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
u.s. constitution
Democrats, Call Them Names—But Do It Right
Rather than focusing on personal insults, Democrats should be using labels like “Pro-Cancer,” “Job-Killers,” “Anti-Constitution,” and “Healthcare-Cutters” to tar congressional Republicans.
Mar 30, 2025
Democratic politicians have begun trying to vent voters’ anger at their opponents by calling them names. Minnesota Gov. and former vice-presidential nominee Tim Walzrecently called DOGE head Elon Musk a “South African nepo baby,” presenting him as an entitled foreigner. Similarly, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett attracted attention by calling Texas Governor Greg Abbott “Governor Hot Wheels.”
This name-calling may feel good for Democrats, but it just repeats the mistake of the recent past. Democrats lost the 2024 election due to their inordinate focus on President Donald Trump’s personal flaws, controversial statements, and criminal record as well as by offering a vague, bland policy agenda. What is needed now is a focus on policies—not personalities—though name-calling may still be a key tool, if they do it right.
Rather than focusing on the personal, Democrats should be using labels like “Pro-Cancer,” “Job-Killers,” “Anti-Constitution,” and “Healthcare-Cutters” to tar congressional Republicans. These may sound harsh, even outlandish. But they are true, highlighting in only a few words how Trump and Musk’s actions (and congressional acquiesce to them) will harm Americans in ways that matter to them.
The main objective right now should be not only hitting hard, but hitting smart—and saddling Republicans in Congress with the worst effects of Trump’s agenda using concise, aggressive terminology.
Only through a wave of sharp, crisp, and memorable verbal attacks on all Republicans to raise awareness of the most unpopular ill effects of Trump policies can Democrats force them to either distance themselves from the president or fully own his agenda. Think of the effectiveness of the Republican phrase “death panels,” a slanderous label used to describe the Affordable Care Act that helped contributed to the Democrats’ big loss in the 2010 midterms only two years after former President Barack Obama’s historic 2008 victory. Unlike “death panels,” labels like “Pro-Cancer,” “Anti-Constitution,” and “Job-Killers” have the benefit of being true.
Any Republican politician who has not vocally opposed Trump’s massive, multi-billion dollar National Institutes of Health cuts to institutions researching treatments for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses should be label as “Pro-Cancer.” It is not unfair, it is a fact—if you are a politician weakening researchers’ ability to find cures and treatments for cancer, you are on the wrong side of the war against cancer. Opponents of Trump could theoretically form a broad base of opposition by forming local groups with names like “Cancer Survivors Against Cuts” to pressure Republicans in Congress to stand up and protect these funds. Even if the effort fails, as it likely will, these labels might prove potent against Republicans in 2026. This national issue can easily be framed locally given that every state has universities facing major cuts, and in many states and congressional districts, these universities and their health networks are among the top employers.
On that note, Democrats should be labeling Republicans as job killers, and not only because of the tens of thousands of federal workers Musk’s DOGE has fired, or because of the many jobs lost amid hiring freezes at universities (affecting whole university towns) and by businesses facing tariff uncertainty. Democrats can connect Musk’s interest in AI and self-driving cars to the fact that he and others in the Trump orbit, despite their ostensible opposition to job outsourcing, are more than happy to use technology to kill jobs. Job-killing congressional Republicans should be tied as closely as possible to Musk and anything unpopular about his business empire simply because of all they do to enable him.
To borrow a phrase used recently by Jamelle Bouie to characterize Trump’s policies, all Republican enablers of Trumpism should be considered “Anti-Constitutional” for supporting an assault on the separation of powers. Similarly, repeatedly calling congressional Republicans “Healthcare-Cutters” would call attention to the massive Medicaid cuts in next year’s budget and how they will affect regular people, which many Americans—including some who rely on Medicaid—seem to be unaware of amid these busy news cycles.
This name-calling may strike some as rude or radical. But being rude never seemed to hurt the Republicans, and right now, the danger for Democrats isn’t looking radical—it is looking weak. Moderates, and even some conservative voters, will have more respect for Democrats who are not feeble and can confidently call out Republican policies that will harm their lives. If they want to present themselves as more moderate, Democrats can frame themselves as “Anti-Recession Activists” and “Constitution Supporters.”
Many Democrats are refraining from going on the offensive, instead apparently waiting until enough conservative voters suffer from the economic pains of Trump’s policies. But the country cannot afford to wait. The main objective right now should be not only hitting hard, but hitting smart—and saddling Republicans in Congress with the worst effects of Trump’s agenda using concise, aggressive terminology. Democrats—liberals, progressives, moderates—are fighting for their way of life. It is time to act like it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The One-Word Reason Paul Weiss Caved to Trump
The decision was a culminating event in Big Law’s transformation from a noble profession to a collection of profit-maximizing businesses.
