, fawning to authoritarian regimes, from Benito Mussolini’s Italy to the junta’s Argentina, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, dictatorial emirs’ Qatar the last time around, and now Donald Trump’s diminished America. Thankfully Canada and Mexico are here to redeem this World Cup, which they also share.
The murderous military dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla showcased the 1978 World Cup the way Adolf Hitler showcased the 1936 Olympics, as a distraction masked in bogus legitimacy. Videla had the “disappearance” of some 30,000 dissidents to his name by the time he was done, and that night watched the final alongside Henry Kissinger, a fellow criminal against humanity, who had also helped Videla rig a match to ensure Argentina’s appearance in the final.
I remember that final too. It was my second. My first was Germany-Holland in 1974, my one and only memory of watching with my dad, who died two years later. We watched Argentina-Holland live, my mother, my grandmother, our Dutch Catholic priest, and me on our black-and-white TV in the dining room of our house in Hamlaya, a tiny village in the mountains of Lebanon where we thought we’d escaped the war and where the signal from Cyprus was always clear. Father Niederer didn’t have a TV. He spent the evening with us and his high hopes, especially after the Dutch managed to hold Argentina to a tie through the first 90 minutes. In the 90th minute a Dutch striker had almost won it, hitting the goal post instead. Extra time briefly ended Father Niederer’s faith as Argentina scored once, then again to take the title in a 3-1 match. The junta won. All those masses for nothing. Kuper had also watched with his grandparents when he was 8 in Leiden, the smaller town between Amsterdam and The Hague. For Kuper, the next two decades were all TV watching, then as an in-person spectator until he started reporting about the World Cup for the Financial Times in 1994, the first the United States hosted (with Kissinger’s help). This year will be his ninth. He now proposes to tell you A Soccer Journey in Nine Tournaments, as goes the book’s subtitle, by synthesizing four decades of his reporter’s notebooks. (The English edition calls it A Footballing Journey in Nine Tournaments: Snobs would have you believe that calling it anything but football is a misnomer. I don’t play that game and use the terms interchangeably.)
Wisely, Kuper is not interested in recounting matches. Football matches are like military battles and soap operas. “There’s nothing deader, for a writer, than a dead football match. I’m sorry, but you really had to be there,” he writes. Kuper is interested in the unexpected insights into national character that an improvised dance party might reveal; in the endemic corruption of a tournament that turns us all into addicts every four years; in the failed promise of economic booms that leaves the poor in host countries like Brazil, South Africa, Qatar, and Mexico as exploited as in colonial times. The colonist is fifa, the dictatorial soccer federation expecting to reap $14 billion from this year’s tournament.
Kuper describes the exploitation in South Africa, Brazil, and Qatar, the regressive, repressive American ally that spent more than $200 billion preparing for a 2022 tournament built on the graveyards of imported labor working in near-slave conditions and without rights. “Under Qatar’s traditional ‘kafala’ system, migrant workers were practically the property of their employers,” Kuper writes. “A boss could deport an employee for no reason, or hold their passport and keep them in Qatar against their will.” Qatar had promised to reform the kafala system. The moment Argentina hoisted the 2022 trophy at Lusail Stadium, all promises vanished. Now Saudi Arabia, an even more regressive, undemocratic country with its own kafala system, is set to host in 2034.
The book at first felt disheveled, jumping from one scant segment to another like so many rapid passes in a game, as if Kuper was eager to throw in every anecdote he could find in his notebooks. Kuper’s interview with Diego Maradona, one of the game’s greatest players and one of its most distasteful characters, is pointless other than to show Kuper scored the five-minute encounter.
European journalists have no problem buying access, either, or accepting lavish gifts: “I flew to the Chelsea-Manchester United Champions League final in Moscow as a guest of UEFA, the European football authority. I had a fabulous room in the five-star Marriott Grand Hotel. (Did UEFA corrupt me? I don’t think so.)” He never makes the connection between that sort of payola and the buying of referees and game-fixing he documents so well.
Some of his insights are no more penetrating than comparing Germany’s emerging prosperity on and off the pitch in 1990 to a bus driver’s “villa with a veranda in a spotless village,” or telling us that “A World Cup can’t change a country. But it can divert an individual’s life path,” as if there were anything comparable between France’s decline into riots, fading power, and economic stagnation after the 1998 World Cup with his decision to quit the Financial Times and become a French citizen. As all World Cup books must, this one pays homage to cheaters like Maradona, biters like Uruguay’s Luis Suárez, criers like Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo, and charisma-challenged virtuosos like Messi, now hobbling through his last show.
