Jamelle Bouie and Sam Seder on how Democrats need to fight Trumpism

Jamelle Bouie this past Friday did an hour-long interview with Sam Seder on The Majority Report, in which they discuss current Democratic messaging and potential post-election strategies for the Democrats if they succeed in getting majorities in the House and/or the Senate.

Quick history of the Democrats’ so-called “Big Tent” (which was big enough for oligarchs and anti-abortionists)

Mainstream US commentators became addicted decades ago to “horse-race” coverage of political campaigns, i.e., who’s up, who’s down in the polls? How did the candidate handle the gotcha moment in their TV interview yesterday? This was sometimes mixed with the notorious “Tip ‘n Ronnie” anecdotes, in which pundits lamented the decline of “bipartisanship” (which usually meant Democrats surrendering to Republicans!) by talking about how Ronald Reagan and House Democratic leader Tip O’Neill would fight in public during the day and get together in the evening to have a friendly beer together. Good sportsmanship was what really mattered, not whether Reagan and the Republicans were cutting funds for health care and cutting Social Security by raising the full Social Security retirement age - which they did!

This sloppy approach to political reporting was partly a mirror of how the Democrats adapted to the ideological realignment in the party system that was substantially completed in the early years of the Reagan Administration, after many decades in which the liberal/conservative divide on most issues crossed party lines. But by the time Reagan officially began his Presidential campaign by giving a speech at a state fair in Mississippi defending the concept of “states rights” – the typical euphemism for defending racial segregation – that process was largely completed within the Republican Party. A process Republicans proudly called the Reagan Revolution.

But the electoral map was such that California, Texas, and Florida were still competitive states in Presidential elections, which meant that the Democrats decided that ideological ambiguity as represented by Michael Dukakis’ technocratic rhetoric and Bill Clinton’s embrace of what came to be known as “Third Way” politics of the kind espoused by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Joe Biden was a founding member of the DLC.

Even when Obama astounded the world by winning the 2008 election on what many of his voters took to be progressive positions, even before he took office he began advocating a Grand Bargain in which Republicans would agree to tax rate increases on billionaires (which could be easily reversed by a future Republican Congress and President) and the Democrats would agree to another Reagan-style cut to Social Security by further raising the full-retirement age (when the Reagan-era version unfortunately turned out to be permanent). This came to be known as the “Simpson-Bowles” approach, after the leaders of a Commission Obama appointed in 2010 to promote the Grand Bargain, which fortunately for the vast majority of people who definitely need Social Security, failed to convince a Congressional majority. Paul Krugman started using Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles as embodiments of what he mockingly called the Very Serious People, i.e., conservative establishment types who promoted bad ideas that would only benefit the wealthiest.

Campaign narratives and post-election Democratic strategy

Jamelle’s and Sam’s conversation largely focuses on the larger framing the Democrats need to aggressively apply to counter Republican pitches. It’s particularly interesting in that it criticizes the weaknesses of the Democrats and their campaign consultants often use of trying to target various slices of voter opinion while neglecting the need to build a majority for the general Democratic program.

They talk about how and why Democrats in Congress are too often reluctant to use Congressional investigations and in proposing aspirational legislation like Medicare for All, which is in no small part a hangover of years of listening to advice from the Very Serious People – which also includes many campaign consultants, of course.

They also discuss how public opinion on political issues is not like the weather. With the weather, it’s either raining or it’s not. And measuring whether it’s raining isn’t a problem, because everyone can see if it’s raining or it isn’t. Public opinion on political issues is much more vague and diffuse. The two agree that Democrats too often seem to be chasing public opinion on particular issues rather than shaping the campaign discussions. Jamelle uses the example of immigration, noting that many people have a general concept along the line of “criminals bad, neighbors good.”

So when voters think about getting rid of what they think of as undesirable foreigners, they are often fine with the idea of deporting serious criminals. But they like their undocumented Latino next-door-neighbors and gardeners and house cleaners and waiters and lettuce-pickers. And they really don’t want their next-door neighbors and their school children snatched by ICE Gestapo thugs in the middle of the night and sent to some private-prison company’s concentration camp in Texas or so some alligator-infested Florida swamp. And, of course, the idea of masked ICE goons just deciding to shoot people because they feel like it isn’t really a very popular one.

Jamelle uses the metaphor of people “cutting the line,” i.e., getting some unfair advantage, as an understandable conservative resentment, because he sees that as a values-based attitude, and argues that the Democrats need to appeal to that value perspective on a wide variety of issues, from immigration to free buses. The cutting-the-line metaphor is one that was popularized among Democrats and the establishment punditocracy with her 2018 book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2018), which arguably took too uncritical a view of the attitudes expressed to her by the white Louisianians she studied. The point about the emphasis on fairness is very legitimate. But it’s very questionable whether that particular metaphor sheds much light on the roots of white racism or of xenophobia.

They also discuss issues on which Democrats have been successful in leading public opinion on issues like marriage equality. But their discussion also highlights on both political issues and hearings on particular criminal or incompetent or irresponsible government behavior, the Democrats have to use both appealing value frameworks and particular instances to which those apply. Everybody likes to grump about annoying regulations and “gubmint waste.” But to make those issues effective for Democratic candidates, they have to combine values (e.g., stealing public funds, illegally using insider information on stock trades, and carrying out crassly political prosecutions are bad) with very specific examples of that happening. And there is no shortage of such examples with the Trump 2.0 regime!

Even if both Houses wind up with Democratic majorities, any substantive legislation would be blocked by Republicans. So they will need to rely heavily on hearings to keep in the public consciousness what an astonishingly bad and corrupt President Trump has been. They could start, for instance, by proposing a Constitutional Amendment explicitly requiring the President to obey the law and use the hearings to remind everyone of how lawless Trump’s governance has been - with endless specific examples. They could hold hearings about the multiple failures and bad results the current Iran War has produced. If the Republicans could hold ten hearings on “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” surely the Democrats can do actual constructive and substantive hearings on the Iran War. And the Venezuela intervention. And Pete Hegseth’s war on fishing boats in the Caribbean.

However, former Missouri moderate Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill and current Democratic Senate candidate Adam Hamilton agreed on McCaskill’s MS NOW podcast that the Democrats should not seek “vengeance” on Trump. But look-forward-not-backward when it comes to serious crimes by public officials won’t fix the damage the Trump crew has done and continues to do.

How times change! In 2023, McCaskill was saying that Trump was “even more dangerous” than Mussolini and Hitler!

Rahm Emanuel on Meet the Press this past weekend seems to think that the Democrats have a big opportunity in appealing to what he calls “Mitt Romney/John McCain Republicans” who he thinks have “broken with the Republican Party” but haven’t “moved to the Democrats.” He talked vaguely about holding investigations. He straightforwardly opposes the idea of holding impeachment proceedings against Trump because that would be a “return to the politics of fighting.” And his repeats his hostility to anything that sounds like “democratic socialism.”

But Emanuel didn‘t make it clear how this would differ from the “triangulation” course the Clinton Administration pursued on the advice of political consultant Dick Morris, who has been a Republican since 1996 and who co-authored a 2012 book titled, Here Come the Black Helicopters! UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom warning about a supposed Obama plot to impose “UN global governance” on the world.

Jamelle Bouie has his own podcast together with John Ganz, called Unclear and Present Danger https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unclear-and-present-danger/id1592411580 and a video podcast on YouTube called Takes https://www.youtube.com/@jamelle-bouie

This post originally appeared on the ProDA-Progressive Caucus of Democrats Abroad Substack.

An over-caffeinated view of the Russia-Ukraine War

“For Europe, this means that it will not be able to maintain or even improve its comparatively liberal political order if it proves incapable of stopping such a campaign of annihilation [by Russia against Ukraine]." (Timm Grassmann) (1)

It’s worth noting that the term “war of annihilation” is typically used to describe wars in which the goal is to exterminate large parts of the enemy population, the German Eastern Front in the Second World War being a very notable case that is often described that way.

This is the sort of statement that would fit well into a speech or article by American or European hawks who want to emphasize the threat of Russia. It’s a nice applause line for a receptive audience.

Yet such rhetoric needs to be grounded in the geopolitical realities. Grassman’s comment itself would mean on its face that unless Europe (presumably meaning mainly Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland) stops the Russia-Ukraine War, that liberal democracies in Europe will collapse into, well, apparently something not liberal and not democratic.

We could characterize that as well as an argument that if Russia defeats Ukraine – or takes over the whole country? – that the entire current political orders in the EU countries will collapse. How? By Russia invading and occupying the whole continent? By the populations of Europe being so distraught that Ukraine has not been pushed completely out of Ukraine’s legal territory that they all right up and set up, what, Orbánist or Trumpist regimes?

The article is sprinkled with odd statements. Grassman writes that the war “did not first begin with the full invasion of 2022, but rather in 2014; it was long prepared for and was denied for many years by Russia.” Four and a half years into the war, is anybody who has been paying more than casual attention to the news about it surprised to learn that Russia illegally seized the province/oblast of Crimea in 2014 after the fall of the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as a result of the Euromaidan protests? Russia also didn’t deny seizing Crimea. They openly declared they had taken it over as part of Russia and intended to keep it.

At the same time, they supported irregular fighters in eastern Ukrainian provinces who presented themselves as local nationalists, but Russia also began annexing and ruling parts of that territory. That relatively low-level but real military conflict continued until the “full invasion’” in 2022. Aside from descriptions that use the Russian propaganda names for occupied territories as part of Russia, none of that is new or surprising to anyone with minimal familiarity with the conflict.

Grassman’s pitch on its face is basically that European nations should go to war with Russia over Ukraine:

Russia's war is aimed at the whole of Europe – and has long since taken on a global dimension, also considering North Korea's military involvement and China's political backing – but so far it has only been waged against Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting a threat that treats Europe primarily as a Ukrainian problem. The European policy of denying Ukraine the weapons it needs and at the same time continuing to indirectly supply Russia with money and technology therefore not only betrays Ukraine, but also endangers Europe's security.

This war is essentially a conventional war of attrition in which the lines of conflict have been more-or-less unchanged since 2023, when Ukraine’s army tried with limited success to roll back the Russian lines. Ukraine has made important advances in drone technology, which Grassman of course emphasizes. (Somehow Grassman manages to read that fact as showing the “half-heartedness” of other Europeans nations!) But it hasn’t changed the essentially frozen front lines. Doing so on either side would require acceptance of huge losses of soldiers, even more so than the ones currently taking place. And Russia, despite all the hype we hear from the less critical war boosters in the West, has a substantial advantage over Ukraine in manpower and economic strength.

Until both sides decide they have less to win than to lose from continuing the war, it can be expected to go on.

Yes, Ukraine is fighting back impressively. Russia might have drawn better lessons from the many wars in which countries push back hard and are not inclined to throw down their weapons when a hostile foreign invader crosses their borders. The US also could and should have learned the same lesson long ago. But neither did.

This line is one of those that makes me want to go, “huh?” “Individual attacks are currently being carried out [against Ukraine] with up to 1500 long-range drones and 50 ballistic missiles. What other European country could withstand such waves of attacks?” Britain and Germany come to mind, both of which suffered major bombing attacks for years during the Second World War. Do we really need to pretend that history began on the day the major February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began?

And Grassman includes the seemingly obligatory references in pieces like this to Putin’s vague historical claims about what happened hundreds of years ago. And he includes details about various Russian abuses against the Ukrainian civilian population, many of which have been well documented.

But in the end, his article is basically a recitation of the general European public diplomatic position that Russia is big and scary, which it is. Consumers of articles like his should keep in mind that the notion of big, direct military intervention by other European armies into Ukraine to fight directly against Russia is just not realistic to expect at this point. Ukraine is not a NATO member. And it certainly part of Russia’s motive for invading was fear that Ukraine would become one – NATO officially stated in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member – that figured into their decision to first to seize Crimea, conduct low-level warfare in parts of the eastern provinces, and stage the full-blown invasion of 2022.

The European NATO members are now faced with building a new approach to defense against possible military threats from Russia. The expansion of NATO in the 1990s and 2000s was seen by both Democratic and Republican Administrations as basically “freebees,” i.e., Russia couldn’t and wouldn’t do anything to push back against it. Russia’s mini-war against Georgia in 2008 was their immediate answer to NATO’s declaration that both Ukraine and Georgia would become members of the alliance. But that meant that what looked like freebees, including adding former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which have since been points of potential conflict that would require direct military responses by NATO members.

And starting with the Trump 2.0 regime in 2025, the European allies now recognize that they cannot count on the United States to engage in any military conflict against Russia, even if it involved clear aggression against the territory of NATO members. This is a huge adjustment, not least because not only are NATO’s weapons to a large extent American weapons, and the intelligence arrangements and the structures for joint NATO actions are also predicated on American leadership, equipment, and intelligence.

This is inevitably a messy process. It will involve NATO countries building up domestic defense industries – with all the real problems involved in that, including corruption and the use of overblown war warnings to justify the increased expenses. It also raises a key issue to new intensity. If the rearmament means cuts to civilian services, that will make the process much less popular, even if the “military Keynesianism” of rearmament and expanding domestic arms industries do generate economic growth. It also in practice makes the conservative-leaning austerity economics which still plagues the EU even more of a problem. The obvious main solution – requiring billionaires to pay higher taxes – is heresy to the austerity economics so successfully championed by Germany’s Angela Merkel during the euro and debt crises of the last two decades.

Looking actively for wars to fight, like the United States did from the Korean War to the US-Israel War on Iran, will not make matters better. The above-mentioned nations of Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland are the countries with the biggest armies in the EU-plus-Britain and so they will play critical roles. When we think back to the aftermath of the Second World War on some of the foreign policy decision Britain and France have made in their foreign policy – France’s Vietnam and Algerian Wars and the Suez crisis of 1956 that became a body blow to the influence of Britain and France in the Middle East to name just three examples – the EU publics need to keep in mind what kind of messes that imperial arrogance and irresponsible war-mongering can do a lot of substantive damage to their own well-being.

This is a messy process that has just begun. And since, as James Madison famously observed, earthly governments are not run by angels, we can’t count on all those decisions over the next couple of decades being optimal ones. That’s why citizens of Europe and Russia – Russia is also partly European, of course – need to insist that their governments put at least as much emphasis on building international structures of peace as they do to planning and arming for wars.

An end to the current Russia-Ukraine War that would be constructive and realistic enough to last for a while is currently the most obvious step in that direction.

But the US isn’t going to fade away out of European politics any time soon, even if the US itself were to formally leave NATO. And we are currently seeing with both the Russia-Ukraine War and the US-Israel War on Iran that having a US President who is not only in visibly poor health, notably including his cognitive abilities and his general lack of any strategic vision in foreign policy beyond enriching himself, his family, and their assorted cronies, is unlikely to result in stable peace agreements for those two wars.

Notes:

(1) Grassman, Timm (2026): Die Fehler von gestern, die Drohnen von heute. Blätter 2026-10, 109-116. My translation to English.

(2) Putin in War Mode: Escalation on All Fronts? DW News YouTube channel 10/01/2026. <https://youtu.be/o8cubEmu5pI?si=-brkVTgEZfCYL_-t> (Accessed: 2026-02-10).

Robert Pape on political violence

I haven’t had a chance yet to read Robert Pape’s new book, Our Own Worst Enemies: America and the Age of Violent Populism (2026). But many American political podcast junkies are already familiar with Pape through his frequent commentaries on the current Iran War since it began in later January, and more recently through his interviews on the new book.

He was already the author of two important political science books, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) and Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (1996).

Personal anecdote

Earlier this year I did a paper in German for a university history class on the bombing campaigns in Europe during the Second World War. And Pape’s book on strategic bombing was an important source, in which he elaborates the point he repeatedly makes today about how bombing of civilian areas of a country has by itself never in the history of aerial bombing produced a mass demand from the citizens of the country being bombed that their government should surrender to the enemy doing the bombing. Early military prophets of bombing that targeting civilian areas like Giulio Douhet had a remarkably strong and persistent faith that bombing civilian areas would cause public support in the enemy country to collapse, and quickly. To this day, all the evidence to the contrary – i.e., the absence of any instance where that actually worked – there are fools like the US Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth who have a devout faith in that happening.

In my paper, I cited a passage from Pape saying that British post-World War One experience with colonial bombing in Mesopotamia (Iraq) was an inadequate model of a punishment campaign – i.e., bombing targeting civilians - because it was used on an underdeveloped society. The professor noted on my paper that this seemed to be a disparaging characterization. I explained to her that in my German translation I actually had cleaned up what Pape said in the 1996 book and showed her Pape’s statement that the British bombing campaigns there had been “small campaigns over relatively minor issues against primitive peoples with no means of defense [which] had limited relevance to a future European war.” [emphasis added] (1) She was surprised to see the “primitive” description used in a scholarly book as late as 1996.)

Pape’s view of current political violence attitudes in the US

Pape is an actual expert on war with Iran. He was also a student of Über-Realist John Mearsheimer, whose commentary I often cite as frustrating but more often than not correct. So he also uses a “realist” approach to international affairs.

But how he defines the problem of actual and potential political violence in the US is notable for its seeming illiberalism. He wrote in 2025, “the greatest source of danger [of political violence] comes from a cultural clash over the nature of the United States’ identity - one with profound implications for who gets to be a citizen. Its key actors are not isolated radicals but large numbers of ordinary Americans.” (2)

He also writes there:

The country’s fight over its national identity has multiple dimensions. But the most serious is demographic change. In 1990, 76 percent of the U.S. population identified as white. In 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau put that figure at a little over 58 percent. By 2035, the share is set to fall to 54 percent; a decade later, it will dip below 50 percent. These changes have led to rising anger among conservatives, many of whom see increased ethnic diversity as an existential threat to their way of life. These voters have embraced Trump and his nationalist movement, which promise to stop such change in its tracks. Trump’s exclusionary policies and rhetoric have, in turn, prompted a ferocious backlash from liberals, who embrace demographic change—or who at least fear that conservative success will cost Americans hard-won freedoms. [emphasis added]

We could also say very accurately, there are xenophobic a******s like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk out there, and the Republican Party – especially but not only Donald Trump – has engaged in shameless, dishonest fear-mongering over that issue.

Before I comment further on Pape’s arguments, I want to mention two other excellent books dealing with political violence by the seriously under-appreciated journalist and author, David Neiwert: The Age of Insurrection: The Radical Right’s Assault on America Democracy (2023) and the earlier And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border (2013).

Despite Pape’s claim that there is more-or-less equal acceptance of “political violence” on both “the right” and “the left” in the US, the actual practice of domestic terrorism or directed, planned violence over some political causes has come from the far right for decades in the US. Trump’s fantasy claims (lies) about “antifa” burning down Portland and similar nonsense, the organized violence connected to political causes including immigration is coming from people who understand themselves as far right, and who pretty much everyone else would consider to be far right.

In The Age of Insurrection, published in 2023 after the January 6 insurrection but before Trump’s second successful run for the Presidency, Neiwert describes how Rush Limbaugh, a rightwing commentator who was very influential in turning the Republican Party into the Trump cult and making “owning the libs” more important to Republicans than any single concrete policy goals, responded to the mass violence of January 6:

Right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh-who, more than any other cultural figure, could lay claim, as the person who had fed seditionist rhetoric to them for three decades, to being the godfather of the insurrection-took to the airwaves the day afterward, comparing the rioters to the Founders. "We're supposed to be horrified by the protesters. There's a lot of people out there calling for the end of violence," he said. "A lot of conservatives, social media, who say that any violence or aggression at all is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. I am glad Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, the actual Tea Party guys, the men at Lexington and Concord, didn't feel that way." (He also suggested that the violence was actually the work of "Antifa and Democrat-sponsored instigators" in the Capitol and "a coup launched in the office of Barack Obama four years ago.")

He ends the paragraph on a Biblical note: “Limbaugh died of cancer a little over a month later.”

Self-styled Constitutional patriots in the Republican Party expressed themselves as follows:

Republican politicians and pundits, following Limbaugh's lead, came to their defense, labeling them "political prisoners." Five Trumpist members of Congress-Matt Gaetz of Florida, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, and Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona, all of whom (not coincidentally) had voted against accepting the Electoral College count on January 6-held a press conference outside of the Justice Department, denouncing the detention of the "political prisoners," on the same day that the House's January 6 committee opened its hearings. Gosar called on Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU to investigate the treatment of Capitol rioters.

Shortly afterward, three of them - Gaetz, Greene, and Gohmert - went to the D.C. detention center and demanded to be let in, but were turned away. "We're in totalitarian, Marxist territory here," Gohmert told reporters. "This is the way Third World people get treated."

There is simply no parallel on the Democratic side of US politics to this kind of defense of violent and murderous militias. And unless we take Trump’s present-day fantasy about violent “antifa” groups running wild in the US, there is no similar activity on anything remotely like this scale on anything that could be reasonably called “the left.” The closest the Democratic Party comes to stuff like this is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer solemnly declaring that he’s sent President Trump a “strongly worded letter.” A Threads user using the handle trenthasthoughts posted this:

In other words, Both Sides Do It doesn’t come close to describing the current situation.

Is there widespread support for political violence in the US?

Here is a clip of Pape on Breaking Points with Ryan Grim talking about political violence (3):

Pape in the clip above warns that the 2026 election “is likely going to be the most dangerous election of our life” – not in the sense that he expects major violence to occur at polling places, but rather because of the possible violent and treasonous reaction of the losers, who are very likely to be the Trumpista Republicans. I haven’t yet received a copy of his book. But he says that his work includes detailed research from the last five years, and included reviews of all the January 6 criminals who

One possible occasion for violence on Election Day itself could arise if the Trump regime illegally sends federal officials like the FBI or the ICE Gestapo into local polling places and local officials send the police to block and/or arrest them. The ICE goons don’t receive anything like the level of training that municipal police typically receive. So a violent confrontation with them would likely not work out well for the ICE Gestapo. We could even see leftwing, pro-democracy protesters carrying “Support Your Local Police” signs if it comes to that. (I’m only half-kidding there!)

Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats and comments in the video clip above that he has worked with US security officials, including on advising on sting operations. In other words, he could be considered kind of a “narc” on this issue. Ryan Grim evens jokes (?) to him at the end that “I did not know you were a fed.”

But, like his academic mentor Mearsheimer, Pape is worth listening to even when he’s irritating.

Here is a September 17 presentation he made on his work on political violence and what he calls “violent populism,” which he uses to the phenomenon of “extremism” moving from “the fringe to the mainstream.” A definition that includes terms on which there is not widespread agreement on their precise meanings: populism, extremism, fringe, mainstream. For the Trump and his cult, all those opposing Trump are Communists and “extremists.” For the cult followers, ranting about sex-change operations on minors – which are illegal in all 50 states of the US and therefore a non-problem there – is “mainstream.” While supporting laws prohibiting racial or gender discrimination in employment is “fringe” for them.

Pape talks about some of these definitional and polling problems in this talk (4):

One concern with Pape’s analysis is that his formulations sometimes sound as though increased diversity in and of itself leads to political violence. This is an argument made by far right parties in Europe, and also by way too many European conservatives who are looking for a reason to pander to the far right rather than challenging them directly on the hate-filled nonsense.

What does “support for political violence” mean in the US in 2026?

Pape in other podcasts has estimated that there are up to 30% of the American public who support political violence. There’s good reason to be leery of such estimates.

For one thing, “political violence” is a broad category. This year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence that continued the American Revolution already under way by then. Very, very few Americans who are not radical religious pacifists would say that it was wrong or sinful or whatever for the patriots in 1776 to fight violently against the British king, his royal army, and the Prussian mercenaries (“Hessians”) they hired to fight against the democratic and national-independence revolution of that time.

On the other hand, it is common as dirt to hear US conservatives – even ones without white hoods or Patriot Militia jackets – argue that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a right to armed rebellion against the government. This is a completely ahistorical reading of that Amendment. No government is going to declare a right for its opponents to overthrow it. Political and moral arguments for an armed revolt would have to come from somewhere else. (William Hogeland has done a number of blog posts on the history of the 2nd Amendment.)

For that matter, even if we assume the 2nd Amendment actually does mean what the rightwingers say, an actual violent revolt would have to adopt some kind of justification, e.g., the January 6 attack on the Capitol using “stolen election” and “Trump said do it” and “Hang Mike Pence” as particular justifications.

In other words, “political violence” is a vague and concept, as is the notion of what “support” for it would mean. A PNAS (National Academy of Sciences) paper from earlier this year addresses the difficulties of polling on it, raising cautions like this: “supposedly significant public support for political violence [needs to be reconciled] with minimal actual instances of violent political action.” (5)

The study also finds that “ambiguous survey questions cause overestimates of support for violence.” Are the respondents thinking about retroactive approval for the American Revolution, or about blowing up statues of public figures they don’t like?

They also found in the studies they analyze:

Prior survey questions force respondents to select a response without providing a neutral midpoint or a “don’t know” option. This causes disengaged respondents … to select an arbitrary or random response. Current violence support scales are coded such that four of five choices indicate acceptance of violence. In the presence of arbitrary responding, such a scale will overstate support for violence. Across all four studies, we show that disengaged respondents report higher support for violence. [emphasis added]

They estimate that the studies they examine very significantly overstate how many people in the US express explicit support for political violence:

Depending on how the question is asked, we show that the median of existing estimates of the public’s support for partisan violence is nearly 6 times larger than the median of our estimates (18.5% versus 2.9%). While recent political events show that extreme political groups are willing to engage in violence, these groups are likely to overlap with the narrow segment of the population who already support political violence. As policy makers consider interventions designed to dampen support for violence, our results demonstrate that support for violence is not a mass phenomenon, indicating that antiviolence measures should be appropriately tailored to match the scale of the problem. [emphasis added]

I’m looking forward to reading Pape’s new book and will most likely have more comments after I’ve done that.

Other articles on Pape’s research:

(Book Review) Everything You Know About Political Violence Is Probably Wrong. Wired 09/22/2026. <https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-political-violence-robert-pape-our-own-worst-enemies/>

Steimer, Sarah (2026): Why the Normalization of Political Violence Changes Everything. University of Chicago Dept. of Political Science 09/02/2026. <https://political-science.uchicago.edu/news/why-normalization-political-violence-changes-everything>

Pape et al (2024): The Political Geography of the January 6 Insurrectionists. July 2024. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/3C59F4E94F90B63F0E80A86DFB487D01/S1049096524000040a.pdf/political_geography_of_the_january_6_insurrectionists.pdf>

Notes:

(1) Pope, Robert (1996): Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 62. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

(2) Pape, Robert (2025): Our Own Worst Enemies: The Violent Style in American Politics. Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec 2024, 141-151.

(3) Professor Pape DIRE WARNING: Most Dangerous Election In History! Breaking Points YouTube channel 09/24/2026. <https://youtu.be/HUtpmQ3j_NQ?si=IsNpwgwFRGDz1a2M> (Accessed: 2026-27-09).

(4) The Iran War and the Most Dangerous Elections in our Lifetime featuring Robert Pape. Pitt-Institute of Politics YouTube channel 09/28/2026. <https://youtu.be/M9KxJ7LrjU0?si=1l5e3QG2Gd2hkPTx> (Accessed: 2026-09-30).

(5) Westwooda, Sean et al (2026): Current research overstates American support for political Violence. PNAS 119:12 02/02/2026. <https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116870119> (Accessed: 2026-27-09).

Wrestling with “the spectacle”

I’ve tried at various times to learn something from the work of the Situationist Interänational, particularly a book/pamphlet called The Society of the Spectacle (1967), in which Guy Debord argues that modern capitalism increasingly transforms lived experience into images, commodities, and representations. The spectacle is not simply television, advertising, or mass media; it is a social relationship between people mediated by images, through which individuals become spectators of a reality increasingly organized for them.

The Pol Sci Facebook page recently posted this comment on that book/pamphlet:

The second paragraph that is not fully shown in that image says:

Debord describes a movement from being → having → appearing, in which social identity becomes increasingly tied to possessions, visibility, and representation. The spectacle also produces separation: people may consume the same images and commodities while becoming increasingly isolated from genuine collective experience. In advanced capitalism, consumption, entertainment, tourism, and media create a world of pseudo-needs and passive participation, where the more people contemplate the spectacle, the less directly they experience their own lives. For Debord, overcoming the spectacle therefore requires not merely criticizing images, but reclaiming direct, active, collective participation in everyday life.

As I mentioned in a post last month, Debord was associated with a group called the Situationists who focused, broadly speaking, on the type of media images that were shaping and reflecting public political attitudes in the 1960s especially. It was promoted by a group that called itself the Situationist International, a “group of artists, writers, and social critics (1957–72) that aimed to eliminate capitalism through the revolutionization of everyday life.” (1)

As the Pol Sci Facebook comment shows, that perspective sounds like it could offer important insights. But it’s hard to see what those are in a pamphlet like Society of the Spectacle. For instance, Debord wrote:

The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as society itself, as a part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all looking and all consciousness. Because of the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the location of the abused look and of false consciousness; and the unification which it accomplishes is nothing other than an official language of generalized separation. [italics in original]

This sounds like it could offer some meaningful insight into the experience of “alienation” in an increasingly interconnected society. “Alienation” was a favorite term of pundits and academics in the late 60s/early 70s. But for pundits, it was used to refer to a broad feeling of discontent. The problem is, there is always some feeling of discontent over politics and social problems. Just repackaging it in a philosophical/psychological term like alienation doesn’t throw a lot of light on how social and political dynamics work.

Debord’s pamphlet offers observations like this: “The externality of the spectacle in relation to the active man appears in that his own gestures are no longer his but those of another who represents them to him. This is why the spectator does not feel at home anywhere, because the spectacle is everywhere.”

Actually, there is a philosophical/sociological meaning of alienation that Marxists picked up from Hegel that has to do with how social organization as well as conceptual representations tend to obscure the role of the collective and individual roles that people play in society, which makes human creations – like a corporation, for instance – appear to be something separate and strange to most of those who provide the physical and mental labor to create and operate them.

But that larger sense of alienation is a much broader phenomenon than just being confused by images from mass media, an impression that Society of the Spectacle could easily leave – to the extent a reader can extract so coherent an analysis from the text. Although the text does seem to assume the Hegelian-Marxist concept of alienation – or something similar to it – as a background assumption.

This documentary is the first of three parts on the Situationist Movement, which was a particular phenomenon in the French left of “the Sixties.” As this documentary explains, the Situationists took particular interest in what we could call, in more pedestrian terms, urban planning. They saw their project as making city environments more livable communities. But its best-known expressions were in some artwork and in aesthetic theory. (2)

This is a lecture by Hans-Georg Moeller specifically on Debord and his famous pamphlet. (3)

Notes:

(1) Britannica Editors. "Situationist International". Encyclopedia Britannica 03/20/2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Situationist-International> (Accessed 28 September 2026).

(2) The Situationist International (full documentary). thinkingaloud7189 YouTube channel 03/11/2016. <https://youtu.be/ncH0-q9OXco?si=b_vtqfBDzW5MfOV0> (Accessed 29-09- 2026).

(3) Guy Debord and The Society of the Spectacle. Carefree Wandering YouTube channel 05/26/2023. <https://youtu.be/8CTf4myAa9k?si=SpYpO3s7XnHCAke2> (Accessed 29-09- 2026).

Polling in the US on the politics of the “working class” (which pundits find it surprisingly hard to define)

One of the more irritating assumptions by the US press and political pundits for the last several years is the notion that “working class” voters can be equated to people who don’t have a college education, sometimes specified as not having a four-year college degree.

Jared Williams, director of the left-leaning Center for Working-Class Politics and law professor Joan Williams recently used this definition in a survey they did: “those without college degrees in the middle 50% of US income distribution.” (1)

Who are the “working class” in election surveys?

While we can acknowledge that some kind of definition is required if we want to define a group like “working class.” Often news reports on surveys will make the definition be even more narrowly defined as defining anyone without college degrees as working class.

In the US and many other countries, there is some kind of official definition of who is eligible to be a member of a labor union. And when we think of it that way, the college/no-college distinction becomes pretty fuzzy. Two of the most powerful unionized groups in the US are public employees and health-care workers. Most nurses and very many public employees are people with college degrees of some kind. Many administrative workers in the private sector like computer programmers or systems administrators who work for wages or salaries and who do not manage other employees also have college degrees. Once upon a time, newspaper reporters were stereotypically working-class employees, and many media workers of all kinds who would today be eligible to join unions have a four-year college education.

On the other hand, there are many owners of small and not-so-small businesses who do not have college degrees but who are very affluent from entrepreneurship or inheritance.

In other words, that commonly used definition of “working-class” voters can be misleading. Measurement of public opinion is obviously a less precise measurement than physical weights or volumes. Also, a chronic issue for using income level in opinion polls is that such information is usually collected via self-reporting and is not considered particularly reliable. Also, do spouses of wealthy partners who don’t themselves have college degrees count as “working-class”? (It gets complicated.)

Messaging and narrative for working-class voters

Such definitions is always a challenge when evaluating analyses of how working-class voters respond to particular issues. It doesn’t help that the meaning of “working-class” voters has various political meanings. When Republicans talk about working-class voters, it usually just means “regular white folks” (whatever Republicans consider “regular” these days). When Democrats, and most left-liberal and social-democratic parties elsewhere, talk about working-class voters usually means something like “people who might be in a union.”

In the US, the fuzziness in talking about the working class is also complicated by the pollsters and campaign consultants who try to segment their ads and messaging to micro-targeted particular slices of voters. Opinions on issues like the price of gas or property taxes can be more easily measured fairly precisely, and consultants like to call those kitchen-table issues, which are assumed to be the only issues voters “really” care about. And quantifiable issues like gas or housing prices or even recessions can be expressed in well-measured numerical trends. Issues like fairness or rule of law or democratic processes or the effect of gun proliferation aren’t so easily quantifiable. The effects of racism or xenophobia are also much more different to measure quantitatively. And producing many targeted ads can be financially more desirable for campaign consultants than fewer ads with broader messages.

When fuzzy stereotypes become political analysis

Jared Abbott and Joan Williams write:

Resisting authoritarianism is the second-highest priority for Democrats’ college-educated base. But for working-class Americans, it’s only the 19th priority (out of 20), we found in a new survey. The gap between these two groups was larger than on any other issues: elites prioritized resisting authoritarianism an astonishing 33 percentage points more than non-elites did.

Democrats’ dilemma is that their college-educated base insists they stand up to Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, but they also need to win working-class votes. The way to thread that needle is to recognize that what’s needed to defend democracy in the short term is different from what’s needed to defend it in the long term.

Abbott directs the Center for Working-Class Politics, which produced a report, “Working-Class Social and Economic Attitudes” in conjunction with Jacobin and the Rosa Luxemburg Stifung, both of which can be safely described as left-social-democratic. So he’s not some random conservative columnist. Willimas is an emeritus law professor and author of Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back.

Those introductory paragraphs taken alone would suggest that working-class voters don’t really care much about abstractions like democracy. They make the entirely sensible suggestion that Democrats focus on corruption. Entirely sensible because the US has never experienced anything like the massive corruption of the federal government under Trump 2.0.

While “resisting authoritarianism” was a low priority for working-class voters of any race, “reducing corruption in government” was the third highest priority for white working-class respondents, fourth for working-class Latinos, and sixth for working-class African Americans, our survey found.

In fact, reducing corruption was one of only two top working-class priorities we identified that wasn’t economic. A study out of the UK explains why. It found that working-class Britons use “corruption” not in a narrow legal sense but to express “deeply rooted feelings of injustice and unfairness”.

It’s true that “authoritarianism” isn’t as common a part of the US vernacular language as “corruption”, their essay suggests that “democracy” is not something of particular interest to those voters they consider working-class. And that sounds uncomfortably close to the Democratic “consultant-class” insistence that candidates should not talk about broad issues like, you know, war. Or the maintenance of America’s democratic system. Or preserving the rule of law.

But the periodic ritual of voting is a secular version of a sacred rite in America. Yes, even for people who vote by mail. Going to the polling station and signing in with the often-female staffers handing out the ballots, maybe running into people you know there, almost always seeing other people from your area taking part in what most people started learning in elementary school was an essential part of what it means to be an American: Yes, people understand that this is something basic to be an American and a responsible citizen. And many of them wear an “I voted” pin or sticker the rest of the day as a sign of pride, and to remind others that it’s election day.

Part of what’s missed in a careless approach – or in one fixated on very quantifiable “kitchen-table issues” – is often in major part a confusion between “narrative” and “messaging”. Narrative is about a broader theme, e.g., Make America Great Again. Messaging is about specifics. If the broad narrative is MAGA, it has to be made more vivid with messaging about perversely violent criminal immigrants or “trans for everybody” (one of Trump’s more bizarre pieces of messaging).

What Abbott and Williams say in the quotes above provides another good example. Corruption is a broad concept which has both “a narrow legal sense” but also invokes “deeply rooted feelings of injustice and unfairness.” But if political messaging connects with specific things – like Donald Trump shamelessly selling pardons to some of the sleaziest people around, or making additional fortunes off insider trading, or his immediate crime family like Jared Kushner getting large sums of “business investments” with countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia with whom he’s allegedly conducting diplomatic business on behalf of the US government – those are things that voters don’t need a college degree – or even a high-school degree, for that matter – to understand its corruption and ripping off public money.

Something similar is true for an abstraction like democracy. Being denied the right to vote is not a “kitchen-table” issue like the price of eggs. But it’s something that advocates for “female suffrage” (women’s right to vote) and the civil rights movement in the US South took very, very seriously. And they understood that it affected them in real and important ways – even though those ways are quantifiable in the sense that grocery prices are.

Abbott and Williams even include this strange comment: “Many working-class voters don’t rush to defend democracy because they feel it’s failed them for the last 40 years.” Tell that to the people of Minneapolis who were willing to risk violence, imprisonment and murder from the ICE Gestapo earlier this year to defend democracy and its conjoined twin, the rule of law.

A discussion last year from Williams and Alissa Quart addressed the issue of: “How does cultural contempt from professional elites fuel resentment, deepen political polarization, and reinforce inequality?” (From its YouTube description)

Notes:

(1) Abbott, Jared & Williams, Joan (2026): To protect democracy, Democrats should talk about corruption – not authoritarianism. Guardian 02/18/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/18/democrats-corruption-authoritarianism> (Accessed: 2026-21-09).

For a barrage of polling results, see also: Working-Class Social and Economic Attitudes: An Analysis. Center for Working-Class Politics/Jacobin/Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung-New York, June 2025. <https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/20091032/CWCP-Jacobin-report-20250721.pdf> (Accessed: 2026-21-09).

(2) Bruce Springsteen - Streets Of Minneapolis (Official Lyric Video). Bruce Springsteen YouTube channel 01/29/2026. <https://youtu.be/GDaPdpwA4Iw?si=8VWOBs7z48KTf5tV> (Accessed: 2026-21-09).

(3) How the Left Lost the Working Class. The 92nd Street Y, New York YouTube channel 06/13/2025. <https://www.youtube.com/live/ThwzoCXJ87o?si=-Ipxm4JryW1rPUVl> (Accessed: 2026-21-09).

Russia and Ukraine, a war with no end in sight

Trita Parsi discusses the US-Israel War on Iran and the domestic politics of it. On the latter, he criticizes the Democrats for using the device of criticizing Trump for being too weak in confronting Iran. (1) The latter is a lazy centrist Democratic posture. In 2004 when John Kerry was campaigning for President, he framed his criticisms of the Cheney-Bush Administration Iraq War in term of the need to win the war in Iraq rather than shutting down the disastrous intervention.

It’s one of those habits Democrats fell into by giving clowns like James Carville way more credibility than they ever deserved.

John Mearsheimer’s advocacy of his “offensive realism” theory of foreign relations often leads him to make gloomy predictions. But he has the annoying habit of often being right about the topics he analyses. He also has a particular style of wording his points in a way that forces the listener to think more closely about what he is saying. And on issues like the Iran and Russia-Ukraine Wars, he obviously pays close attention to the available information and knows how to employ historical examples without reducing them to clichés.

He recently started his own podcast in which he gives presentations directly to the audience. A recent one carries a title that Ukraine’s more enthusiastic partisans would not have selected: “Is Ukraine Committing National Suicide?” (2)

Both the Russia-Ukraine War and the current Iran War – which has involved a number of countries in the Middle East besides Israel and Iran – keep reminding us that in foreign policy and wars, multiple things can be true at the same time, things that can seem to be contradictory.

For instance, it can be true (and is) that Russia’s seizure of the Ukrainian province of Crimea and of large parts of the eastern provinces (oblasts) of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, were acts of aggression that violate international law. It can also be true (and is) that Russia had real security concerns about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of the NATO alliance.

It can be true (and is) that Ukraine is extremely unlikely to recognize Russian annexation of those five provinces. It can also be true (and is) that there is no realistic hope that Ukraine can militarily retake those provinces in any immediate future or in any immediate peace settlement.

The current war began in February 2022 with the Russian invasion. Ukraine was able to retake some of the ground initially captured by Russia, including a significant counter-offensive in mid-2023. But the war since then has essentially been a protracted war of attrition, with the front lines largely frozen in place, with gains by either side difficult and very limited. The heavy use of drones on both sides of the lines of occupation has made seizing and holding territory very difficult for both sides. Advances by either side have been slow and costly.

One surprising part of the general reporting and analysis of the war is the treatment of the strategic bombing campaigns of both sides. Strategic bombing aims at targeting military and economic facilities to undermine the enemy side’s ability to wage war. As distinct from tactical bombing in direct support of ground and sea forces. With the assistance of its allies and its own technical capabilities, Ukraine has been making some spectacular strikes inside Russia, including on Moscow. But the value of Ukraine’s strikes in weakening Russia’s ability to wage war is questionable, especially in comparison to Russia’s strikes on Ukrainian strategic targets.

As Robert Pape, Mearsheimer, and others have been continually pointing out, particularly in relation to the Iran War, as damaging as “strategic” bombing of civilian areas is, it has never in itself led a civilian population to demand their government stop waging a war. As a general rule, having a foreign country bombing one’s neighborhood doesn’t give the civilians in the area being bombed extra sympathy for the side doing the bombing. It just doesn’t work that way. And there’s seems to be little sign of major Russian dissent against the current war in any case. But Ukraine’s boosters in the media often present such Ukrainian strikes on Russia civilian targets and cities deep inside Russia and

Mearsheimer’s analysis above looks at the substantial long-term disadvantages facing Ukraine. The fact that the Russian seizure of Ukrainian territory was illegal – and very arguably unnecessary in strategic terms from Russia’s actual situation – does not mean that Ukraine has a good practical chance any time in the immediate future to recapture the occupied territory militarily. On the other hand, countries facing foreign invaders or foreign occupiers have often shown themselves to be willing to wage protracted resistance against them. Nationalism and patriotism can be powerful motivators.

But it doesn’t mean that David always wins over Goliath. At some point, Ukrainians are likely to decide that continuing the current war of attrition offers fewer obvious advantages than establishing some kind of stable ceasefire without any formal final resolution of the occupation.

Back to multiple things being true simultaneously, it can be true that Russian leaders are overly suspicious and/or paranoid about the danger that an independent Ukraine poses to its national interests. It can also be true (and is) that Western policymakers see the current war with Ukraine as weakening Russia and giving European allies a chance to improve their preparedness for a potential future conflict with Russia with minimal reliance on the US, whose reliability as an ally can’t be restored simply by Trump leaving office.

Mearsheimer makes some important practical points about Europe’s official stance on what he describes as exaggerated fears of Russia promoted by European NATO and EU members. He argues that some of that fear is real, although he thinks it is greatly exaggerated, and continues to argue that Russia has never made explicit claims to take over all of Ukraine. He has argued since 2022 that Russia’s goal was to seize and control parts of Ukrainian territory to prevent it from becoming a NATO member, and also to make Ukraine into a dysfunctional “rump state.” It’s not that he regards that as a good or legitimate goal but rather one consistent with the Russian government’s calculation of its own security interests.

Mearsheimer also points out that European leaders sounding the alarm about Russian intentions serves two other political purposes. One is to use that argument to slow the process of American withdrawal from a commitment to actively defend Europe in case of an actual Russia attack. Another is to use that as a way to help persuade European publics of the need for more robust defense spending. To a certain extent, current European governments are arguing the case for military Keynesianism as an antidote to the chronic austerity politics that has plagued the EU, largely an inheritance from the longer German commitment to what Paul Krugman has called “austerianism.” (Russian threat or not, it has been a bad, very damaging policy habit which at least created a climate that has benefited the neo-fascist-type parties in Europe.)

Despite the recent publicity about “hybrid” attacks, If the recent incident with drones at the Leipzig airport was intended to be a serious military attack, it was a pretty pitiful attempt. But we can expect more news of such provocations. And, yes, Western countries will be also carrying out such stunts. If Russia actually carries out a military strike against Western countries or seizes territory of a NATO countries – this is where the Suwalki Gap/Suwalki Corridor along the Polish-Lithuanian border comes in as a possible target – then we’re getting into actual World War III territory. Which of course no one in their right mind wants to see happen.

Speaking of which, there is an increasing amount of talk about World War Three in connection with Russia’s and China’s current relations with Iran. Mercy Kuo, for instance, recently wrote in The Diplomat:

Both Russia and China share a common motivation to weaken the U.S. either leading to its defeat or to a protracted war that bleeds U.S. strength, ties it down in the Gulf, and prevents greater military support for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Washington’s Asian and European allies. They also aim to weaken American alliances, damage America’s global standing and economy, and increase its domestic polarization. Moreover, this war validates their ideology about the decline of an American-led world order and the alleged rise of a new multipolar order, thereby lending credence to that ideology. (3)

Which is basically a melodramatic way of saying that the relative power of the US in the world is declining in relation to the increasing influence of China and Russia and that big powers continue to maximize their own influence. And of course they seek to take advantage of the fact that the US is currently led by a President with no strategic vision beyond self-enrichment and no capability of conducting anything like normal diplomacy.

Russia has formal relationships with Iran and they have been cooperating with Iran since the joint US attack in January:

The expectation that Russia would come to Iran's aid is based not least on the support that Iran has provided to Russia in the war against Ukraine. The close relations between the two countries go further back. Since 2015 at the latest, when Tehran and Moscow both intervened militarily in Syria to support the regime of Bashar al-Assad, cooperation between the two states has become much more intensive, especially in the military sphere. The Western sanctions that hit Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and especially since the major attack on Ukraine in 2022 also indirectly contributed to a rapprochement. The US had already imposed the first sanctions on Iran in 1979, followed later by other Western countries, and these coercive measures were also tightened after 2022. (4)

Mearsheimer does not see any immediate threat of direct, overt Russian aggression against current NATO members. He notes that the current war with Ukraine has produced a lot of Russian casualties and has done significant damage to its economy. On the other hand, despite all the triumphalist rhetoric from Western critics of Russia, Russia has ramped up its military production in a big way since 2022 and now has a much larger army with considerable combat experience. Which is presumably not the result expected by those who accept as quasi-religious dogma that the Soviet war against the Muslim guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union. (Or their war against the “brave mujahideen freedom fighters”, if one prefers).

Notes:

(1) "New Low in U.N. History": Trita Parsi on Trump's Threat to Annihilate Iran at General Assembly. Democracy Now! YouTube channel 09/23/2026. <https://youtu.be/l5vl6zkDCOM?si=YDfETUUzLzcbXt09> (Accessed: 2026-24-09).

(2) John Mearsheimer-Offensive Realism YouTube channel 09/22/2026. <https://youtu.be/zmatx3ZJDKY?si=QlAyFMd6owaCBUHj> (Accessed: 2026-24-09).

(3) Kuo, Mercy (2026): The China-Russia Factor in the Iran War. The Diplomat 09/23/2026. <https://thediplomat.com/2026/09/the-china-russia-factor-in-the-iran-war/> (Accessed: 2026-24-09).

(4) Gasimov, Zaur (2026): Balanceakt im Nebel des Krieges. Die Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Iran. Osteuropa 76:1-2, 83-84. Translation from the German original.

Kamala and Al-Sayed

Democratic progressives were understandably concerned about whether Kamala Harris’ appearance with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday would help El-Sayed more than hurt him. They appeared together at a roundtable discussion focused on material health for African-American women.

MS NOW carried the appearance live: (1)

Fitting for the setting, she makes a solid Democratic indictment of Trump’s cutbacks in health care opportunities via Medicaid. Including declaring, “The attack on DEI is an attack on maternal care.” She can make this kind of appeal when she puts her mind to it, as many California voters are likely to recall from her years as Senator. This is a style she did not adopt often enough in her role as Vice President.

The setting was a good one to allow El-Sayed to remind voters that he is a medical doctor who takes health care policy issues very seriously who can convey urgency and seriousness in addressing such issues. The discussion is a also good reminder that issues of health and social justice are also proverbial “kitchen table” issues, the cliché of which Democratic political consultants seem to be so fond.

Kamala is highly likely to be a candidate for the 2028 Democratic Presidential nomination. So going to Michigan for a high-profile appearance with one of the current new starts of the Democratic Party is an obvious move for her. But criticisms of her and the Biden Administration by grassroots progressive Democrats have made her somewhat less than a highly-desired campaign supporter in various statewide races. As the New York Times reports:

Democratic candidates, wary of campaigning with someone tied to the unpopular Biden administration, have not rushed to take Ms. Harris up on [her offers to make campaign appearances for them]. In recent weeks, Democratic Senate candidates in Alaska [Mary Peltola], Iowa [Josh Turek] and Kansas — states without large Black populations — have pre-emptively and publicly uninvited her from campaigning with them.

Several Democrats mentioned in the Harris donor document as candidates who could use her help do not appear eager, either. Aides to James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominees for the Senate and governor in Texas, as well as to Gov. Katie Hobbs in Arizona, told The Times that they did not want Ms. Harris to come.(2)

So her joint appearance with El-Sayed may be more significant for Kamala’s future electoral prospects than it is for El-Sayed’s current campaign. She also has plans to appear together with Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia, who is running to retain his current seat.

Without rehashing the whole sad story of her Presidential candidacy after Biden’s withdrawal from the race, it seems to be a fair assumption that lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy among the Democratic base contributed a lot to the lower Democratic turnout in 2024 compared to 2022. Her refusal to criticize Biden over his effectively unconditional support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct of the Gaza War was a serious discouragement to many potential Democratic voters. Grassroots Democrats were also very concerned about Trump’s xenophobic positions, and with very good reason.

Democrats and Immigration

But Harris in the 2024 campaign also complained that the Democrats wanted to be even tougher on deportations than Republicans but the mean Republicans were blocking those proposals in Congress!

The last big federal immigration reform was passed during Ronald Reagan’s Presidency with his support that created a quick path for longer-term undocumented residents but failed to create a realistic legal program for needed immigrant workers, which are particularly essential in US agriculture and construction. George W. Bush as President proposed an actual liberal immigration reform that would have addressed that as well.

Sadly, neither Presidents Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama nor Joe Biden proposed anything similar, though Obama’s “Dreamers” programs was a decent gesture but far from what the Bush proposal would have been. Clinton adopted a cruel policy violating international law that refused to allow Haitian asylum-seekers to land in the US and instead set up an ugly program of detaining them in Guantanamo Bay, which including denying urgently needed medical aid for HIV patients. Democrats can rightly claim high deportation rates of undocumented immigrants during the Obama and Biden Presidencies - but they couldn’t be bothered to try to pass constructive immigration reforms even as liberal as those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And Kamala Harris as the 2024 Presidential candidate had only more hardline anti-immigrant rhetoric to offer.

The ACLU in 2024 appealed to Kamala and the Democrats for a more constructive policy: “As shown in poll after poll, the American public wants policies that provide status to longtime undocumented residents and provide an orderly, fair, and secure path to apply for humanitarian protection in the United States.” Her campaign did not take the advice.

Human rights advocates, progressives, and anyone with a concern for a pragmatic and realistic immigration policy are right to be critical of the Democrats’ poor record in this regard. And of course under Stephen Miller’s draconian anti-immigrant policies during Trump 2.0, it’s difficult for anyone to imagine Republicans advocating the kind of pragmatic and even decent immigration reforms enacted by Reagan and advocated by Bush II.

And Harris’ campaign managers somehow thought it would be a great idea for her to campaign together with Liz Chaney, who supported her father’s war in Iraq and the torture program he championed. Except perhaps for “Trump”, the name “Cheney” is about as toxic a signal to Democratic voters as it could be.

Harris in 2026

One of the establishment Democrats’ arguments that became standard in the 2016 primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was to argue that Sanders received fewer Black votes than Hillary and to claim this showed an inadequate commitment by progressives to the establishment version of “identity politics.” This trope is still around, and its advocates point to the fact that El-Sayed’s primary opponent Haley Stevens. Stevens immediately endorsed El-Sayed after the primary.

Harris’ appearance with El-Sayed should help reassure any Democratic-leaning voters who might actually worried about that tired argument. With just over a month left before the election, it’s entirely normal that the party's last Presidential nominee would want to boost the official Democratic Senate candidate in a large state like Michigan! And this is Kamala endorsing him and his candidacy, not him endorsing her for a new Presidential run.

Moral of the story: It’s much better for Democratic Presidential candidates to campaign with leaders like Abdul El-Sayed instead of Liz Cheney!

Originally posted in the ProDA-Progressive Caucus of Democrats Abroad Substack.

Notes:

(1) LIVE: Kamala Harris stumps with El-Sayed. MS NOW YouTube channel 09/23/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/EmsZsYsmzz0?si=DP-n8M8QxaOD3Fct> (Accessed 2026-23-09).

(2) Epstein, Reid (2026): Many Democrats Are Avoiding Kamala Harris. Abdul El-Sayed Is Welcoming Her. New York Times 09/225/2026. <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/22/us/politics/kamala-harris-el-sayed-michigan-midterms.html?searchResultPosition=1> (Accessed: 2026-22-09).

Bad guys you may never have heard of: Danube Institute of the United States [DIUS], defending “Western civilization”

Annika Brockschmidt is a German historian and excellent political analyst who is very well informed on the US Christian Right, and on the Trumpista movement more generally.

Her article on the Danube Institute features this image: (1)

As she explains:

The majority of the homepage is occupied by a pair of buildings. On the left is the 2000-year-old Roman Pantheon, whose famous inscription informs the onlooker that “Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius built this during his third consulship.” On the right, a much younger historical landmark, the familiar cupola of the US Capitol. Above both a headline declares, in all caps: “TWO CONTINENTS. ONE CIVILIZATION. Fighting for Our Future.”

This isn’t a website for an organization dedicated to classical architecture or travel, it’s the homepage of the Danube Institute of the United States [DIUS], a nonprofit “public charity” associated with the Budapest-based Danube Institute, which was built by Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing allies to (successfully) establish a hub of the International Right in Hungary. Just as the future of the government-funded DI was clouded by uncertainty due to Orbán’s recent defeat, the US version was quietly launched last month. With ties to the Heritage Foundation just like the Hungarian original, the new DIUS (which is registered as a 501(c)(3) public charity, vows to “[form] a bridge across our common civilization. Two continents. One conservative movement. One chance to fight… [to build] a West worth preserving.” [emphasis in original]

The idea of a Nationalist International is a bit bizarre in concept. But it’s not at all new. European fascism in the 20th century was very much an international phenomenon and its influence extended beyond Europe, including into the US.

That doesn’t mean they were ideologically identical in all respects, of course. In the rogue’s gallery of far-right leaders shown above, Georgia Meloni shares the authoritarian and anti-immigration Zeitgeist of the others. But her own ruling party is not pro-Russian in its orientation while the Fidesz party of the also-pictured Victor Orbán is pro-Russian.

Brockschmidt also notes how “the West” functions in the political vocabulary of the Nationalist International:

The “saving the West” narrative is widely used by right-wing European populists and extremists, because, unlike traditional Christian nationalisms, it packages a similar civilizational, racial, and religious sense of hierarchy into a more secular framework. This makes it useful in the more secular areas of Europe so it can retain its appeal to both the conservative mainstream and right-wing extremists like the AfD, while still inviting the Christian Right into the fold. It can be deployed in opposition to LGBTQ-rights and feminism—although these days it’s largely used to frame migration, specifically of Muslim immigrants, as an existential threat to the “true” (white and Christian) European identity. [emphasis added]

The historian Josephin Quinn reminds us that the concept of “the West” as distinct civilization is historically relatively new, and emerged in the context of wars and political rivalries:

[T]he increasing popularity of the language of 'Europe' in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reflects continued fear of the Turkish empire to the east and new distaste for the 'savages' encountered further west. By 1748 Montesquieu could contrast the 'genius for liberty' in Europe's states with despotic Asia's 'spirit of servitude'.

But it was only in the nineteenth century that scholars mapped shared cultures on to specific geographies that emerged and developed in isolation from each other. This is when they fused ideas of Europe, East and West, reinforced them with notions of civilisations and racial hierarchy, and invented 'Western Civilisation'.

The question we now face is not whether Western Civilisation is bad or good, but whether civilisational thinking helps explain much of anything at all. Understanding societies in terms of lonely trees and isolated islands is 200 years out of date and it is demonstrably, historically, wrong. lt is time to find new ways to organise our common world. [emphasis added] (2)

The rhetoric of “civilization” for the far right in not about good conduct or constructive political and economic policies. It’s about race and nationalism.

But she also stresses that Western “civilization” in the sense of soft power was also not purely “Western”:

Fascination among the European intelligentsia with contemporary Turkish power, Arabic traditions, Chinese society or Native American thought was not always predicated on Western superiority. And fascination with the foreign past continued: the first English translation of Kalila wa-Dimna [a Persian collection of animal fables] was published in 1570 by Sir Thomas North, whose translations of Plutarch inspired several of Shakespeare's plays. As an editor put it in 1888, it was 'the English version of an Italian adaptation of a Spanish translation of a Latin version of a Hebrew translation of an Arabic adaptation of the Pehlevi version of the Indian original'.

Which seems like a good excuse to insert this clip of Peter, Paul and Mary singing a Pete Seeger song: (3)

Notes:

(1) Brockschmidt, Annika (2026): The Innocuous-Sounding Glue That Binds the Global Right. Religion Dispatches 08/14/2026. <https://religiondispatches.org/2026/08/14/innocuous-sounding-glue-binds-global-right> (Accessed: 2026-18-09). The image is apparently from Religion Dispatches rather than from the Danube Institute itself.

(2) Quinn, Josephine (2024): How the World Made the West: A 4,000 Year History, 415-416. London: Bloomsbury.

(3) All mixed up by Peter, Paul and Mary (1992). Lane Cohen YouTube channel 11/24/2025. <https://youtu.be/9pJQk5XN_GY?si=bBxJ-804Y36YiNrd> (Accessed: 2026-20-09).

Abdul El-Sayed schools FOX News hack about asking sleazy questions

Kamala Harris, the 2024 Presidential nominee and Joe Biden’s Vice President, plans to campaign for Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan in support of his Senate race as the Democratic nominee.

El-Sayed went into the proverbial lion’s den back in August with Jesse Watters on FOX News state TV:

This is instructive, since Watters doesn’t even pretend to be anything but a partisan hack in the interview. (Trigger warning! Non-Republicans may find Watters’ approach to be downright skin-crawling.) Actual journalists try to ask probing and challenging questions. But parodies of journalism like FOX News are only interested in “gotcha questions” and seek to elicit comments that can easily be clipped and used out of context against El-Sayed or any other Democratic figure they can pillory.

It’s interesting in a tactical sense to see how El-Sayed responds to Watters’ non-stop provocations in a way that gets across his own points while highlighting the Watters’ obvious and pronounced attitude of sneering contempt towards him. The Republicans and their media hacks are good at that approach, and Democrats constantly have to look for ways to counter it.

It’s also notable that El-Sayed treats Watters as what he is, a polemicist attacking him on a partisan basis (with dumb talking points) while constantly highlighting the sort of hack pseudo-journalism that Watters embodies.

He doesn’t flinch when Watters says, “you want socialized healthcare.” He doesn’t quibble over the phrasing but instead talks about how his proposal would bring down health care costs. With the Republicans babbling this year about Democrats being Communists - a Golden Oldie of an accusation that they never seem to be able to give up entirely – it’s worth keeping in mind that Medicare for All would “socialize” health insurance, just as the current Medicare program does, i.e., the government would provide it instead of private insurers.

Back in the 1940s when President Harry Truman was advocating his own version of Medicare for All, the Republicans seized on the concept of “socialized medicine” to characterize the government-owned hospitals that were part of the new British public healthcare system that the postwar Labour government had enacted – which the Republicans then as now regarded as a terrible thing to have. One advantage of having more Democratic candidates now explicitly embracing the concept of democratic socialism is that they are more accustomed to handing the use of “socialism” as a smear word. But there is also a general history of Democratic advocacy for government-provided heath insurance since Truman’s day that has pushed back on such rhetorical postures – including contrasting the frustrations millions of people experience with private health insurance to how well the nationalized health insurance known as Medicare functions.

A notable moment is when Watters asks El-Sayed if he wants to abolish the Second Amendment, with FOX News featuring this caption during that part of the discussion:

El-Sayed doesn’t duck the question, though he dismisses it. And why shouldn’t he? If he’s not advocating a particular position, there’s no reason to play the game of answering a clickbait question.

Not that any Republicans actually care, but it was first in 2008 that the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized the Second Amendment as supposedly conveying any private, individual right to own guns. The Amendment itself is explicit that it’s about the right of states to form their own official militias, known as the National Guard these days. And at the time, such state militias were used as slave patrols to capture runaway slaves. It was an explicit concession by the free states to the slave states.

The fact that the 2nd Amendment specifically authorizes state militias could wind up playing an important role in blocking attempts by the Trump Administration to use state militias to interfere with November’s voting and vote-counting procedures. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom just made a a move that's both substantive and usefully symbolic:

... Governor Gavin Newsom today signed a bill that would prohibit other state militaries from entering California without the Governor’s explicit permission.

At a time when the Trump administration is increasingly treating states as targets rather than partners, Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) makes clear that California will not surrender its constitutional role, its values, or the rights of the nearly 40 million people who call this state home.

This new law gives the Governor — as commander in chief of California’s militia — a defined role in determining when out-of-state military forces may enter California for state missions.

Finally, around 18:00 in the video clip, Watters does his duty as a FOX “News” hack and sets himself up to look ridiculous by asking El-Sayed if he supports sex change surgeries for minors. As anyone with the slightest familiarity with US laws on the subject knows, such surgeries for minors are illegal in all fifty states. This is a classic hack tactic to try to get a Democratic candidate to sound like he’s defending something that is not “A Thing” because it’s illegal across the country and no Democratic nominee for anything is advocating it. Watters asks El-Sayed (who’s a medical doctor) if he thinks “it’s okay for a parent to slash his kid’s ding-a-ling off?” (FOX News always tries to keep it classy!)

El-Sayed’s response: “Do you really want to have this conversation? Are you circumcised? … You probably should want to move on.”

 

This post originally appeared on the ProDA-Progressive Democrats Abroad Substack.