Mar 28, 2025
1,613.
That’s how many words Brad Karp, chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP, used in his March 23 memo defending his firm’s capitulation to U.S. President Donald Trump.
One would have been enough: greed.
Observers have been shocked and puzzled at Paul Weiss’ refusal to fight Trump’s unconstitutional order aimed at destroying the firm. But its decision was a culminating event in Big Law’s transformation from a noble profession to a collection of profit-maximizing businesses.
The Big Law business model values only what it can measure. And there’s no metric for defending the Constitution, preserving democracy, or upholding the rule of law.
The Lawyer Bubble: a Profession in Crisis documents that transformation. It’s based on my 30-year career as a litigator in Big Law—a select group of the nation’s largest and most lucrative law firms. The vast majority share the same goal: maximizing equity partners’ current income. A few metrics—size, growth, revenues, billable hours, leverage, profits per partner—have become the definitive measures of a firm’s success.
By those criteria, Paul Weiss has been wildly successful. In 2024, the firm’s revenues exceeded $2.6 billion and its average profits per equity partner were more than $7.5 million.
A Successful Business Model—Especially for the Few
Karp addressed his memo to the “Paul Weiss Community” of more than 1,000 lawyers. But the real players at any Big Law firm are the equity partners. As of September 2024, Paul Weiss had 212.
At most firms, a small subset of that group controls clients that bring in the most business. Those equity partners run the place, set the culture, and get the largest share of the profits pie. On average, the highest-paid equity partners in a Big Law firm earn 10 times more than their lowest-paid equity-partner colleagues.
From an economic perspective, it’s important to run any large institution efficiently. But most Big Law firm leaders have become so obsessed with the metrics of their business model that they have forgotten why they went to law school in the first place.
Practicing law is not just maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. But the Big Law business model values only what it can measure. And there’s no metric for defending the Constitution, preserving democracy, or upholding the rule of law. Karp’s memo observes that, like many Big Law firms, Paul Weiss attorneys donate significant time to worthy causes. That’s laudable but no excuse for caving in to Trump’s unlawful demands.
Trump’s Test
Trump’s relentless assault on the judicial system has targeted attorneys and judges as “unfair” to him personally. None of those specious attacks reached Big Law or its business model until now.
Trump directed his first Big Law assault at Covington & Burling, but it was limited to a handful of individuals. Then he went aftereveryone at Perkins Coie. With survival on the line, Perkins Coie and its litigation counsel Williams & Connolly rose to the challenge. Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell sided with the firm and brought Trump’s effort to a screeching halt.
Except it didn’t. After that unambiguous loss, Trump issued a similar order against Paul Weiss. It was classic Trump: Never admit a mistake; after a defeat, double down. Trump then sought Judge Howell’s disqualification from the Perkins Coie case. He lost that one too.
Epic Fail
Rarely does a potential litigant have the confidence of victory that Judge Howell’s ruling in favor of Perkins Coie had given Paul Weiss. For many reasons, resistance should have been an easy call.
First, every attorney’s sworn oath demanded it. Upon entering the bar, all lawyers pledge to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. We don’t get to pick and choose when to honor it.
Second, Paul Weiss’s multimillionaire equity partners could afford the fight financially.
As leaders of the profession in these perilous times, all Big Law partners have a special obligation to think beyond the metrics of profit-maximization.
Third, along with the corporate world, the entire legal profession was looking to Paul Weiss—one of the most preeminent Big Law firms—for leadership at a dangerous moment.
Finally, Trump had declared that his attacks on the judiciary system, Big Law, and anyone he disfavored would continue.
But Paul Weiss capitulated. Karp said that clients worried about retaining a law firm that was “persona non grata” with the administration—a phrase he used twice in his memo. If that’s true, those clients are as short-sighted as Karp and his colleagues. Whether a client thinks its lawyer should resist a rogue president is irrelevant.
Perhaps the firm did not explain to its corporate clients the long-run implications of capitulation. Without the rule of law, the underlying legal certainty necessary for effective commerce disappears. Contracts become unenforceable. Constitutional rights are lost. Chaos reigns.
Even at a practical level, relying on attorneys who give in to Trump’s unlawful demands is risky. What happens when those clients become persona non grata because Trump directs his next arbitrary and illegal attack at them? How will clients feel when the only lawyers who are not persona non grata are the ones whom Trump likes? Should clients worry that its lawyers’ desire to remain “Trump-approved” might tempt their counsel to compromise clients’ interests when challenging his administration’s illegal policies?