Soon you get used to the Kuper style. It has the verve of 1970s Dutch football—total football, as they called it—placing every element of the game in service of the story without letting judgments necessarily mar the exuberance. Yes, the game is corrupt—there’s a hint that even Nelson Mandela had a part in the $10 million bribe disguised as a cultural gift that bought the World Cup for South Africa—but there was that priceless moment when the Japanese let loose on their own soil at the Japan-Belgium match in 2002 and showed the world a joy we’d rarely seen. There may have been hooliganism in the past, but in pubs and on trains fans from opposing teams typically drink and dance together. Kuper unfortunately doesn’t venture into calculating the demographics of World Cup-conceived babies every four years. I suspect the cross-fertilization is as rich as during the Crusades. But he documents an alarming incidence of heart attacks during every tournament.
Another paradox: World Cup play is inferior to anything you’ll see in club football in top leagues in England, Germany, Spain, Italy, and France: Any of those countries’ top clubs could beat all but the four or five highest ranked national teams at the World Cup, if not even them. Any league match is technically more proficient and cohesive than a World Cup match. Any league match lacks those ridiculous disparities we’re going to see when, say, Spain plays Cape Verde or Germany plays Curaçao, that Caribbean Dutch protectorate with the population of Flagler County (think Ronald Reagan’s Marines invading Grenada).
Just 16 countries traveled to Germany when I watched my first World Cup in 1974. The format went to 24 in 1982, then 32 in 1998, and now 48 countries—a quarter of the planet’s nations. There’s really nothing wrong with that. Elitism is over. We can’t democratize the world. We can democratize the World Cup, though there’s no doubt fifa expanded the thing to shake down more cash even as it dilutes and cheapens play. The federation’s mercantilism handed Mexico and Canada only 13 games each, compared to 78 in the United States, an imbalance as insulting as our president’s attempts to destroy both countries’ economies while ridiculing one and reducing the other to a mass of criminals, and getting a fifa “prize” for it.
Still, we look past the absurd. “Most football fans took it for granted that FIFA was corrupt,” Kuper writes, needlessly capitalizing the federation’s acronym the way some media still capitalize “covid.” Diseases should not so blithely be respected. “They’d heard the stories of officials stashing bribes in secret bank accounts. However, fans care more about what happens on the field. Once we start to doubt that the matches we are seeing are real, the emotion we invest in World Cups becomes pointless.” In the spirit of magic realism, why not give Curaçao and Cape Verde a chance on the same stage as the greats? It’s not as if the American team belongs there, either, if it’s quality we’re looking for. But there they are.
We’re mostly missing the point if we watch the World Cup for quality. Like the Olympics but without the frazzle of a zillion sports scattered like so many pixels on our screens, it’s our quadrennial dreamland on these simple, perfectly groomed fields where cubism and leaves of grass meet so the world’s teams kick around a planet-shaped sphere as luck and fate outscores the best of them.
“The World Cup exists to transform reality into illusion,” the Mexican novelist Juan Villoro wrote in an article for The New York Times this week. I think of it more in reverse: It exists to transform illusion into reality. The illusion is that we are one world playing the same game, speaking the same language, respecting the same rules, existing on a level playing field regardless of origin, race, religion, even fifa ranking. The reality is that for those five weeks, away from the dingbattery of dignitaries and fifa’s sycophantry, away from the tensions between Canada, Mexico, and the United States—on the pitch, in pubs, in living rooms, in street parties, in the palmed stadiums of our smartphoned hands and maybe even in our hearts, despairing as we are the rest of the time—that illusion may well be true.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Reclaiming the Pursuit of Happiness
Let’s celebrate the Declaration’s 250th by ending US poverty.
Jun 07, 2026
Every week in our law school eviction court clinic, we see parents hustling from their workplaces, still wearing fast food and home healthcare uniforms, hoping to push back the day when they and their kids will be sleeping in their car. We see seniors and persons living with disabilities on the verge of eviction because they had to spend their rent money filling prescriptions. We see some of the 43 million people in the US who are living with hunger.
Every person suffering like this is a rebuke to the core promise of the Declaration of Independence. We should commemorate the Declaration’s 250th anniversary with a renewed commitment to the pursuit of happiness, which means our government fulfilling basic economic needs.
From the very first moment of its existence, the United States embraced economic rights. The Declaration of Independence’s second paragraph commits our government to protecting the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right. The founders, as flawed as they were, knew that this promise included ensuring that basic needs are met.
“Not a Charity but a Right”—The Founders and Government’s Role in Ending Poverty
The Declaration’s main author, Thomas Jefferson, lamented the democracy-undermining existence of poverty. Natural rights are violated, Jefferson wrote, when some residents struggle and others prosper. So he insisted that the government has a duty to act to remedy the injustice, including through aggressively progressive taxation.
Freedom and democracy cannot exist without first meeting the rights to basic human needs.
Other founders agreed. Alexander Hamilton explained that the General Welfare Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution (“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes... to provide for the General Welfare of the United States”) creates a government that addresses unmet economic needs. Hamilton’s fellow Constitution framer James Madison called for the new nation to enact laws that would “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”
For 18th century politicians, this type of government intervention was not hypothetical. Colonial governments instituted price controls on food and aggressively regulated gristmills to keep the cost of bread affordable for all.
The founder with the most pronounced vision of economic rights was Thomas Paine, author of the seismic pamphlet Common Sense and a driving force behind the American Revolution and the new government it birthed. Paine called for the redistribution of wealth via progressive taxation and for direct government anti-poverty interventions like old-age pensions, support for families with young children, full employment, and a basic income. “It is not charity but a right—not bounty but justice that I am pleading for,” he said.
The Meaning of the “Pursuit of Happiness”
Beyond the founders’ own words, it is clear from historical context that a 1776 commitment to protecting the unalienable right to the “pursuit of happiness” includes ensuring that subsistence needs are met. Law professor and dean Linda Keller’s comprehensive review of political thought and contemporary use of this critical phrase during the 18th century led her to conclude that basic economic rights are deeply rooted in the nation’s foundation.
“Its inclusion was not merely a rhetorical flourish, but rather the pursuit of happiness established an ‘unalienable right’ that includes an economic dimension,” Keller writes. “In particular, there are minimum needs that must be met in order to pursue happiness, for instance food, shelter, and clothing. Thus the government must provide the conditions to enable individuals to pursue happiness.”
Over the decades, other scholars have agreed. “The Declaration of Independence manifests a government’s affirmative role in protecting rights,” writes law professor Bert Lockwood. “Both the plain and ordinary meaning of happiness and its common usage in the 18th century indicate that the notion of happiness cannot be entirely separated from material well-being. Access to the minimal necessities of life, such as shelter or basic medical care, is thus an indispensable prerequisite to the notion of happiness.”
Charles Black, the longtime Yale Law professor and civil rights advocate who helped argue the legendary desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, said the point was obvious. “The possession of a decent material basis for life is an indispensable condition, for almost all people at all times, to the pursuit of happiness,” Black wrote. “The right to pursuit of happiness is going to be for all but a small minority of those in poverty, a pale sardonically grinning ghost of a right.”
“Necessitous Men are not Free Men”
US leaders since the founders have underscored this same point: Freedom and democracy cannot exist without first meeting the rights to basic human needs.
“Necessitous men are not free men,” Franklin Roosevelt announced as the foundation of his proposal for a Second Bill of Rights ensuring access to housing, healthcare, and living wages.
US voters have consistently expressed concern over our rampant wealth inequality, supported a government jobs guarantee, and called for recognizing housing and healthcare as government-enforced human rights.
Soon after, the international community heeded Roosevelt’s call. Virtually every nation has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which enshrines into law the rights to housing, healthcare, and living wage incomes.
Yet the US has not ratified the treaty known as the ICESCR. Not coincidentally, every wealthy nation that has ratified does far better than the US in protecting the pursuit of happiness. Those nations have comprehensive and successful programs ensuring housing, healthcare, and adequate incomes for their residents. In those countries, the grim eviction court scenes we witness every week are almost unheard of.
We can do better, too. US voters have consistently expressed concern over our rampant wealth inequality, supported a government jobs guarantee, and called for recognizing housing and healthcare as government-enforced human rights.
These rights are necessary for the pursuit of happiness. The founders knew it, and so do we. Along with fireworks and picnics, let’s celebrate the 250th by finally fulfilling the real promise of the Declaration of Independence.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Are Paying the Price for Federal and State Refusal to Raise the Minimum Wage
Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living.
Jun 07, 2026
For years, Congress and elected officials across the country have sidestepped one of the clearest economic problems facing working families: The minimum wage no longer keeps pace with the real cost of living.
Today, even full-time work at the federal minimum wage doesn’t pay enough to rent a market-rate two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. And too often, politicians have intervened to keep it that way.
For example, I live in Oklahoma, where the state minimum wage has been tied to the federal rate of $7.25 an hour since 2009. As a result, a full-time minimum-wage worker here earns about $15,000 a year before taxes—below the poverty line for an individual and wholly inadequate to survive.
This problem did not happen by accident.
An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
In Oklahoma, some state lawmakers introduced bills to raise the minimum wage year after year—only to see those proposals die without a hearing or a vote. In 2014, the legislature went even further, passing a law that prevented cities and towns from raising local wages, even if local voters and community leaders supported the change.
That meant Oklahomans who wanted to see workers earn a fair wage were left with one remaining option: taking the issue directly to the people.
Again and again, voters in red, blue, and purple states alike have passed measures to raise their minimum wages. In the last decade or so, voters have approved minimum-wage increases in about a dozen states, including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington, plus DC.
In early 2024, Oklahomans turned to the state’s initiative petition process as well. Over 150,00 voters signed a petition to place State Question 832 on the ballot. If approved, SQ 832 will gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years and then index future increases to the Consumer Price Index after 2030.
Yet even as Oklahomans moved toward a vote, politics intervened. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt delayed the election for SQ 832 nearly two years. The wait is about to come to an end on June 16—when voters will finally get their say.
In the meantime, the delay and political games have forced working families in Oklahoma to wait as costs continue to rise. While wages for our lowest-wage workers have been frozen for 17 years, housing, groceries, and utility bills have all become more expensive.
Today, a minimum-wage earner in Oklahoma would need to work about 93 hours a week—more than two full-time jobs—just to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent.
No one should have to work that much simply to survive. That fact is proof that the current economy is failing many of the people who keep our communities running.
Workers most affected by legislative inaction are the very people we rely on every day: home health aides caring for seniors, childcare workers helping parents stay employed, restaurant staff serving meals, retail workers keeping stores open, and hotel staff assisting travelers. Many of these essential workers still struggle to afford basic necessities.
Our working families have spent years shouldering the cost of federal and state inaction. They are paying the costs through financial stress, unstable housing, delayed healthcare, and less time with their families because they are constantly working to stay afloat.
Many other states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal level, recognizing a simple truth: An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
SQ 832 gives Oklahoma voters the chance to move the state forward after years of legislative inaction. On June 16, Oklahoma voters can take an important step themselves.
But this issue should not rest solely on state ballot measures. Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living—a goal that ultimately requires action from Congress, too.
Because hard work should mean stability, not poverty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-GOP Law Spurs Largest Loss of Food Aid in Decades
One food assistance policy expert said that “the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1’s SNAP cuts takes effect.”
Apr 29, 2026
Within just six months of President Donald Trump signing last year's Republican mega budget bill and enacting an unprecedented cut to federal food assistance, more than 3 million low-income Americans lost benefits.
According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, cataloged by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dropped by 8% nationwide in the six months following the bill's passage in July 2025.
It is the steepest drop recorded in more than three decades, even greater than that experienced amid the recovery from the Great Recession, when millions of Americans left the program as their economic conditions rebounded after a period of widespread unemployment and economic precarity.
Enrollment levels have fallen in every single state over the past year, with some drops particularly startling. In Arizona, where nearly 900,000 people received benefits in January 2025, just over 500,000 were on SNAP a year later—a 43% drop.
Levels of enrollment in SNAP, which provides monthly funds to Americans with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line to pay for food, have often been a reliable indicator of poverty in America, with more people enrolling during hard times.
But unlike during that period of mass disenrollment from 2012-16, Joseph Llobrera, CBPP's senior director of research, said in a report on Wednesday that the dramatic fall in SNAP participation "cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food."
"Labor force data show that the unemployment rate was flat between July 2025 and March 2026, the most recent data available," Llobrera said. In Arizona, where nearly half of SNAP recipients lost their benefits, unemployment actually increased during the same period.
"A more likely explanation for why people are losing access to food assistance," he said, "is that states are now facing new challenges as they respond to the cuts in HR 1—the largest in the program’s history."
While funding more than $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, HR 1—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—mandated around $186 billion worth of cuts to SNAP over a decade, including through harsher work requirements for older adults, parents, veterans, and homeless people.
Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst at CBPP, noted that "the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1's SNAP cuts takes effect."
Beginning in 2027, the law will require states to cover 75% of SNAP administrative costs, up from the previous 50%. They will also have to cover a larger share of the benefit costs if they provide benefits to large numbers of ineligible people.
"States will soon be required to pay for part of SNAP benefits costs—totaling billions of dollars across all states—creating enormous fiscal challenges," explained Llobrera. "Many steps states are taking to lower error rates in response to this cost shift could make it harder for eligible people to access SNAP, driving down caseloads."
He noted that some states like Illinois and Georgia are now expending more resources on means testing, requiring households to recertify their eligibility for SNAP twice as often and "putting families at risk of losing SNAP if they can’t navigate the additional red tape."
Other states have made cuts preemptively. In the year leading up to the GOP bill's passage, Arizona cut staffing at its SNAP agency by more than a third, creating a major backlog of cases. While the state remains an outlier, Llobrera and research analyst Catlin Nchako said that "other states may not be far behind."
"In the face of massive new costs," Llobrera warned, "states may even withdraw from the program altogether, terminating food assistance for all low-income people, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans."
He said, "Congress must delay the cost shift before even more people lose the food assistance they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US G20 Presidency Could Take Trump's Pro-Billionaire Agenda Global
There’s a real risk that the US presidency could advance an economic agenda that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy while sidelining efforts to tackle inequality, strengthen fair taxation, and resolve deepening debt crises worldwide.
Apr 12, 2026
In just a year, the wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by $698 billion dollars, while low-wage workers struggled as the Trump administration pushed an inequality-fueling agenda. Now, concerns are growing that the same policy choices—those driving a massive transfer of wealth to the richest—could be projected onto the global stage.
The United States recently assumed the presidency of the G20—a major platform for heads of state and governments to address global economic issues. The presidency is a role that carries significant influence over global economic priorities. There’s a real risk that the US presidency could advance an economic agenda that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy while sidelining efforts to tackle inequality, strengthen fair taxation, and resolve deepening debt crises worldwide.
Instead of focusing the G20 on poverty alleviation, reducing inequality, or dealing with a pending global economic crisis, the US government focus will center on removing regulatory burdens, unlocking energy supply chains, and pioneering new technologies and innovation. This marks a sharp departure from the 2025 theme of “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability” and signals a shift toward exporting the Trump administration’s domestic agenda to the global stage.
This all comes at a time when inequality is rising across most countries, and many low- and middle-income nations face mounting debt and stagnant growth.
As the US government so blatantly prioritizes wealthy interests, it is a critical moment for civil society to step forward—organizing and advancing an agenda that breaks decisively from the G20’s all-too-often emphasis on preserving the status quo.
US officials are pitching a “back to the basics” approach—which in reality is a sidelining of issues such as inequality, poverty, labor, climate, and gender. It is also widely anticipated that the Trump administration will restrict avenues for civil society participation.
Current plans suggest a focus on the leaders’ summit and financial track; a reduction in working groups; and formal engagement limited to business stakeholders, excluding civil society organizations, women’s groups, labor unions, and youth representatives. Even acknowledging that past G20 efforts on sustainable development have been uneven, this “back to the basics” approach risks abandoning critical priorities altogether.
Recent G20 presidencies led by Brazil and South Africa demonstrated a different trajectory, placing inequality and debt at the center of global discussions. South Africa’s 2025 presidency elevated the urgency of inequality by commissioning the first-ever G20 report on the issue. Led by professor Joseph Stiglitz, the report described a global “inequality emergency” and proposed the creation of an International Panel on Inequality to guide coordinated action.
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration’s domestic policies, including the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), represent one of the largest upward transfers of wealth in decades, making it unlikely that current US leadership will champion similar efforts internationally.
Progress on global tax cooperation is also under threat. Brazil’s 2024 presidency achieved a breakthrough agreement to cooperate on taxing high-net-worth individuals. While extreme wealth concentration has increased in recent years, research shows billionaires pay effective tax rates close to 0.3% of their wealth—well below what average workers contribute.
Yet in 2025, the Trump administration has already taken actions that undermine these efforts, including withdrawing from United Nations tax negotiations, pressuring other advanced economies to shield US corporations from global tax agreements, and opposing measures such as digital services and carbon taxes.
Climate action presents another area of concern. G20 countries are responsible for approximately 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet many continue to fall short of their commitments. The US administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and rollback of domestic climate policies reflect a broader retreat from climate leadership.
The Trump administration’s emphasis on expanding energy supply chains raises the possibility that fossil fuel development could be prioritized over clean energy transitions, particularly if multilateral development banks are encouraged to increase investments in oil and gas projects.
Taken together, these signals suggest that the 2026 US G20 presidency could mark a significant retreat. Rather than building on recent efforts to address inequality, debt, and climate change, it may instead shift the forum toward a narrower agenda that prioritizes elite and corporate interests.
The direction ultimately taken will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the credibility of the G20 but for the future of global economic cooperation. As the US government so blatantly prioritizes wealthy interests, it is a critical moment for civil society to step forward—organizing and advancing an agenda that breaks decisively from the G20’s all-too-often emphasis on preserving the status quo.
Now is the time for people, institutions, and movements to unite and champion bold new forms of multilateral cooperation that serve billions, not billionaires.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-Israeli War on Iran Fuels Higher Global Food Prices, Mideast Poverty: UN Agencies
Soaring energy costs caused by the illegal war of choice are driving up food costs and taking a toll on regional GDP, while soaring prices for US consumers could affect upcoming midterm elections.
Apr 03, 2026
Soaring energy prices caused by the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran is driving up global food prices while shrinking the economies of Gulf Arab states targeted in Iranian counterstrikes, according to a pair of reports published this week by United Nations agencies.
On Friday, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published its latest Food Price Index (FFPI), which measures the monthly change in international costs of a basket of basic grocery items. The FFPI rose 2.4% over February levels.
"Price indices across all commodity groups—cereals, meat, dairy, vegetable oils, and sugar—rose to varying degrees, reflecting not only underlying market fundamentals but also responses to higher energy prices linked to the conflict escalation in the Near East," FAO said in a statement.
"If the conflict stretches beyond 40 days with high input costs with current low margins, farmers will have to choose: Farm the same with fewer inputs, plant less, or switch to less intensive fertilizer crops," said FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero.
"Those choices will hit future yields and shape our food supply and commodity prices for the rest of this year and all of the next," Torero added.
As CNBC's Garrett Downs reported Thursday:
Food faces a number of new inflationary pressures due to the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The increase in oil costs is raising the price of diesel, necessary for farmers and the trucks and railroads that carry food across the country. Fertilizer is also being choked by the closure of the strait. And even plastic, a petrochemical product that’s commonly used in food packaging, could also contribute to higher checkout costs.
“The price of food is going to move quite a lot,” Kjetil Storesletten, an economist and professor at the University of Minnesota, told Downs. “If you put those things together, that it’s a big chunk of the price of producing food and that the price increased a lot, it suggests that all of the increased price in fertilizer is going to be passed through to food.”
@fao.org Food Price Index rose in March for 2nd month in a row largely due to conflict in the Near East.Pressure on fertilizer supplies & elevated energy prices add uncertainty to markets despite a comfortable global food supply situation.FAO Chief Economist @maximotorero.bsky.social explains.
[image or embed]
— Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (@fao.org) April 3, 2026 at 9:39 AM
Meanwhile, the UN Development Program (UNDP) earlier this week unveiled an assessment suggesting that the war may cost affected Mideast economies between 3.7% and 6% of their collective gross domestic product (GDP) and push as many as 4 million people into poverty.
"The escalation has exposed structural vulnerabilities of the Arab states region and underscored a stark reality that even a short-lived shock can generate profound, widespread, and persistent socioeconomic impacts across the Arab states region," UNDP said.
"While the current military escalation remains geographically concentrated, its impacts are propagating through interconnected systems—trade corridors, energy markets, financial flows, and logistics networks—transforming a localized escalation into a systemic regional shock," the agency added.
Last month, the UN World Food Program warned that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its associated impacts on the global economy could push 45 million more people around the world into acute hunger this year.
In the United States, experts warn that as the war drags on, grocery prices will continue to rise, posing a political risk to Republicans who, along with President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to immediately lower the cost of key consumer items including food and gasoline—which now averages over $4 per gallon, up from $3.10 on the day the president returned to the White House.
Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee released a report Thursday showing that higher pump prices have cost Americans $8.4 billion over the first month of the Iran War.
Democrats are looking to capitalize on consumer angst and Republicans' broken promises—not only on prices but also on "no new wars"—in the upcoming midterm elections.
“Our messaging is affordability and accountability,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told CNBC on Thursday. “It’s a pretty tailored message, pretty narrowly focused, and on both of those pillars, Trump is making our arguments even more compelling.”
As Trump seeks an unprecedented $1.5 trillion in military spending for the next fiscal year, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) argued that voters have had enough.
“It just pisses them off more,” he said of Trump's broken promises. "When people hear that, they’re like, ‘Hey, I can’t pay for groceries and you want to go pay for a war in the Middle East?’ I think that’s going to be a tough sell.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rent Control Will Protect Students Against Homelessness
The situation is dire. Students and their families are suffering right now, with young people’s futures at stake—as well their immediate well being.
Mar 21, 2026
The numbers are dire. More than 1.4 million students are homeless in the United States. In California, there are more homeless students than ever: At least 230,000.
Something needs to be done, and quick. Rent control will provide the relief that students and their families need right now.
Numerous experts have pointed out that students need stable, affordable housing to learn and thrive. California Homeless Youth Project Director Pixie Pearl, for example, told LA School Report that unhoused students struggle with a lack of access to nutritious foods, mental healthcare problems, and chronic absenteeism, among many other issues. It’s incredibly difficult to receive an education when one is homeless.
We also know that unaffordable rents are linked to higher mortality rates, as reported by Eviction Lab, the prestigious think tank at Princeton University, and a wide-ranging UC San Francisco study on homelessness found that most people are pushed into the streets because of sky-high rents. So immediately addressing skyrocketing rents is key, and rent control is the tool to use.
Yet corporate landlords and certain politicians want to keep the status quo, saying that we merely need to build more housing to drive down rents. Not only is there no urgency in that approach, which has serious flaws and does nothing for students right now, but developers build almost exclusively luxury rental housing—a key fact that Zillow’s chief economist pointed out as a major problem for improving housing affordability. And, of course, poor and middle- and working-class families with students can’t afford luxury apartments.
As a result, housing experts are increasingly calling for politicians to pass rent regulations to protect tenants.
University of Southern California Professor Manuel Pastor, co-author of the USC Dornsife’s Rent Matters report, wrote: “The housing crisis requires a range of strategies, [and] moderate rent regulation is a useful tool to be nested in broader strategy. It has fewer damaging effects than are often imagined, it can address economic pain, and it can promote housing stability. And housing stability matters because it is associated with physical, social, and psychological well-being; higher educational achievement by the young; and benefits for people of color.”
In response to a recent effort to pass rent stabilization in Providence, Rhode Island, University of Minnesota Professor Edward Goetz noted in a Boston Globe op-ed: “City officials are responding to the [housing affordability] crisis with a proposal to enact rent stabilization. Vocal critics of the policy make a wide range of doomsday predictions about what will happen if a city adopts it. But the actual record of rent stabilization across the country tells a dramatically different story. In fact, rent stabilization can be an effective approach to the affordability challenges faced by Providence renters, as it has been in other U.S. cities.”
In a 2023 letter to the Biden Administration, a group of 32 top economists wrote: “Through well-crafted policies, rent regulations can be designed in a manner that protects the general health and well being of renters, promotes affordability, mitigates future inflationary episodes, and maintains landlords’ ability to receive a fair and reasonable return on investment.”
But rent control isn’t the only tool to protect students against homelessness.
Housing Is A Human Right and other activists have long urged elected officials to quickly implement the “3 Ps”: Protect tenants through rent control and other tenant protections; preserve existing affordable housing, not demolish it to make way for luxury housing; and produce new affordable and homeless housing through such concepts as adaptive reuse and prefabricated housing.
It bears repeating. The situation is dire. Students and their families are suffering right now, with young people’s futures at stake – as well their immediate well being.
Rent control will immediately stabilize rent and bring quick relief. Politicians, across the country, have that tool at their disposal. They need to pass rent regulations. Pronto.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Might’ve Made a Mistake': How the Military 'Recruits' Kids Like My Students
Thus far we’ve lost six service members. That number will almost certainly increase as this drags on. And the hard truth is the majority of those casualties will be kids recruited out of high schools in marginalized communities.
Mar 09, 2026
When the powers that be talk about sending kids to war, they aren’t talking about their kids. So, whose kids are they talking about, and where do those kids come from?
I teach senior English at an urban high school in upstate New York. The poverty rate here is high. There are no Fortunate Sons (or daughters) on my roster. And several have signed up to join the military after graduation. While I have nothing but reverence and respect for anyone willing to serve our great nation, I’m not sure 18 is old enough–or mature enough–to make such a seismic decision, especially now that a protracted conflict with Iran is a real possibility.
On Monday, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “If anybody has ever been there and been able to smell the war that's happening around you and taste it, and feel it in your nostrils, and hear it, it's something that you'll never forget.” Of course, Mr. Mullin himself has never been anywhere near a war.
Trust me when I tell you: 18 year olds are still children. They say dumb things. They do dumb things. They act on impulse. And a high school like mine is fruitful ground for the military. Most days, there’s a recruiter in the cafeteria when the kids come for lunch. He brings pamphlets and a pull-up bar. He dangles a signing bonus. And once someone commits, the military has them. A contract with any branch of the armed services is the only bona-fide lifelong contract in our culture.
“Kids aren’t supposed to be hurt or used by adults, or sent to potentially die in the sand, when only a few months prior they had to ask permission for a bathroom pass.”
According to the US Department of “War,” the military is seeing its highest recruiting numbers in over a decade. By June 2025, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force had already met their annual benchmarks. Perhaps this uptick is attributed to a sudden surge of patriotism. More likely, it’s because of a tightening job market for high school grads, or the rising costs of a college education.
Retired Staff Sergeant Tony Buchanan, who joined the Army in 2001 after high school, and served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, “While I believe the military does a good job evaluating these young men and women before enlisting them, legally, a recruiter does not need to speak with a parent.”
I have no doubt the military teaches hard work, respect, and humility, plus the opportunity to embark on some pretty cool careers. But the reality is, at some point, these young men and women could be called to a war front, regardless of their individual goals or beliefs. Because of that, we must hope that our leadership sees war as a last resort.
To justify the mission, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, they would immediately come after us. If we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked by someone else, we would suffer more casualties and more deaths.”
As a public educator, when I build a unit of study, the first thing I determine is where I want the content to take my students. The defined endgame drives all planning. I don’t just make it up as I go along and hope everything works out. Students always know what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and where it’ll lead. They might not like it, and they may not agree with it, but they recognize the rationale.
Regarding our attack on Iran, I fear the endgame hasn’t been defined, and if it has, this administration has done a poor job articulating that. On Monday, Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee, said he’s heard the administration verbalize “at least four different goals in the last eight or nine days.”
Every winter I teach Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, a collection of short stories that explore the experiences of American soldiers in the Vietnam War. In it, O’Brien writes: “You don't make war without knowing why. Knowledge, of course, is always imperfect, but it seemed to me that when a nation goes to war it must have reasonable confidence in the justice and imperative of its cause. You can't fix your mistakes. Once people are dead, you can't make them undead.”
A CNN poll found that 59% of Americans disapprove of the Iran strikes and think a long-term conflict is likely.
Thus far we’ve lost six service members. That number will almost certainly increase as this drags on. And the hard truth is the majority of those casualties will be kids recruited out of high schools in marginalized communities.
“I’m a parent and teacher, so I see it as my job to protect kids,” said Derek Shuttleworth, a veteran educator who’s taught in Alaska, Oregon, California, and New York. “Kids aren’t supposed to be hurt or used by adults, or sent to potentially die in the sand, when only a few months prior they had to ask permission for a bathroom pass.”
This past January, I sat with a senior who’d just signed with the Army. He was excited about the cash bonus, enough to put a down payment on a “sick-ass truck.” Yesterday, he came back to see me. He’s now worried about the war. He doesn’t want to “catch a bullet in Iran.” He said, “I might’ve made a mistake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy