Yes, the notion of a radical left is contrived. The reality of a radical left is that there isn’t one.
Can someone describe what is radical left? Economically? Socially? Redistribution of obscene wealth is not radical left. Progressive tax policy that redistributes wealth to the areas where it is most needed is reasonable. Some interests are better equipped to pay for it than others, but to whom much has been given much is, and rightfully should be, expected.
An example of a radical left wing viewpoint would be that it should be legal and socially acceptable for doctors to cut off young men's penises because their crazy mothers convinced them they were really girls. Another example would be that borders of western nations should not exist, that non-western people should move en masse to western nations, where locals will provide for them because the locals are a variety of sinners who deserve it. We could go on. Viewpoints like these exist, and they tend to pile up in some individuals. They are not mainstream, but that's what the qualifier radical is for.
OK, Dimitri. You’ve given us some examples of positions advocated by the blue haired lesbian Communists. Now give us some examples of some actual elected officials advocating those positions.
No actual quotes here. In fact you ignored all your previous claims except the open border claim and made a whole bunch of new ones. Biden reversed himself on the border issue and helped created a bipartisan bill to restore border security. Trump instructed his minions to block it.
Hmm . . . I guess when you get to pick the definition and don't apply the same standard to each side, you can make any argument. By the way, in making the case against them, you used the same tactic you accuse the Right of employing.
Some might remember the whole DEI movement was driven by people in power, both inside and outside government. It was (in my opinion) one of the reasons for Trump's re-election. And even when it wasn't the government enacting rules, the movement was certainly felt by people who had to deal with it in companies that responded to the rhetoric.
Dismissing popular movements because they are not in power should be a cautionary tale if one looks at Trump's ascendancy. . . twice!
In my view, it sure seems to me Democrats have learned about the efficacy of populism and want to play the same game.
As for socialists, the current DSA movement has specific, plainly stated goals (in writing) which they downplay in speeches (sounds familiar?).
You handwave their probable winning of House seats as not being the majority, but, as we saw on the right, radical ideas pulled the party further to the right. I expect the same thing to happen to Democrats (sorry; is happening).
What I mean to say is that your analysis runs in one direction only, which is both dangerous to understanding the political environment and to underestimating the danger to a representative democracy.
Mind you, I'm not an expert, but I can recognize some things when I read them, and implying there is no left-wing amplification of right-wing specimens, and dismissing the idea that some progressive positions are alienating moderate voters regardless of right-wing amplification, appears to me as not honestly looking at the situation on the ground.
I don't think that's an oversight; it appears intentional.
Emilio, thank you for this well-worded response. I just got this article and am still sifting through it, but so far, I get some of the same thoughts you stated above.
My $.02 for what it's worth - No matter how well-written an article is, I find that if its still coming from the 'left vs right' perspective, there's a tendency to have blinders up - using the same tactic one accused the 'other side' of (as you stated). I left the 'left' for so many reasons, this being one of them. I am now happily 'politically homeless'.
I have a bet with someone that Democrats won't do as well as they should in the midterms as they would if only Trump's performance were considered. And I made the bet because of the asymmetry you mention (the "we're the good guys and our hearts are pure, but the other guys are black-hearted villains" thinking is reinforced within the ranks, and anyone criticizing must be an enemy).
My thinking about the mid-terms is that they should have been a lock just on this administration's policies and the economy . . . were it not for Democrats deciding "Hey, we can throw these elections, just watch us!".
It's not because Republicans are amplifying marginal cases . . . it's because Democrats are amplifying their own marginal cases, downplaying serious issues with candidates as they court younger voters.
That's exactly how Republicans got pulled into the MAGA-sphere . . . they needed the radicals to win, and that gives the radicals leverage because they don't negotiate (the purity of vision, or something like that) and because — for reasons I understand but don't agree with — their positions have constituencies.
Even if Democrats take the House, it's likely to be with a narrow margin, and the handful of DSA members will be crucial to their (Democrats) ability to act as a majority.
If anyone moves, it will be the established politicians (unless they get voted out of office in closed primaries). What could save Democrats is coming together with a unified governing agenda . . . but that requires compromises none of the factions are willing to make.
Yeah, I didn't prove anything. Neither did you. Trump has done nothing but shit the bed. The poison comes from the billionaires who bought him. The left has no converse to the billionaire interests who are buying fascism now the same way they bought national socialism in the 1930s.
The left, if anything, is nothing beyond a group of concerned citizens, a group of righteous individuals more proccuppied with the success of others than of themselves. 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.' Margaret Mead
The only "thoughtful" aspect of what the Executive has been doing for the past 18 months was coming up with the alternative versions of military base name dedications.
Remember when violent crowds of radical leftists stormed the US Capitol, beat police with flag poles, and threatened to hang the Vice President? Yeah, me neither.
As always you nail the essence of what occurs. And you paint the picture with such exquisite detail that your subject forms a moving picture in my mind. I want everyone to hear you. To understand you. But your vocabulary and flow of words would drown most people I know. I wish I could translate your incredible insights into a language I could humbly share with others.
This analysis is pretty spot-on as to the behavior of the media, in normalizing the ever-more-radical American right (MAGA/MAHA) while painting the barely-left-of-center opposition as a radical, Socialist, Communist, existential threat to the United States.
What amazes me is that in your other essays you state, or at least imply, that this will change in and after the next election, or in and after the election of 2028. In the past, when the country got into a situation similar to this, it took a complete economic crash to effect change, and I don't see that anything less than that will effect real change anytime soon. I also don't see any agents of change similar to Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt running for President in 2028. Sure, there are a few Democratic "Socialists" running here and there for Congress, but not enough to really create change.
In fact, I fully expect that if the midterm elections result in the loss of control of the House or Senate, Trump, Vance, and Mike Johnson will refuse to seat the newly elected Congresspersons on the grounds that the election was tainted, likely by the failure to require valid ID as specified in the unpassed SAVE Act, or by the failure of Democrat-run states to properly implement the SAVE act if it should pass.
Reading today's Brock commentary now is on the same level as if I were reading a medical peer-reviewed paper detailing the cell kinetics or perhaps the hallmarks of cancer.
Mike talks about the low-information American voter. I can tell you, first-hand, that most people I speak with are exactly that and they are not those with young families or full-time jobs. Instead, they are university-educated, upper class and higher than me income people (e.g., lawyers, realtors, entrepreneurs, former government employees). Let me tell you my diagnosis.
America has become the land of the apathetics. People just are not interested, they have zilch curiosity or desire to understand or discuss "things that matter."
"Our lives begin to end the day that we become silent about things that matter." — Martin Luther King
Our so-called mainstream media is still at the rationalizing Trump stage. Yes, I agree that Fox News is a well-oiled collection of Russian (fascist) propagandists. What I see in the Republican Congress, the majority of the "Justices" of the Supreme Court, and of course the Destroyer-in-Chief (DIC) who we call "president," is a polished KKK, a group of racists that would feel comfortable in Nazi Germany.
America, the land of the intellectually stagnant, who shows most enthusiasm at watching a soccer or football game rather than understanding the attack on their freedoms. It feels like Sodom and Gomorrah to me. I have not had a good discourse in ages. I am a stranger in a strange land. Yes, I have contacts in other countries that are reprieves from this wasteland of American lethargy & apathy. But... perhaps what is happening here is just the "natural history of a one-time democracy?
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Attributed to John Tyler, 1787. Tyler was a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh. Apparently, this was in reference to the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years ago.
I think this is where America and Americans are; this is their status or "that which is." It is a painful awakening for me to accept this but like the comedian said:
“Reality, wow, what a concept!” − Robin Williams.
Robin Williams lived in my neighborhood back in the Mork and Mindy days. I am sorry I was unable to develop a relationship with him; perhaps, I would have found him to be a kindred spirit.
At a recent housewarming, I brought a half-dozen copies of the hardcover book that my son and I published on Amazon. All of the people at this gathering were immigrants who became naturalized citizens or White men who married foreign-born women. The book is titled "The Immigration Crisis." An In-depth Analysis. I offered this book as a gift to anyone interested. I do not think one person picked up the book to simply scan through it. A thousand or more hours spent in researching a topic that should be paramount to their happiness and ability to stay in this country, and not one effin iota of interest. In contrast, people I met 20 years ago while lecturing about prostate cancer in Europe replied with enthusiastic comments on the book.
The prognosis of Democracy in the US is dire. The bad apples are apparent. But underlying this are the root causes of how and why they came to be elected.
Here's the reason: AIL (Apathy, Ignorance, Laziness)
The American public is the present-day counterpart of the citizens of Rome leading up to the fall of the Roman Empire. They are apathetic to the cause, ignorant because their form of attention deficit only can handle information from social media and 5-minute news analyses, and they have lost their work ethic and have grown fat and lazy. Yesterday’s TV guide listed mostly football and baseball games- top priorities for the majority of Americans.
This is the harsh reality of America in 2026. Goodbye Democracy, Hello Fascism.
Post the monstrous J. Edgar, you lot were too intellectually lazy to get your heads around the significance of 'left wing', of 'socialist', and so allowed the hangover of Cold War fears to percolate long through the culture until it became a most useful epithet for the shallow branding of "the Enemy", any enemy.
And so, those of us outside your faux democratic system, are constantly amused by the many ways your rightwing Republicans and their endlessly Limbaugh-ian media can so successfully platform the REDS UNDER THE BEDS plaint to the detriment of your enfeebled Democracy.
ANTIFA is a product of deliberately manouvred mass hysteria by a decades long GOP reactionary project.
Traitors working in bad faith.
The "far left" composite is the lie given to true Liberalism.
Poor Pretty and Renee and the slaughtered others are the end result of this ongoing attack on your constitutional order.
Murica is now hoisted upon its own corrupt business model.
“The low information voter” — what to do about this fact? How to reach, never understand the inability to adequately reach these voters short of sitting on their front porch. Unless of course they tune into your “ station”.
Thanks for the IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION of the more radically oriented right in all its forms and talking heads which is currently wreaking violence and irresponsible rhetoric far more damaging to this democracy than any imaginary leftist ever dreamed. Adept at lying and twisting reality, these extremist far right apparent “normies” are far scarier in their lock step march to a billionaire financed monarchy. Great read of the comparison between the reality of what actually is the radicalism of the current “government” as contrasted with the democrats who hope to hold the Constitution as law and the laws as worth following. If you can’t see the difference — then this nation is definitely screwed.
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
Also, France doesn't just seat eight Communist deputies in the Assemblée nationale; it seats around seventy deputies from La France insoumise, which is generally considered to be to the left of the French Communist Party (to the point where Macron wouldn't appoint a Prime Minister who would rely on the backing of LFI).
I would say, however, that the radical left is underrepresented in US electoral politics because of the dynamics of how the party system works there, or, rather, doesn't. Political parties as understood elsewhere are functionally illegal in the US, and the way in which this is so forces the system hard toward having only two viable parties even more so than you see in other countries using the first-past-the-post system and single-member constituencies: https://jwmason.org/slackwire/political-parties-are-illegal-in-the-united-states/ Its demographic share might also be very small compared to what is seen elsewhere; I do not know; but simply looking at how many elected members of legislatures it has is not a good comparison, even to countries like Canada and the UK.
Also, as for far-left, witness Mamdani's comments about arresting Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to New York to address the United Nations. He had promised to do it on the campaign trail; he walked it back when the city's legal team looked into the matter and found that there was no law permitting New York City to arrest Netanyahu on the ICC's outstanding arrest warrant for him. Someone replied to his post by saying that he should do things like order the NYPD not to hold protesters back from Netanyahu's motorcade; at least one commenter said that Mamdani should just say "YOLO" and order the NYPD to arrest the man anyway (which would, if absolutely nothing else, and if Mamdani doesn't care what happens to him personally as long as it gives Bibi a scare, get the city sued for massive damages for wrongful arrest). The commenter in question has a YouTube channel with two million subscribers which he has been running full-time since 2012.
(I would also posit that a number of Democratic Party officials you named would be considered outright conservative in other rich democracies.)
While I agree that nearly all Americans have a sunny, middle-of-the-road, go along to get along disposition, and that this is true of those who vote for Democrats and those who vote for Republicans, I have to note that there are quite a few radical leftists, of the blue hair and crazy views variety, and barely any radical rightists. An ass hat at Fox News who wants to put together a story about some obnoxious march, protest, whatever, of the blue-hair variety, doesn't have to work all that hard. But an ass hat at not Fox News who wants to put together a story about some real, actual American Nazi, usually has to fabricate the individual or their Nazism.
The way I would synthesize this is that the press uses fear of Nazis under the bed to keep Democrats scared and vaguely supporting the administrative state while calling it "our democracy," and uses the blue-hairs to keep Republicans' political momentum aimed at ultimately trivial offenses to good taste and decency.
Meanwhile, whenever the press needs to lie to the people to start a war, it lies with enthusiasm and impunity; its warmongering lies are both non-partisan and bipartisan.
The Trump monster is a problem because he's insane. He doesn't understand the blue-hair schtick's purpose, and has put together all kinds of horror shows in an attempt to "do something" about the problems. He also has what I think could be called a Goodheart's law malaise, where he demands effect upon the metrics. ICE hiring a bunch of degenerates and wife beaters to harass and arrest anyone they can find appears to be an effort to make deportation number go up, without any additional thought.
Sigh. I still hold out some hope that the men who murdered Pretti will face justice. The whole crime was bloody videotaped.
The radical right IS Trump et al. It says it right there in the article, and is pretty much the point of the article. The radical left is a nonsense, the tail, the crazies, the villains conjured up to make the radical right look moderate. The "middle" has moved so far right now, that the radical right is just the people in charge.
The lesbian woman with blue hair that wants to send all white people to Africa according to your description has nothing to do with the left or the far left. Based on what you describe, you make the same mistake that much of the commercial media makes.Equating her with the Marxist college freshman is ,from my view,making an error in judgment. The Marxist college freshmen could possibly give a cogent critique of capitalism, a legitimate view that is a distinct minority view within the DSA. There is a difference between cogent views on the left and wing nuts on tik tok.
I agree with your description of the institutional structure of the reactionary rights distortion machine. On the whole it is a healthy and detailed warning. I wonder if you have views about anything that could be done beyond making people aware?
I do disagree with the idea that the journalists at the NYT etc. probably do not know what they are doing. Yesterday there was an article about journalists at the Times self-censoring reports concerning Trump.
Even though most of Trump’s supporters are made up of the extreme Christian right (52% of republicans support Christian nationalism) the Times etc. avoid reporting on this dangerous cohort out fear,I suspect . (I should note the exception -Rolling Stone had a recent article) I think the commercial media on whole is aware of both the white washing of crazy reporting they do as well as what they avoid and why. After all these are corporations with something to sell.
There is a real schism in the democratic party. Those who are in the center represent corporate interests ,support Israel unequivocally and some support direct economic threats such as crypto vs those who support deep reform while knowing that systemic change is constrained by current entrenched power. They are the current left.
The tail of that cohort on the left includes communists with serious critiques, however they have no chance of being elected to anything. And within the communists there are various views.However they could legitimately called the far left. In short the far left in no way has no representation in the democratic party.
However unserious wing nuts do unequivocally have representation and are elected to office by the republican party. Tommy Tuberman for one. There are perhaps hundreds republicans in the administration, associated with various factions of the far Christian right. They oppose the constitutional republic and hold views which mainstream Christians regard as dangerous.
"I do not think most reporters and editors understand that this is what they are doing. I think most of them believe they are practicing journalism." I respectfully - and emphatically - disagree. These folks are super educated, they know they are part of a system that has normalized criminal conduct by the State for decades. They are willfully ignorant - just like all senior bureaucrats is corrupt, morally bankrupt machinery. Why let them off the hook? Why not imagine they have agency, a conscience, access to truth? In some ways, these folks are more pernicious than the Fox breed of "journalists" - who at least tell the truth in private sometimes.
With respect, I disagree. Because even I sometimes fall for the reactionary game, and I'm pretty adept at seeing through it. It happens occasionally because they are exploiting my good faith.
I suppose it doesn't really matter. The point is that the NYT has been normalizing criminal and quasi-criminal conduct for decades. It's just become a lot more obvious now.
Have to disagree. Having been in the industry I can tell you the real journalists left the building a long time ago. When everything went online journalism was mostly replaced with interns, click-bait writing, and begging for money. Now even that looks quaint. There are very few actual career journalists left, the money just isn't there, and now thanks to social media, everyone has a broadcast license so it's just billions of opinions, billions of people shouting into a hole. Which is a shame, because all the left has, is discourse and debate, the foundations of democracy. The money and therefore power, as always, is with the right. Fascists, wealthy oligarchs and tech overlords now have a strangle hold on democracy. Hence the shifting centre. The radical left is a construct, the radical right is in the centre - in plain sight, and the radical right remains the White Christian Nazis etc which yes, are also 'tails' but America seems to be increasingly accepting of them and veering dangerously in that direction (while freaking out about confused blue-haired girl boys who never hurt anyone.
Spot on. I, too was a journalist - Washington Star and Times Picayune. Real journalists have either been laid off or quit working for the corporate/advertising agencies pretending to be in the news business
I get comments all the time that begin “I was a Democrat for years, now I have left them because they believe X.“ When I ask for a specific quote advocating that position from an actual elected official, I get one sentence from somebody who served one term 10 years ago. They also love the “ deplorables “ quote from Hillary in 2016. I appreciate your documenting this phenomenon in such detail. I’m definitely going to stack this.
The deplorable line or Biden calling them garbage setting them off sends me into fits. That’s nothing compared to any sentence coming out of their God’s mouth
Dimitry, You’re proving his point. Hasan Piker has never held public office, and you have no communist quotes from Mamdani and AOC because there aren’t any.
I have decidedly mixed feelings about this essay. I agree that, by far, the current threat to the country is from the Right, not the Left. And that the Right is a well-oiled machine that has been systematically assembled piece by piece over decades. If they manage to hold onto power through the midterms and the next presidential election, it will destroy our democracy. That does not seem to be in doubt.
However, I think Mike has underestimated the threat from the Left. It is true that the extremists on the Left don’t hold much power in the country. But neither did the Tea Party Republicans, and in the course of less than a decade, they swallowed up the Republican party. It is not hard to imagine the same thing happening with the Democratic Party. The lack of strong leadership from centrist or center-left Democrats has left a vacuum that far-Left candidates are now exploiting They may yet succeed. If they do, their more objectionable policies- let’s not pretend we don’t know what these are- could become the law of the land. It will not be pretty.
How is it difficult for you to understand that Pete Buttigieg thinks Fox News is influential and it's important to court their audience, but that doesn't imply that he agrees with them.
Yes, the notion of a radical left is contrived. The reality of a radical left is that there isn’t one.
Can someone describe what is radical left? Economically? Socially? Redistribution of obscene wealth is not radical left. Progressive tax policy that redistributes wealth to the areas where it is most needed is reasonable. Some interests are better equipped to pay for it than others, but to whom much has been given much is, and rightfully should be, expected.
Most of what the left wants is basic new deal policies but those are what started this reactionary right projects to begin with. Round and round we go
An example of a radical left wing viewpoint would be that it should be legal and socially acceptable for doctors to cut off young men's penises because their crazy mothers convinced them they were really girls. Another example would be that borders of western nations should not exist, that non-western people should move en masse to western nations, where locals will provide for them because the locals are a variety of sinners who deserve it. We could go on. Viewpoints like these exist, and they tend to pile up in some individuals. They are not mainstream, but that's what the qualifier radical is for.
This is the rubbish the original Mike Brock piece was describing.
I thought that's what your question asked about.
Ah, what you describe is not legit.
I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate in this context.
Genital mutilation and open birders are not proposed by anyone on the left.
OK, Dimitri. You’ve given us some examples of positions advocated by the blue haired lesbian Communists. Now give us some examples of some actual elected officials advocating those positions.
No actual quotes here. In fact you ignored all your previous claims except the open border claim and made a whole bunch of new ones. Biden reversed himself on the border issue and helped created a bipartisan bill to restore border security. Trump instructed his minions to block it.
Rubbish, can you do something other than rant and rave the prescribed extremist hogwash talking points?
Which part is correct?
Hmm . . . I guess when you get to pick the definition and don't apply the same standard to each side, you can make any argument. By the way, in making the case against them, you used the same tactic you accuse the Right of employing.
Some might remember the whole DEI movement was driven by people in power, both inside and outside government. It was (in my opinion) one of the reasons for Trump's re-election. And even when it wasn't the government enacting rules, the movement was certainly felt by people who had to deal with it in companies that responded to the rhetoric.
Dismissing popular movements because they are not in power should be a cautionary tale if one looks at Trump's ascendancy. . . twice!
In my view, it sure seems to me Democrats have learned about the efficacy of populism and want to play the same game.
As for socialists, the current DSA movement has specific, plainly stated goals (in writing) which they downplay in speeches (sounds familiar?).
You handwave their probable winning of House seats as not being the majority, but, as we saw on the right, radical ideas pulled the party further to the right. I expect the same thing to happen to Democrats (sorry; is happening).
What I mean to say is that your analysis runs in one direction only, which is both dangerous to understanding the political environment and to underestimating the danger to a representative democracy.
Mind you, I'm not an expert, but I can recognize some things when I read them, and implying there is no left-wing amplification of right-wing specimens, and dismissing the idea that some progressive positions are alienating moderate voters regardless of right-wing amplification, appears to me as not honestly looking at the situation on the ground.
I don't think that's an oversight; it appears intentional.
Emilio, thank you for this well-worded response. I just got this article and am still sifting through it, but so far, I get some of the same thoughts you stated above.
My $.02 for what it's worth - No matter how well-written an article is, I find that if its still coming from the 'left vs right' perspective, there's a tendency to have blinders up - using the same tactic one accused the 'other side' of (as you stated). I left the 'left' for so many reasons, this being one of them. I am now happily 'politically homeless'.
I have a bet with someone that Democrats won't do as well as they should in the midterms as they would if only Trump's performance were considered. And I made the bet because of the asymmetry you mention (the "we're the good guys and our hearts are pure, but the other guys are black-hearted villains" thinking is reinforced within the ranks, and anyone criticizing must be an enemy).
My thinking about the mid-terms is that they should have been a lock just on this administration's policies and the economy . . . were it not for Democrats deciding "Hey, we can throw these elections, just watch us!".
It's not because Republicans are amplifying marginal cases . . . it's because Democrats are amplifying their own marginal cases, downplaying serious issues with candidates as they court younger voters.
That's exactly how Republicans got pulled into the MAGA-sphere . . . they needed the radicals to win, and that gives the radicals leverage because they don't negotiate (the purity of vision, or something like that) and because — for reasons I understand but don't agree with — their positions have constituencies.
Even if Democrats take the House, it's likely to be with a narrow margin, and the handful of DSA members will be crucial to their (Democrats) ability to act as a majority.
If anyone moves, it will be the established politicians (unless they get voted out of office in closed primaries). What could save Democrats is coming together with a unified governing agenda . . . but that requires compromises none of the factions are willing to make.
Whatever dude…
I expected that reply from the author, but OK, I'll take yours as proving my point . . . Wave away what you can't answer.
But try to wrap your head around this — Trump has poisoned politics, and assuming that poison only affected the Right is a mistake.
Yeah, I didn't prove anything. Neither did you. Trump has done nothing but shit the bed. The poison comes from the billionaires who bought him. The left has no converse to the billionaire interests who are buying fascism now the same way they bought national socialism in the 1930s.
The left, if anything, is nothing beyond a group of concerned citizens, a group of righteous individuals more proccuppied with the success of others than of themselves. 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.' Margaret Mead
Funny . . . that sounds like the mirror image of what MAGA was saying pre-2016.
As for change . . . no argument there, but note something about that quote — it doesn't say "change for the better", just change.
But, in the popular vernacular . . . Whatever, dude.
The only "thoughtful" aspect of what the Executive has been doing for the past 18 months was coming up with the alternative versions of military base name dedications.
Remember when violent crowds of radical leftists stormed the US Capitol, beat police with flag poles, and threatened to hang the Vice President? Yeah, me neither.
HELP!
As always you nail the essence of what occurs. And you paint the picture with such exquisite detail that your subject forms a moving picture in my mind. I want everyone to hear you. To understand you. But your vocabulary and flow of words would drown most people I know. I wish I could translate your incredible insights into a language I could humbly share with others.
Copy/paste into Chat GPT. Prompt: Turn this into a one sentence post with emojis. It's all anyone seems to read anymore.
This analysis is pretty spot-on as to the behavior of the media, in normalizing the ever-more-radical American right (MAGA/MAHA) while painting the barely-left-of-center opposition as a radical, Socialist, Communist, existential threat to the United States.
What amazes me is that in your other essays you state, or at least imply, that this will change in and after the next election, or in and after the election of 2028. In the past, when the country got into a situation similar to this, it took a complete economic crash to effect change, and I don't see that anything less than that will effect real change anytime soon. I also don't see any agents of change similar to Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt running for President in 2028. Sure, there are a few Democratic "Socialists" running here and there for Congress, but not enough to really create change.
In fact, I fully expect that if the midterm elections result in the loss of control of the House or Senate, Trump, Vance, and Mike Johnson will refuse to seat the newly elected Congresspersons on the grounds that the election was tainted, likely by the failure to require valid ID as specified in the unpassed SAVE Act, or by the failure of Democrat-run states to properly implement the SAVE act if it should pass.
Well, we all had to pretend that trans kids exist for a while there.
Reading today's Brock commentary now is on the same level as if I were reading a medical peer-reviewed paper detailing the cell kinetics or perhaps the hallmarks of cancer.
Mike talks about the low-information American voter. I can tell you, first-hand, that most people I speak with are exactly that and they are not those with young families or full-time jobs. Instead, they are university-educated, upper class and higher than me income people (e.g., lawyers, realtors, entrepreneurs, former government employees). Let me tell you my diagnosis.
America has become the land of the apathetics. People just are not interested, they have zilch curiosity or desire to understand or discuss "things that matter."
"Our lives begin to end the day that we become silent about things that matter." — Martin Luther King
Our so-called mainstream media is still at the rationalizing Trump stage. Yes, I agree that Fox News is a well-oiled collection of Russian (fascist) propagandists. What I see in the Republican Congress, the majority of the "Justices" of the Supreme Court, and of course the Destroyer-in-Chief (DIC) who we call "president," is a polished KKK, a group of racists that would feel comfortable in Nazi Germany.
America, the land of the intellectually stagnant, who shows most enthusiasm at watching a soccer or football game rather than understanding the attack on their freedoms. It feels like Sodom and Gomorrah to me. I have not had a good discourse in ages. I am a stranger in a strange land. Yes, I have contacts in other countries that are reprieves from this wasteland of American lethargy & apathy. But... perhaps what is happening here is just the "natural history of a one-time democracy?
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Attributed to John Tyler, 1787. Tyler was a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh. Apparently, this was in reference to the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years ago.
I think this is where America and Americans are; this is their status or "that which is." It is a painful awakening for me to accept this but like the comedian said:
“Reality, wow, what a concept!” − Robin Williams.
Robin Williams lived in my neighborhood back in the Mork and Mindy days. I am sorry I was unable to develop a relationship with him; perhaps, I would have found him to be a kindred spirit.
At a recent housewarming, I brought a half-dozen copies of the hardcover book that my son and I published on Amazon. All of the people at this gathering were immigrants who became naturalized citizens or White men who married foreign-born women. The book is titled "The Immigration Crisis." An In-depth Analysis. I offered this book as a gift to anyone interested. I do not think one person picked up the book to simply scan through it. A thousand or more hours spent in researching a topic that should be paramount to their happiness and ability to stay in this country, and not one effin iota of interest. In contrast, people I met 20 years ago while lecturing about prostate cancer in Europe replied with enthusiastic comments on the book.
The prognosis of Democracy in the US is dire. The bad apples are apparent. But underlying this are the root causes of how and why they came to be elected.
Here's the reason: AIL (Apathy, Ignorance, Laziness)
The American public is the present-day counterpart of the citizens of Rome leading up to the fall of the Roman Empire. They are apathetic to the cause, ignorant because their form of attention deficit only can handle information from social media and 5-minute news analyses, and they have lost their work ethic and have grown fat and lazy. Yesterday’s TV guide listed mostly football and baseball games- top priorities for the majority of Americans.
This is the harsh reality of America in 2026. Goodbye Democracy, Hello Fascism.
100%
In a word, Idiocracy.
TREASON AS PATRIOTISM
Post the monstrous J. Edgar, you lot were too intellectually lazy to get your heads around the significance of 'left wing', of 'socialist', and so allowed the hangover of Cold War fears to percolate long through the culture until it became a most useful epithet for the shallow branding of "the Enemy", any enemy.
And so, those of us outside your faux democratic system, are constantly amused by the many ways your rightwing Republicans and their endlessly Limbaugh-ian media can so successfully platform the REDS UNDER THE BEDS plaint to the detriment of your enfeebled Democracy.
ANTIFA is a product of deliberately manouvred mass hysteria by a decades long GOP reactionary project.
Traitors working in bad faith.
The "far left" composite is the lie given to true Liberalism.
Poor Pretty and Renee and the slaughtered others are the end result of this ongoing attack on your constitutional order.
Murica is now hoisted upon its own corrupt business model.
And We all know whom ICE is practising for.
I can only wish y'all well!
“The low information voter” — what to do about this fact? How to reach, never understand the inability to adequately reach these voters short of sitting on their front porch. Unless of course they tune into your “ station”.
Thanks for the IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION of the more radically oriented right in all its forms and talking heads which is currently wreaking violence and irresponsible rhetoric far more damaging to this democracy than any imaginary leftist ever dreamed. Adept at lying and twisting reality, these extremist far right apparent “normies” are far scarier in their lock step march to a billionaire financed monarchy. Great read of the comparison between the reality of what actually is the radicalism of the current “government” as contrasted with the democrats who hope to hold the Constitution as law and the laws as worth following. If you can’t see the difference — then this nation is definitely screwed.
"In 1962 I was a Conservative. I believed privilege could only be justified by service, high taxes on very high incomes were necessary to prevent an entrepreneurial economy becoming a rentier economy, and Keynesian growth would finance public service improvements and a welfare state that steadily reduced inequality. I was suspicious of ideologically driven, large-scale change. These were the mainstream policies of the Macmillan government at the time. In 60 years I have moved from centre right to hard left without changing my opinions."
Also, France doesn't just seat eight Communist deputies in the Assemblée nationale; it seats around seventy deputies from La France insoumise, which is generally considered to be to the left of the French Communist Party (to the point where Macron wouldn't appoint a Prime Minister who would rely on the backing of LFI).
I would say, however, that the radical left is underrepresented in US electoral politics because of the dynamics of how the party system works there, or, rather, doesn't. Political parties as understood elsewhere are functionally illegal in the US, and the way in which this is so forces the system hard toward having only two viable parties even more so than you see in other countries using the first-past-the-post system and single-member constituencies: https://jwmason.org/slackwire/political-parties-are-illegal-in-the-united-states/ Its demographic share might also be very small compared to what is seen elsewhere; I do not know; but simply looking at how many elected members of legislatures it has is not a good comparison, even to countries like Canada and the UK.
Also, as for far-left, witness Mamdani's comments about arresting Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to New York to address the United Nations. He had promised to do it on the campaign trail; he walked it back when the city's legal team looked into the matter and found that there was no law permitting New York City to arrest Netanyahu on the ICC's outstanding arrest warrant for him. Someone replied to his post by saying that he should do things like order the NYPD not to hold protesters back from Netanyahu's motorcade; at least one commenter said that Mamdani should just say "YOLO" and order the NYPD to arrest the man anyway (which would, if absolutely nothing else, and if Mamdani doesn't care what happens to him personally as long as it gives Bibi a scare, get the city sued for massive damages for wrongful arrest). The commenter in question has a YouTube channel with two million subscribers which he has been running full-time since 2012.
(I would also posit that a number of Democratic Party officials you named would be considered outright conservative in other rich democracies.)
While I agree that nearly all Americans have a sunny, middle-of-the-road, go along to get along disposition, and that this is true of those who vote for Democrats and those who vote for Republicans, I have to note that there are quite a few radical leftists, of the blue hair and crazy views variety, and barely any radical rightists. An ass hat at Fox News who wants to put together a story about some obnoxious march, protest, whatever, of the blue-hair variety, doesn't have to work all that hard. But an ass hat at not Fox News who wants to put together a story about some real, actual American Nazi, usually has to fabricate the individual or their Nazism.
The way I would synthesize this is that the press uses fear of Nazis under the bed to keep Democrats scared and vaguely supporting the administrative state while calling it "our democracy," and uses the blue-hairs to keep Republicans' political momentum aimed at ultimately trivial offenses to good taste and decency.
Meanwhile, whenever the press needs to lie to the people to start a war, it lies with enthusiasm and impunity; its warmongering lies are both non-partisan and bipartisan.
The Trump monster is a problem because he's insane. He doesn't understand the blue-hair schtick's purpose, and has put together all kinds of horror shows in an attempt to "do something" about the problems. He also has what I think could be called a Goodheart's law malaise, where he demands effect upon the metrics. ICE hiring a bunch of degenerates and wife beaters to harass and arrest anyone they can find appears to be an effort to make deportation number go up, without any additional thought.
Sigh. I still hold out some hope that the men who murdered Pretti will face justice. The whole crime was bloody videotaped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_militia_movement
The discomfirmation I was trying to achieve was on the category "radical right". Not "Nazis".
The radical right IS Trump et al. It says it right there in the article, and is pretty much the point of the article. The radical left is a nonsense, the tail, the crazies, the villains conjured up to make the radical right look moderate. The "middle" has moved so far right now, that the radical right is just the people in charge.
America in 2026 is bonkers left wing compared to America in 1926. This "middle" you speak of is hyper-violent, larcenous liberalism.
The lesbian woman with blue hair that wants to send all white people to Africa according to your description has nothing to do with the left or the far left. Based on what you describe, you make the same mistake that much of the commercial media makes.Equating her with the Marxist college freshman is ,from my view,making an error in judgment. The Marxist college freshmen could possibly give a cogent critique of capitalism, a legitimate view that is a distinct minority view within the DSA. There is a difference between cogent views on the left and wing nuts on tik tok.
I agree with your description of the institutional structure of the reactionary rights distortion machine. On the whole it is a healthy and detailed warning. I wonder if you have views about anything that could be done beyond making people aware?
I do disagree with the idea that the journalists at the NYT etc. probably do not know what they are doing. Yesterday there was an article about journalists at the Times self-censoring reports concerning Trump.
Even though most of Trump’s supporters are made up of the extreme Christian right (52% of republicans support Christian nationalism) the Times etc. avoid reporting on this dangerous cohort out fear,I suspect . (I should note the exception -Rolling Stone had a recent article) I think the commercial media on whole is aware of both the white washing of crazy reporting they do as well as what they avoid and why. After all these are corporations with something to sell.
There is a real schism in the democratic party. Those who are in the center represent corporate interests ,support Israel unequivocally and some support direct economic threats such as crypto vs those who support deep reform while knowing that systemic change is constrained by current entrenched power. They are the current left.
The tail of that cohort on the left includes communists with serious critiques, however they have no chance of being elected to anything. And within the communists there are various views.However they could legitimately called the far left. In short the far left in no way has no representation in the democratic party.
However unserious wing nuts do unequivocally have representation and are elected to office by the republican party. Tommy Tuberman for one. There are perhaps hundreds republicans in the administration, associated with various factions of the far Christian right. They oppose the constitutional republic and hold views which mainstream Christians regard as dangerous.
"I do not think most reporters and editors understand that this is what they are doing. I think most of them believe they are practicing journalism." I respectfully - and emphatically - disagree. These folks are super educated, they know they are part of a system that has normalized criminal conduct by the State for decades. They are willfully ignorant - just like all senior bureaucrats is corrupt, morally bankrupt machinery. Why let them off the hook? Why not imagine they have agency, a conscience, access to truth? In some ways, these folks are more pernicious than the Fox breed of "journalists" - who at least tell the truth in private sometimes.
With respect, I disagree. Because even I sometimes fall for the reactionary game, and I'm pretty adept at seeing through it. It happens occasionally because they are exploiting my good faith.
I suppose it doesn't really matter. The point is that the NYT has been normalizing criminal and quasi-criminal conduct for decades. It's just become a lot more obvious now.
Have to disagree. Having been in the industry I can tell you the real journalists left the building a long time ago. When everything went online journalism was mostly replaced with interns, click-bait writing, and begging for money. Now even that looks quaint. There are very few actual career journalists left, the money just isn't there, and now thanks to social media, everyone has a broadcast license so it's just billions of opinions, billions of people shouting into a hole. Which is a shame, because all the left has, is discourse and debate, the foundations of democracy. The money and therefore power, as always, is with the right. Fascists, wealthy oligarchs and tech overlords now have a strangle hold on democracy. Hence the shifting centre. The radical left is a construct, the radical right is in the centre - in plain sight, and the radical right remains the White Christian Nazis etc which yes, are also 'tails' but America seems to be increasingly accepting of them and veering dangerously in that direction (while freaking out about confused blue-haired girl boys who never hurt anyone.
Spot on. I, too was a journalist - Washington Star and Times Picayune. Real journalists have either been laid off or quit working for the corporate/advertising agencies pretending to be in the news business
I get comments all the time that begin “I was a Democrat for years, now I have left them because they believe X.“ When I ask for a specific quote advocating that position from an actual elected official, I get one sentence from somebody who served one term 10 years ago. They also love the “ deplorables “ quote from Hillary in 2016. I appreciate your documenting this phenomenon in such detail. I’m definitely going to stack this.
The deplorable line or Biden calling them garbage setting them off sends me into fits. That’s nothing compared to any sentence coming out of their God’s mouth
Dimitry, You’re proving his point. Hasan Piker has never held public office, and you have no communist quotes from Mamdani and AOC because there aren’t any.
I have decidedly mixed feelings about this essay. I agree that, by far, the current threat to the country is from the Right, not the Left. And that the Right is a well-oiled machine that has been systematically assembled piece by piece over decades. If they manage to hold onto power through the midterms and the next presidential election, it will destroy our democracy. That does not seem to be in doubt.
However, I think Mike has underestimated the threat from the Left. It is true that the extremists on the Left don’t hold much power in the country. But neither did the Tea Party Republicans, and in the course of less than a decade, they swallowed up the Republican party. It is not hard to imagine the same thing happening with the Democratic Party. The lack of strong leadership from centrist or center-left Democrats has left a vacuum that far-Left candidates are now exploiting They may yet succeed. If they do, their more objectionable policies- let’s not pretend we don’t know what these are- could become the law of the land. It will not be pretty.
If there are a million quotes from those two, it should be easy to find some. Where are they?
Pete Buttigieg has appeared on Fox shows. Do you think that means he supports their positions?
How is it difficult for you to understand that Pete Buttigieg thinks Fox News is influential and it's important to court their audience, but that doesn't imply that he agrees with them.