Karp also said that he followed the path that the firm recommends to clients facing “bet-the-company” litigation: settle rather than risk extinction. Let’s test that with a thought experiment:
A client comes to Paul Weiss with a “bet-the-company” crisis. Precedent in an identical case virtually guarantees that the client will win.
“If you settle this frivolous attack, it will embolden your adversaries,” the lawyer warns. “In the long-run, the best business decision is to fight it.”
“Is that what you would do?” the client asks.
“Yes,” the attorney responds.
“But it’s not what you did, is it?”
As leaders of the profession in these perilous times, all Big Law partners have a special obligation to think beyond the metrics of profit-maximization.
As William Bruce Cameron said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
The fight isn’t over. Four days after Paul Weiss surrendered, Trump issued an executive order targeting Jenner & Block.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump ‘Won’t Forget’ the Roberts Court Helped Him Win—Neither Should We
As people harmed by this flood of illegal actions turn to the courts for relief, we must be clear that the Supreme Court helped bring about this crisis by helping Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
Mar 19, 2025
Say what you will about the president who is dismantling our democracy, but at least he says “thank you” once in a while.
Two weeks ago, after delivering a lengthy and divisive address to a Joint Session of Congress, President Donald Trump mingled with the crowd, shaking hands with his supporters. In a revealing moment, he patted Chief Justice John Roberts on the back and said, “Thank you. Thank you again. I won’t forget.”
Presumably President Trump was thanking Chief Justice Roberts for aiding his election victory and granting him unprecedented power, and not for some great tips on fixing his backswing. Either way, Justice Roberts appeared much obliged. After all, it’s nice to hear a “thank you” when you compromise your personal integrity and trample the Constitution to help a convicted felon win an election.
Structural court reform will be a necessary step to rebuilding our democracy.
Trump understands that he owes a debt of gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court. Yet, as we look to the courts to protect us from the Trump administration’s abuses, many have overlooked or forgotten how SCOTUS got us here in the first place. As people harmed by this flood of illegal actions turn to the courts for relief, we must be clear that the Supreme Court helped bring about this crisis by helping Donald Trump win the 2024 election. While the Supreme Court did not directly decide the election for Trump in the way it did for former President George W. Bush in 2000 with its decision in Bush v. Gore, the justices interfered with our elections, our politics, and our society in ways that certainly helped, and may have been decisive, to Trump’s win.
The People’s Parity Project Action released a new report, “The Supreme Court Helped Trump Win,” which examines the numerous forms of assistance the court gave to Trump, from the structural to the political. The court shielded Trump from prosecution for his attempt to steal the 2020 election. The justices prevented states from striking him from the ballot despite the 14th Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists holding office. They allowed unlimited money to flood our politics, permitting billionaires to buy the presidency. They gutted the Voting Rights Act and permitted racial and ethnic gerrymandering, which reduced competition, worsened extremism, and handed Republicans control of the House.
The court also obstructed the signature policy achievements of former President Joe Biden, including student debt relief, protections for transgender people, and immigration reform, leaving Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris with fewer successes to highlight in their campaigns. Over decades, the court weakened labor unions, harming working people’s economic and collective power and benefiting Republican candidates. The persistent threat that the court will strike down any progressive policies has created a sense of futility among voters and elected officials, reinforcing voters’ and potential voters’ belief that “both sides do nothing” and that traditional politicians will not enact meaningful change. This bolstered Trump's renegade, antihero image, making his promises to break everything and start anew more appealing.
As Trump and Musk barrel into Trump’s second term, they are defying laws and the Constitution at every turn. In just a month, they have attempted to end birthright citizenship; frozen federal spending and payments that were already appropriated; illegally accessed Americans’ private data; attempted to eliminate or stymie legislatively created agencies and fire officials in violation of the law; and launched assaults on Black people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.
Trump’s actions are so extreme and lawless that the Supreme Court will likely step in to curb some of them, such as the ruling this week to stop the Trump administration from illegally blocking $2 billion in funding to USAID. The USAID ruling, and any other SCOTUS attempts to rein in the would-be king, will not outweigh the court’s role in causing this crisis. It will not mean the court has become a brave defender of our most cherished principles. It will simply mean that some breaches are too blatant for even the justices to justify.
As we confront this daunting moment, we must be realistic and clearheaded. This is not the time for false heroes or misplaced faith in systems that have consistently failed the people. We cannot afford to fall into a collective Stockholm syndrome regarding the nation’s highest court, even if the justices do rein in some of Trump’s most extreme actions.
Structural court reform will be a necessary step to rebuilding our democracy. There are no shortcuts or silver bullets; systemic change will require a broad, long-lasting movement of Americans who claim a different vision for our country’s future. Although the idea of significant court reform and planning for the future—four, eight, or even twelve years out—may seem daunting, it is far less radical than what unfolds right before our eyes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular