Author: Anand Giridharadas

  • We just talked to Congressman Ro Khanna, the progressive Democrat who represents Silicon Valley, about why Democrats have been so slow to face the real emergency of Trump and Musk dismantling American institutions, how they can talk about the threat Trump represents and what America could look like in the future — and whether the Democrats need a change of leadership to meet the moment.

    Share

    We talked about:

    • Why Democrats have not been in crisis mode so far — and why they need to be

    • Why the Democratic Party needs to get clear about how much kowtowing to the donor class and centrists cost them, and how they can move forward

    • How to respond to Trump’s worst overreaches and get Americans with real grievances against the system to understand how they’ve been cheated

    • What Silicon Valley’s tech broligarchs actually think — and how dangerous the techno-libertarian worldview is for America

    • And whether the Democrats should leave Republicans to self-destruct, or take control of the message with centralized messaging and a daily briefing that setst he terms of the national story


    As always, these Lives are open to all who join. Later we post the full videos for our supporting subscribers to rewatch and share.

    Above, a short preview is open to all. If you want to watch the whole thing, subscribe. That’s how we keep the lights on, pay our writers and editors a fair wage, and build the new media we all deserve.

    Stand up today for independent media that bows to no billionaire or tyrant.

    Subscribe now


    A programming note: More Lives conversation

    We have one more Live conversation coming up this week. We hope you’ll join us on Thursday, March 6, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, when we’ll be back with messaging guru Anat Shenker-Osorio.

    To join and watch, download the Substack app (click on the button below) and turn on notifications — you’ll get an alert that we’re live and you can watch from your iOS or Android mobile device. And if you haven’t already, subscribe to The Ink to access full videos of past conversations and to join the chat during our live events.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you! And we’d appreciate it if you’d consider giving a subscription to The Ink as a gift.

    Give a gift subscription

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • We just finished talking with Ruth Ben-Ghiat — and 5,111 Ink and Lucid readers — about the world-changing meeting in the Oval Office last Friday and much more.

    We talked about:

    • Some new language from Trump that Ruth noticed in the Oval Office meeting that reeks of his being compromised

    • The end of the “Free World” and the new incarnation America the meeting seemed to soft launch

    • How the USAID and other cuts dovetail with a Kremlin agenda of reducing the American footprint in the world

    • Elon Musk’s DOGE rampage as the grift that keeps on giving, as captured by a surreal new photograph this week

    • Whether the Democratic Party even knows it has a problem

    • Why it’s so important to refuse the story of your powerlessness, even as you find ways to take care of yourself and yours


    As always, these Lives are open to all who join. Later we post the full videos for our supporting subscribers to rewatch and share.

    Above, a short preview is open to all. If you want to watch the whole thing, subscribe. That’s how we keep the lights on, pay our writers and editors a fair wage, and build the new media we all deserve.

    Stand up for media that bows to no tyrant or billionaire. Join us today. And today only, a special deal: 20 percent off a subscription forever if you make it official.

    Get 20% off forever


    And some programming notes: More Lives!

    We hope you can join us tomorrow, Tuesday, March 4, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern when we’ll be speaking with California Congressman Ro Khanna, and on Thursday, March 6, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern we’re back with messaging guru Anat Shenker-Osorio. We hope to see you there!

    To join and watch, download the Substack app (click on the button below) and turn on notifications — you’ll get an alert that we’re live and you can watch from your iOS or Android mobile device. And if you haven’t already, subscribe to The Ink to access full videos of past conversations and to join the chat during our live events.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you! And we’d appreciate it if you’d consider giving a subscription to The Ink as a gift.

    Give a gift subscription

    Share


    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Early in the afternoon on Friday, the president and the vice president of the United States delivered a contemptuous scolding to the wartime leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. The country of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” and “We choose to go to the moon” and “rendezvous with destiny” had become the country of “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” It was a shocking, abusive scene, unlike any foreign policy chroniclers could recall. By Sunday, the British prime minister had declared that “we are at a crossroads in history,” and European countries were talking about a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine. It was the weekend the notion of the “free world” died.

    The American spirit is not a fixed quantity but rather a contest between competing spirits. There is a generous spirit and a cruel one, a big heart and a small one, an earnestness and a cynicism, a forward-looking spirit and a spirit consumed with nostalgia and stewing in resentment. There is the America of abolition and the America of slavery, the America of Reconstruction and the America of Redemption, the America of civil rights and the America of the Klan, the America built of immigrants and the America of family separation, the America that endlessly renews itself and the America that clings, the America of inconvenient ideals and the America of mercenary calculation, the America of principles worth sacrificing for and the America that only knows and pursues raw power and domination.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our free email list, and consider subscribing to support independent media.

    What made the spectacle in the Oval Office on Friday so haunting is that it seemed to confirm, dramatically and before all the world, the triumph of that darker, lower American spirit over its opposite at this juncture of history. And not only because of one man, if we are honest. It is a triumph that feels weighty, that feels earned.

    President Trump has always been a mix of alien invader and emanation of the collective American being, and here, again, the “This is not who we are” fantasy continues to ring more and more hollow. This is very, very much who we are, now.

    Leave a comment

    On display in that meeting was Trump’s, and Vance’s, instinctual siding with whoever has power in a situation. Some people see a fight and rush to the side of the weak; others — and this goes very deep — reflexively rush to the side of the strong. In the meeting, the American tendency to side with the underdog was all but absent. But of course it is absent from much of American life generally now, with our winners-take-all economy and our tech broligarchy that dominates more and more of everything. Is it an accident that a country that has grown more hospitable to conglomerates than startups, to incumbent committee chairs than political insurgents, to streaming executives than auteurs, has now sided with Vladimir Putin over Zelensky?

    The American spirit on display in the meeting was the calculating one, the one that asks “What’s in this for me? What’s my angle?” at every turn. And it is ugly to watch, but here, too, Trump is more a mirror of the culture than some deviant. All of American life feels driven by this same calculating spirit now. The drugstores where you cannot find an actual wage-earning human being to help you unlock the shampoo from behind the plexiglass. The restaurants where you are told you must return your table in 90 minutes. The landlords who will kick you out for $100 more. The health insurance companies whose main specialty is the writing of claim denial letters.

    Toward the end of the meeting, Trump commented that the awful scene he had participated in would make great television. Here was the triumph of the spirit of attention-seeking at any cost, the spirit in which there are no values worth defending if they do not carry the possibility of making people watch you. Everyone is an influencer now; everyone covets followers more than friends. Trump trash-talked an erstwhile American ally because he knew it would do numbers with his followers.

    Share

    In recent weeks, I have wondered why the leaders of other countries have not been brave in calling out the situation in the United States, in naming this fascist threat from within. The obvious answer is American power and leverage. It can be expensive to speak truth to superpower, as Zelensky will surely be learning in coming days.

    But after the meltdown in the Oval Office on Friday, I began to wonder if another reason is involved. Maybe those leaders, like much of the world, do not look at America right now and see a country being hijacked by this dangerous leader. Maybe much of the world looks at a country that, in its bones, has fundamentally changed. Has lost that other spirit. Lost the sunniness, the hopefulness, the decency, the will to sacrifice, the idealism, the confidence, the hope.

    What will stop Trump? everyone is asking all day long. Maybe an actual and effective form of resistance will involve more than the thwarting of a leader. It will be a cultural project up and down American life. To resist the meanness and smallness and cruelty and cynicism and solipsism. To insist, by showing, that what he is is not who we are.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and consider subscribing to support independent media.


    A very special thank you to my son, Orion, for the piano accompaniment on the voiceover.


    Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Early in the afternoon on Friday, the president and the vice president of the United States delivered a contemptuous scolding to the wartime leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. The country of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” and “We choose to go to the moon” and “rendezvous with destiny” had become the country of “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” It was a shocking, abusive scene, unlike any foreign policy chroniclers could recall. By Sunday, the British prime minister had declared that “we are at a crossroads in history,” and European countries were talking about a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine. It was the weekend the notion of the “free world” died.

    The American spirit is not a fixed quantity but rather a contest between competing spirits. There is a generous spirit and a cruel one, a big heart and a small one, an earnestness and a cynicism, a forward-looking spirit and a spirit consumed with nostalgia and stewing in resentment. There is the America of abolition and the America of slavery, the America of Reconstruction and the America of Redemption, the America of civil rights and the America of the Klan, the America built of immigrants and the America of family separation, the America that endlessly renews itself and the America that clings, the America of inconvenient ideals and the America of mercenary calculation, the America of principles worth sacrificing for and the America that only knows and pursues raw power and domination.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our free email list, and consider subscribing to support independent media.

    What made the spectacle in the Oval Office on Friday so haunting is that it seemed to confirm, dramatically and before all the world, the triumph of that darker, lower American spirit over its opposite at this juncture of history. And not only because of one man, if we are honest. It is a triumph that feels weighty, that feels earned.

    President Trump has always been a mix of alien invader and emanation of the collective American being, and here, again, the “This is not who we are” fantasy continues to ring more and more hollow. This is very, very much who we are, now.

    Leave a comment

    On display in that meeting was Trump’s, and Vance’s, instinctual siding with whoever has power in a situation. Some people see a fight and rush to the side of the weak; others — and this goes very deep — reflexively rush to the side of the strong. In the meeting, the American tendency to side with the underdog was all but absent. But of course it is absent from much of American life generally now, with our winners-take-all economy and our tech broligarchy that dominates more and more of everything. Is it an accident that a country that has grown more hospitable to conglomerates than startups, to incumbent committee chairs than political insurgents, to streaming executives than auteurs, has now sided with Vladimir Putin over Zelensky?

    The American spirit on display in the meeting was the calculating one, the one that asks “What’s in this for me? What’s my angle?” at every turn. And it is ugly to watch, but here, too, Trump is more a mirror of the culture than some deviant. All of American life feels driven by this same calculating spirit now. The drugstores where you cannot find an actual wage-earning human being to help you unlock the shampoo from behind the plexiglass. The restaurants where you are told you must return your table in 90 minutes. The landlords who will kick you out for $100 more. The health insurance companies whose main specialty is the writing of claim denial letters.

    Toward the end of the meeting, Trump commented that the awful scene he had participated in would make great television. Here was the triumph of the spirit of attention-seeking at any cost, the spirit in which there are no values worth defending if they do not carry the possibility of making people watch you. Everyone is an influencer now; everyone covets followers more than friends. Trump trash-talked an erstwhile American ally because he knew it would do numbers with his followers.

    Share

    In recent weeks, I have wondered why the leaders of other countries have not been brave in calling out the situation in the United States, in naming this fascist threat from within. The obvious answer is American power and leverage. It can be expensive to speak truth to superpower, as Zelensky will surely be learning in coming days.

    But after the meltdown in the Oval Office on Friday, I began to wonder if another reason is involved. Maybe those leaders, like much of the world, do not look at America right now and see a country being hijacked by this dangerous leader. Maybe much of the world looks at a country that, in its bones, has fundamentally changed. Has lost that other spirit. Lost the sunniness, the hopefulness, the decency, the will to sacrifice, the idealism, the confidence, the hope.

    What will stop Trump? everyone is asking all day long. Maybe an actual and effective form of resistance will involve more than the thwarting of a leader. It will be a cultural project up and down American life. To resist the meanness and smallness and cruelty and cynicism and solipsism. To insist, by showing, that what he is is not who we are.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and consider subscribing to support independent media.


    A very special thank you to my son, Orion, for the piano accompaniment on the voiceover.


    Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • hope in a dark hour capitol building

    These words were written in the immediate aftermath of the insurrection of January 6, 2021. I sometimes return to them to remind myself that there is something on the far side of all this.


    It’s scary out there right now. It’s going to be scary for some time to come. What has been unleashed, what has been revealed, is ugly. It is what makes democracies die.

    In the despair, it is easy to lose perspective. I certainly do all the time. But from time to time, I step back and try to remember where we are as a country on the arc of things.

    And I see then that this is both a very dark time and, potentially, a very bright time. It’s important to hold these truths together.

    When I look down at the ground of the present right now, I feel depressed. If I lift my head to the horizon, I see a different picture.

    This is not the chaos of the beginning of something. This is the chaos of the end of something.


    The Ink is powered by people, not billionaires. Support independent media. Subscribe today.


    Because the 40 years of this plutocratic takeover — of the ideology that said if you’re torn between doing what’s good for money and what’s good for people, always do what’s good for money; these stories about lazy workers and welfare queens; and any number of other fraudulent tales that were meant to justify life in the Hamptons — if I allow myself to feel this way on a good day, it all actually feels like it’s burning down.

    And on matters of race and identity, likewise, the Trump era doesn’t have the crackle of a launch. It has been a mourning. A mourning for white power. A mourning for a time when simply to be white and show up was enough. A mourning for an era in which simply to be a man, and not necessarily an especially capable one, could get you ahead of other people. A mourning for a time when you could be the default idea of an American and not have to share your toys.

    We must understand that what we’ve been living through is backlash. Backlash. It’s not the engine of history. It is the revolt against the engine of history. Then we might remember — just to pat ourselves on the back for a second — that what we are actually endeavoring to do right now is to become a kind of society that has seldom, if ever, existed in history. Which is become a majority-minority, democratic superpower.

    Thank you for reading The.Ink. This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

    I have a lot of love for my friends in Europe, but actually none of you all have your immigration rates and naturalization rates at a high enough level to get there anytime soon. And you all may never get there.

    Look at India and China. I love India. My parents are from India. India is never going to be a nation of immigrants. It’s never going to be a country of people from all the world. It can barely get unity with people just from India. China is never going to be a nation of immigrants. No shade. That’s just not their history. It’s not who they are.

    We are falling on our face because we are jumping very high right now. We are trying to do something that does not work in theory.

    Leave a comment

    To be a country of all the world, a country made up of all the countries, a country without a center of identity, without a default idea of what a human being is or looks like, without a shared religious belief, without a shared language that is people’s first language at home. And what we’re trying to do is awesome. It is literally awesome in the correct sense of that word.

    And, therefore, that we are having insurrections on the Mall or four years of an autocratic attempt or racism oozing through the television and social media portals is both terrifying and a completely predictable, inevitable result of people in power exploiting these transitional anxieties for their own pecuniary gain.

    And what we have to do is get smarter than those powerful people. Get more organized than them, and understand that there is a different story to tell those who mistakenly went to the Mall and the 12 percent of Americans who actually supported that terrorist attack, and everybody else — a story to tell them about something great we are trying to do. We will actually create a country that’s better for every single person. But we have to be willing to tell that story forcefully. We have to be willing to fight those people tooth and nail, and we have to fight to win.

    We are living through a revolt against the future. The future will prevail.


    Subscribing to support independent media that hopefully makes you think and enlivens your conversations. I appreciate your support for this undertaking.

    Subscribe now


    Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, visited the Oval Office today for a meeting meant to seal a minerals deal meant to pay for the U.S.’s ongoing support of his country’s struggle against the Russian invasion. But it turned instead into an outright shouting match with President Trump (and Hype Man/Vice President JD Vance) that seemed a lot more like a scene out of The Sopranos than what you’d expect from a meeting of world leaders.

    In a scene that gives chills as much as it will send shockwaves, Trump sought to humiliate Zelensky, a wartime leader of an invaded sovereign country, casting him as weak and having none of the cards, instead of standing with him as an ally.

    Is that where we are? Are we entering an age of Tony Soprano foreign policy, in which, to get the support of the U.S., our allies will need to bend the knee, kiss the ring, and — as Vance demanded, say thanks with the proper degree of deference?

    To understand what’s at work behind this new art of the deal in international relations, we talked — as Zelensky, Trump, and Vance were arguing — to foreign policy scholar Stephen Wertheim about just what the Trump administration’s chaotic moves over the last month mean for the future of the United States’ place in the world.

    Share

    Trump’s and Vance’s anger at Zelensky is very much in keeping with what Wertheim told us about the difficulty he envisioned Zelensky would have making a moral argument to Donald Trump, whose vision of international order is both unclear and transactional, and who had already veered back and forth just this week between mobster-styled arm twisting and more traditional diplomatic appeals to peacemaking.

    We talked to Wertheim about the shift from a U.S.-dominated post-Cold War international order to a more multipolar world, the risky legacy that Democratic foreign policy orthodoxy has left us with, and Trump’s attitude toward the international order: a cartoon imperialism based on the notion that transgressive things are good, creating a new narrative that overturns the story Joe Biden was telling outweighs the truth, and anything is worth saying if it will help him get what he wants out of the next transaction. And understanding that is key to cutting through the Trumpian bluster that overwhelmed Zelensky today, and that is likely to define the negotiations to come.

    So if you’re looking for more background on the tensions behind the Oval Office explosion and don’t mind putting aside your preconceptions, you won’t want to miss our discussion with Wertheim, who’s always made a strong argument against the blob-based, weak-sauce consensus thinking that often dominates international relations debate. Just click on the video player above.

    A note: I noticed in the live chat of this conversation some frustration that people were not getting the usual anti-Trump catharsis they were looking for. I love that catharsis as much as the next guy. But this is not that kind of conversation. It’s a complicated conversation about foreign policy, where some of the good people you may like have abetted very bad things in the past, and where some truly malign actors are picking up issues that needed to be picked up, and then dealing with them ruinously. If you’re up for some complexity, tune in. If not, we recommend ice cream, and we’ll have you back for the next chat!

    Leave a comment


    Come back and join us next week for three more great Live conversations: Monday, March 3 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, we’ll have our weekly conversation with scholar of fascism Ruth Ben-Ghiat. On Tuesday, March 4, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern we’ll be speaking with California Congressman Ro Khanna, and on Thursday, March 6, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern we’re back with messaging guru Anat Shenker-Osorio. We hope to see you at all three!

    To join and watch, download the Substack app (click on the button below) and turn on notifications — you’ll get an alert that we’re live and you can watch from your iOS or Android mobile device. And if you haven’t already, subscribe to The Ink to access full videos of past conversations and to join the chat during our live events.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Share


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • I couldn’t help but speak on this today. Thank you for listening and being part of this.

    If you haven’t yet, subscribe to support The Ink’s kneepad-free journalism — or why not get a gift or group subscription?

    The Ink will not bow to billionaires or tyrants. We will keep calling it like we see it.

    Subscribe now

    Give a gift subscription

    Get 20% off a group subscription

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • We just finished talking with the labor journalist Hamilton Nolan and 1,600 Ink readers about the #teslatakedown movement and a real, practical plan to take $100 billion out of Elon Musk’s bank account.

    As Nolan told us, Tesla’s stock is hugely overvalued — it’s based not on the value of the cars or factories, but on public expectations about the company’s future explosive growth. And that’s a big opportunity to change things because those expectations are simply beliefs in Musk’s genius, based on a story that, ultimately, the public owns — and the public can take it away, by protesting, talking to people, and participating in all sorts of things you can find out about by visiting Tesla Takedown. Change the story enough, and when people go shopping for a car, they’ll buy something else, which means investors will sell off their stock — and turn the Wall Street math that made Musk towards unmaking him.

    Share

    We spoke with Nolan — the publisher of How Things Work, and author of the new book The Hammer, Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor — not just about Tesla, but about the many challenges facing the labor movement in the 21st century, from gig economy entrepreneurs making an end run around union regulations to A.I. threatening to take away the jobs of millions, and about the hope and possibility labor solidarity still represents. And we talked about the kind of change people working together can achieve in this moment. Taking away Elon Musk’s power is just the start.

    “The bad people who are in charge right now are not that smart,” Nolan pointed out, “So there’s no reason we can’t kick their ass.”

    Want to get started? If you missed the conversation, check out the full video above. You won’t want to miss it.

    Leave a comment


    In the public interest, we are opening this video and transcript to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber today.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, with no paywall.

    Subscribe now

    Give a gift subscription

    Get 20% off a group subscription


    We’ve got more great live conversations coming up this week: Thursday, February 27, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern we’re speaking with Gabriel Sherman, the director of the new Trump biopic The Apprentice. Then on Friday, February 28, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, we’ll talk with Stephen Wertheim, the historian and theorist of America’s place in the world. To join us, download the Substack app and turn on notifications. You’ll get an alert when we’re live and you can watch from your iOS or Android device.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Subscribe now


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • I said what I said. Thanks for being part of this newsletter and giving me that freedom through your support of independent media.

    Subscribe now

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • The people are rising.

    Give them forty days of this, and they’re rising.

    They are rising in town halls. Rising at electric car dealerships owned by a man who would scorch the earth. They are making signs and marching and being annoying and being that person. They are, by the thousands, making inquiries to run for office.

    The people are rising because they looked around for someone else to rise instead and realized that what they had was a mirror.

    They are rising because first they thought no one else would and then they saw they were not alone. Now they are rising together.


    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and consider supporting independent media that doesn’t bow to tyrants or billionaires.


    They were waiting for others to be the first mover, the advance team, the vanguard. Then they got fed up and loaded their van with snacks and signs and water, and went.

    They are refusing to be ruled. They know that the only appropriate time to hear “coup” is when you are speaking to a baby. They are rejecting the artifice of the deal.

    They do not wish to obey in advance.

    They are watching the big buildings of the republic, and the important people inside of them, crack and tremble, and they are marveling that little old them has more courage than all the big institution people.

    The people are rising. They are claiming their birthright to speak. And speak loudly.

    Share

    They are speaking clearly. They don’t sound like many of those who are called senators and representatives. They don’t get lost in caveats and qualifications and “as it relates to” and “in terms of.” They say what they feel: They want to be free.

    The people are rising. No longer trusting blindly the people and places they used to. Thinking for themselves. Asking for trust to be earned. Assembling their own infrastructure of reality. Seeing new truths in the scared or condescending silences.

    They have come to the place of not minding being That Person. The person who brings it up. Who says the thing. Pushes. Who ruins dinner to save the republic.

    The people are rising. Remembering not only what they are against but also what they are for. Painting a lush tomorrow. Inviting people in. Making space for latecomers.

    The people are rising. Once they do, nothing is ever the same. Will you rise, too?

    Leave a comment


    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and consider supporting independent media that doesn’t bow to tyrants or billionaires.


    Photo: Kena Betancur/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Hey, folks! Anand here.

    I just had another informative, illuminating, head-spinning, therapeutic, and, dare I say, healing conversation with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the scholar of authoritarianism and editor of Lucid, the newsletter covering autocracy and threats to democracy globally.

    Thank you to the more than 4,000 of you who joined live. Talk about building a new kind of media. Wow. We are floored.

    People who like freedom and democracy turn out to be numerous. That is good news.

    If you missed our live conversation, we encourage you to watch the entire video above.


    In the public interest, we are opening this video to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, no paywall.

    Subscribe now

    Give a gift subscription

    Get 20% off a group subscription


    Call notes from The Ink’s managing editor, Michael Berk

    We covered a lot of territory:

    • It’s the three-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and, even more significantly, perhaps the end of an 80-year transatlantic era as Donald Trump does his best to withdraw from America’s commitments and replace them with a mafioso, art-of-the-deal transactionalism — and we talked about how this leaves a vacuum for Russian and Chinese power.

    • We talked about the continuing failure of legacy media to call things what they are — to continue to tell the story of what Trump and Musk are up to as a business story, of Musk applying startup techniques to government, of Trump acting like a businessman — when, Ben-Ghiat reminds us, these “drain the swamp” efforts are one of the oldest authoritarian scams.

    • We looked at what the German elections might mean, and saw some signs of hope in the AfD’s underperformance — and the way in which young voters turned to the left in big numbers. For Ben-Ghiat, this is a lesson that, to oppose autocrats, you can’t run to the center — you need to dig in and stand for progressive values.

    • And, as we often do, we talked about the psychological ground of politics, about how Musk’s OPM letter demanding federal employees justify their existence in bullet points is part of an overall strategy to create trauma, one that goes back to Project 2025 and OPM head Russell Vought’s plan to keep government workers in distress. As Ben-Ghiat told us, this is part of the playbook: authoritarians threaten — and they don’t need to act further because people just obey. That’s what people need to resist.

    Share

    Everyone should head over to Lucid, by the way, and read Ben-Ghiat’s account of her disinvitation from delivering her Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy — it’s a case study in how authoritarians stifle dissent and something everyone should be aware of — because it illustrates how afraid they are of that dissent, and how critical it is to express it.


    Marching orders

    We’ve been trying to turn these talks into opportunities and come up with advice you can act on right away.

    A point we kept coming back to in this morning’s conversation was that our sense of alarm is not joined by enough people. We are outnumbered by people who are broadly sympathetic but not alarmed. And that’s something that we need to change.

    Our marching orders for you this week are simple:

    Be the anti-fascist skunk at the garden party of apathy and obedience.

    If you hear about local protests, tell everyone — as Anat Shenker-Osorio told us last week, creating social proof — giving people the incentive to act like they think their neighbors are acting — is essential to building political power, and it’s easy to get started.

    • The enemy is denial and the desire for life to go on, to be able to go about your business as usual. It’s up to us to make the connections, to show people how what Trump and Musk are doing will make business-as-usual impossible.

    • If you hear about local protests, tell people, spread the news — if people think nobody is resisting, that creates negative momentum. So create positive momentum

    • Most people don’t want to be subjugated — they want to be free. Remind them.


    Again, in the public interest, we are opening this video to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, no paywall.

    Subscribe now

    Give a gift subscription

    Get 20% off a group subscription

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Remember the old talk-radio shows? I always wondered if it would be possible to revive the idea of just letting people call in and talking to them — without the whole breaking-the-country aspect of talk radio.

    Well, we’ve been trying it, with great success, I might say.

    Thanks to everyone who tuned in today. Here is the video for those who didn’t.

    We talked about:

    • whether people even know about the Musk coup in conservative communities

    • why legacy media still refuses to name openly authoritarian actions like attempting to purge the federal civil service

    • why Nextdoor might be an interesting new frontier for under-the-radar organizing

    • and what people think Trump’s greatest potential vulnerability is with their right-leaning neighbors

    These highly localized testimonies about what people are seeing and hearing in their communities is important. Please share.

    Share

    Thank you for being part of this. As always, these Lives are open to all who join. Later we post the full videos for our supporting subscribers to rewatch and share.

    Above, a short preview is open to all. If you want to watch the whole thing, subscribe. That’s how we keep the lights on, pay our writers and editors a fair wage, and build the new media we all deserve.

    Stand up for media that bows to no tyrant or billionaire. Join us today.

    Subscribe now

    Join me for my next live — tomorrow with Ruth Ben-Ghiat at 11 a.m. Eastern — by downloading the app and turning on notifications.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Yesterday, we spoke with one of the most brilliant minds in politics in America, and one of the most brilliant in the world: Anat Shenker-Osorio. She’s a messaging guru, who I met when I was reporting my book, The Persuaders — there’s a whole chapter about her in it — and ever since at The Ink we have often turned to her whenever we need the best advice.

    But she’s so much more than a messaging guru. She’s a comedian. She is a person who, in spite of her messaging prowess, will always say something that really pokes and inflames people, but she does it intentionally, to provoke them into seeing what they might not otherwise have recognized. And in a moment when so many people do not know what to say, or how to say it — or seem to have lost the use of their vocal cords and spines — she is someone we can ask to tell people what they should be saying, because she knows just how to frame the most important questions of this time, and has answers for so many of them.

    Share

    For those who’ve been looking for leadership from above, she made it very clear that nicely asking Democrats to do something has never brought about real change. So stop doing that. Stop trying to get Chuck Schumer to do something.

    This conversation is an incredibly practical guide to what you need to — and can — do. Anyone and everyone can lead: we make the future, and it’s time to do it by stepping up. If you want to, you are a leader!

    Congrats! Sorry. But congrats!

    You can start by creating social proof locally — which is to say, create a perception in your community that lots of people feel the way you feel. You might start with signs, hats, talking to people, or, as she put it, the painting of a barn. Just pick something, and get started. And soon enough you’ll be leading.

    If you’re not sure where to jump in, Anat’s team keeps track of actions across the country, so visit her ever-evolving list of Ways to Resist. And read her Freedom over Fascism toolkit for tons of ideas and insight into how to communicate all of the ideas you’ll find below.


    We know some of you prefer reading to watching, so we’re publishing text excerpts of the conversation below. If you missed our live conversation, we encourage you to watch the entire video above.

    In the public interest, we are opening this video and transcript to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber today.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, with no paywall.

    Get 20% off forever

    Give a gift subscription


    I wanted to start maybe on a positive-ish note by asking you who is telling the right story right now? Who do you see in the pro-democracy movement? And I know that your answer to this may not take a lot of time because it may not be a very long list of people, but who is telling the right story?

    Well, let’s start with a story that you helped bring to light, in your Live with Senator Chris Murphy. I thought he was absolutely spot-on in many ways. I don’t know whether we’ll come back to this, but I thought his response in particular when you held his feet somewhat to the fire about why other Democratic leaders are not stepping up. That was probably him at his most diplomatic. But I thought his description of reality was really spot on.

    Unsurprisingly, he’s an MVP, is always there, always prescient, always saying the thing, speaking truth, not just to power, but ensuring we’re speaking truth to each other.

    AOC, Jasmine Crockett, obviously. Governor Pritzker’s responses yesterday were extraordinary. Exactly what’s needed. And then outside of the elected official space, there’s a lot going on. There are burgeoning protest movements, both from known organizations like Indivisible and Move On and Working Families Party, but also from brand newbies that just self-assembled on Substack, like the 50501 movement, and the burgeoning general strike movement.

    And because there’s no up without a down, as they say, who is getting it most dramatically and maybe for you infuriatingly wrong?

    Do you want to open this Pandora’s box? You know, the list is very, very, very long.

    One might say infinite.

    Most infuriatingly, it’s the siren song of the authoritarian that they are fomenting a counterrevolution against a revolution that never occurred. This has always been their story, time and place immemorial, that you’re being attacked, you’re being put upon by some usurping minority, whether that be immigrants, whether that be Roma people in Hungary, whether that be people seeking asylum in Australia, whether that be Southern Europeans in the case of Brexit, whether that be trans people. It’s always some other who is coming to get you and they have amassed too much power.

    And so I think what is most infuriating beyond just the absolute unwillingness to locate a single vertebra let alone a spine is the layering on of the misdiagnosis of why we are here when we blame when we make believe that the people with too much power in our society are undocumented immigrants and trans people. If it weren’t so pathetic and sad it would be funny. So I think that that is what is particularly infuriating.

    Talk to me about specific moments in the last month where you’ve seen someone give a press conference, you’ve seen someone give a floor speech — give me the hall of shame because I consider you one of the only people, frankly, who I could ask to do that and you’ll just do it.

    I mean, who am I most disappointed by? I think I’m extraordinarily disappointed by many of our senators. I’m thinking in particular, really sadly, because of all the extraordinary work that I know movement groups like Lucha in Arizona went to, putting him into power. But Ruben Gallego, not only refusing to stand up to this administration but also actively sponsoring the Laken Riley bill, which let’s not kid ourselves, is about eliminating due process rights. It is about creating an unjust — even more unjust — legal system in the name of genuflecting at the altar of immigrants are the problem.

    I think that Amy Klobuchar has said things that are really infuriating and incensing. I think obviously Chuck Schumer’s stance of, “We’ll just rap about the price of eggs.” Hakeem Jeffries, in a very similar vein, and just a lot of, “Well, we can’t do anything. We don’t have any power.” Excuse making.

    It’s so interesting when you see a lot of the folks on TV and when you’re under a Biden presidency or an Obama presidency maybe you don’t notice the mediocrity as much because it doesn’t like risk the republic — and now to see some of those same people, they’re not evil or awful the way that we’re talking about on the right, but they are so profoundly mediocre and not up to the task of responding to a once-in-a-century emergency.

    You know, I referenced earlier before the conversation that you had with Senator Murphy and I was reflecting, because obviously I spend a lot of time listening to people because if you want to be decent at messaging, you have to spend a lot of time listening to people.

    And by listening to people, I mean in focus groups where we are asking them deep questions, we are extracting metaphors, we are uncovering their underlying assumptions and beliefs about what is going on. What is the origin story behind it? What are their desired solutions?

    And so I think a lot about what people’s underlying motivations are, and the psychology of how they came to be where they are and doing what they’re doing. And I think when I think about these folks who have risen to the halls of power, it kind of makes sense because to be honest, that they’re behaving in these milquetoast ways.

    Is that what it takes to get there?

    Well, partly it’s what it takes to get there, but also it is an accurate fact that that has worked for them. The things that they have done in their life have brought them to The New York Times newsroom, because — let’s just widen the net of culpability a little bit here — has brought them to the pinnacle of journalism, has brought them to the pinnacle of politics, has brought them to the pinnacle of whatever it is I assume they desired to do once they became old enough to have a thing that they really wanted to do.

    And so… If taking certain steps and engaging in certain ways and refusing to upset people has been successful or at least successful within a trajectory that you define for yourself, then it actually kind of makes a lot of sense that random lady with big hair being like, “What the actual fuck are you doing? There’s a hostile takeover of our government happening on your watch, friend.”

    It feels like, well, this has worked for me and it has achieved the things that I desire to achieve. So why would I change course?

    Share

    So here’s something I’m struggling with. I think part of what explains the election loss going back to November is this problem you and I have talked about before of a tendency to kind of misappraise what is really, really salient with people. And you are someone who studies this and measures it. There are things you and I are worried about. There are things you’ve been screaming about that it turns out, way more people should be worried about it than are.

    If you were right about the election, if I was right about the election, a lot more people should have been concerned about things that, maybe did not reach the top rank.

    And so even now, now that we’re in this presidency, I struggle with my own sense of how grave this is, how serious this is.

    This is a coup. This is that. And then sometimes I just, I live in New York City. Like I’ve walked down the street. I see people living their lives. These are people, 90 percent of them vote for Democrats, but you can just tell, if you sit in a restaurant, you hear conversations or you watch a normal TV show, the Jennifer Hudson talk show, you see normal life. And normal people living their lives are not living as though, as Senator Murphy says, this is the most serious crisis since the civil war and we may be a few months from irreversibly losing democracy.

    So my maybe difficult question for you is, is this thing that you and I share, this concern that everybody watching this shares. Is this concern out of touch in some way, maybe accurate, but is it out of sync with how regular people read things? Are we too ahead of the curve? Is it not landing with people?

    Talk to me about that disconnect.

    Yeah, it is not landing with people.

    So I want to say two things about that. The first is that in the lead-up to the election, I coined this phrase, the credulity chasm. And what the credulity chasm means is that when we look at the fundamental attitude that was most predictive of voting for Harris versus doing something else, and by something else I mean voting for Trump, staying at home, voting third party, etc.

    It wasn’t, “Wow, that Project 2025 agenda, that sounds real sweet. That’s like a Baskin Robbins tasty level of flavors. I’m excited.” It was whether or not people believed the agenda would come true. So this notion that the country has shifted rightwards is actually not supported by data.

    What has actually happened — and what happened through the election — was what the people who got it were saying: “No, it’s for realsies. This is not hyperbolic. This threat is real. And all of this will come to pass and come to fruition.”

    And in fact, there’s a Project 2025 tracker that shows that already within this first month of being in a hostile takeover, they have made good on one-third of the Project 2025 agenda. Just a little side note.

    So that credulity chasm, which I would argue we are still in — it is a basic facet of human psychology, and we see this among respondents in many, many parts of the world.

    This is not a uniquely U.S. phenomenon, but there’s a U.S. layer on top of it that John Jost, the psychologist at NYU, calls system justification theory. Basically, there’s kind of a fundamental human need to feel like I can predict what’s going to happen. Tomorrow is going to be somewhat like today. Things are more or less okay. Things happen for a reason. Good things happen to good people. Bad things happen to bad people. There’s a fundamental explanation for the universe because to question that and to really truly be living within that — the badness or the recognition of the badness, I should say — it requires a level of upset and a level of agitation and a level of awareness that is understandably very difficult for most people, because for most people, the basic facets of life, like being able to see a doctor, being able to help out your parents when their water heater breaks and being able to send your kid to university, et cetera, is pretty challenging.

    And so to ask people to layer on another thing is a lot. And I think that what we are experiencing over and over again, and it’s been happening for a while. It’s the frogs in boiling water problem, where we truly think this is a hot tub. And a little toasty, get a little cozy. But, you know, it’s winter and a hot tub is nice and winter in most parts of the country. And I’m joking, but not by much.

    Anticipating this is actually why it is absolutely so fundamental that we be crystal clear and that our leaders be crystal clear that what’s happening is in fact what’s happening because not every problem that is named can be faced, but zero problems that we refuse to name and refuse to recognize can actually be faced. And this is where I think the strategy of hat in hand, please, sir, may I have a tuppence begging Democrats to locate a spine is wrong. And we need to stop pushing in that direction.

    Share

    Okay, but I guess what I’m wondering is, and I wonder this very personally, because I’m afraid that I’m doing it wrong.

    When I see Elon Musk shadow presidenting his way through these agencies. It basically gets rid of Congress. I mean, it’s as grave a series of things as you know. And I talk about Elon Musk’s anti-constitutional coup. I feel like I am describing reality as clearly as I can. I feel like I’m saying things that, given what I understand about this country and what people claim to care about, should be ringing bells.

    And I also feel like I can almost hear with that double consciousness, people are not going to care about that. Everybody watching this is going to care about this, right? But not all the people not watching this, who actually outnumber the people watching this. And so, is that even just doing it wrong? Like, should it just be, “Your grandma’s social security check is in danger?” Like, just the practical things?

    Because this kind of parallels the whole thing in the election about crime and eggs and democracy, all that stuff. Am I doing it wrong when I really fixate on the anti-constitutional coup by Elon Musk?

    You’re right to fixate on it. You’re wrong in voter-facing and public-facing messaging to call it that. And it’s for the reasons you’ve already intuited. The Constitution is an abstraction, even though it is actually a physical document, I am aware. Whenever we are in the language of protecting institutions, protecting norms, protecting democracy — democracy never bought anyone dinner.

    And in point of fact, the way that most people, the way that the average American thinks about democracy, if they think about it at all, is the system as it is presently construed. The thing that we have now. And by the way, the thing that we have now, I’m not loving. I’m not very fond of it.

    So anytime our language, our messaging implies that what we are asking for is a return to January 19th, 2025, meaning right before inauguration, people weren’t psyched about that day either. And so the answer is, As you’ve already intuited, is how do we make it person-facing, voter-facing, American-facing? How do we make it tangible?

    So what do we say? We say: “This is a government of the bullies for the billionaires.” Trump and the billionaires who bought him, Musk — you can name both of them, you can name either of them — are coming for your life and your livelihood. He is coming for your freedom. He is coming for your privacy. He is coming for your information. And he is conducting a hostile takeover of our government so he can take our money.”

    That’s the simplest way of expressing it.

    But do you think that is working? Right now?

    It’s not happening enough. But, you know, I can tell you from experimentation, both within focus groups and within our own internal polling that we continuously do. Yes, the most the highest impact way that we can characterize what Musk is doing is, “a hostile takeover of our government and an armed robbery of our money and our and our very deliberate there.

    But ultimately, there is absolutely nothing that we can say that will ever be as loud as what we can do.

    Yes, we should be calling our representatives. And yes, we are rightly incensed about the fact that these people who purportedly have sworn an oath to govern in our name apparently can’t be bothered to work on Fridays and, you know, don’t want to use the mechanisms at their disposal to throw sand in the wheels of government in order to stop this hostile takeover.

    Infuriating. Rightly so. Call them. Call the Republicans, too. But understand what has stopped autocracy in other places and within our own history, when we think about the civil rights movement, when we think about ACT UP, when we think about the movement to get the Americans with Disabilities Act, and women’s suffrage.

    Imagine if the Montgomery bus boycott folks were like, “I know, here’s an idea. Let’s ask the Democrats if they would pretty please end this whole completely unjust, horrifying segregation thing.”

    Or when folks newly in the throes of the HIV AIDS crisis, dying en masse from this disease that apparently came out of nowhere, watching their loved ones suffer and struggle, if they were like, “You know what we should do? We should ask the Democrats if they would pretty please do something about this.”

    No, that isn’t what they did. They broke into the New York Stock Exchange, as you may know, and they hung a banner from where the bell gets rung saying, “Sell Burroughs Wellcome” which is the pharmaceutical corporation that was making AZT at the time.

    And sure enough, by the end of the month, the price had dropped. And not that much later, there had been an appropriations bill, the Ryan White bill, to actually bring money into this fight and force research and so on.

    And so what we do is so much louder than what we say, because what we do, people being out in the world saying, physically opposing this and speaking about it and writing songs about it and making parodies and making TikToks and painting “Fuck the Fascists” on the side of their barn.

    That is actually what sways public opinion. What sways public opinion is what we call social proof. People do the things they think people like them do.

    And so it’s this chicken-and-egg problem where you’re walking around New York or I’m walking around the Bay area or someone’s walking around in the middle of America and you don’t see anyone else freaking out. You don’t see anyone else angry. You don’t see anyone else upset. And so you’re like, I guess really nothing’s happening. And so it’s about the doing more than it is about the saying.

    Get 20% off forever

    This is so important what you’re saying. And it’s reframing something for me.

    It’s almost like when we talk about protest, mass mobilization right now, resistance, I think the frame in people’s mind is, the object of that is the right. You’re protesting against the right, you’re resisting the right. And you’re hoping for maybe Democrats to be part of this. You’re the subject opposing that object and you’re kind of inviting them to be part of the subject.

    And you’re reframing this like, no, no, no, the Democrats are like a second object. They’re not here. They’re there. They’re another thing you are mobilizing against for different reasons. It’s a different kind of mobilization. But you are mobilizing against their passivity and then against the things the right is doing.

    Does that sound right?

    I mean, yes and no. I think… and feel free to lob the charge of hypocrisy at me. Bring it on, because I’m about to perform a big old hypocrisy on you.

    I’m obviously extraordinarily pissed off at Democrats. I have spent the last many years of my career helping elect Democrats. And so you can understand how it feels especially galling to me and many of you. However, it is the fact that when our public discourse — this is where you’re going to come at me, come at me because I’m guilty. Do as I say, not as I post, I would say.

    When we are loudly saying, “Democrats aren’t doing this, Democrats aren’t doing that, Democrats are weak here, Democrats are weak there, Democrats refuse.” Then that is the narrative. That is the discourse that is in the public. And insofar as people continue to view the Democrats as the rightful centerpiece of the opposition — which is a reasonable conclusion, they’re purportedly the opposition party in a duopoly — it looks like the regime is unopposed. What the regime is doing is fine. People are largely O.K. with it.

    And so because in life you cannot actually make other people do things — it is very, very unfortunate. It’s one of the hard lessons of parenting. You can’t actually physically make people do things. You can only really focus on what you’re doing.

    I’m not saying stop pressuring them, but I’m saying what would actually cause a sea change among the calcified leadership — and yes, hashtag not all Democrats, there are extraordinary Democrats who are doing the right thing, as we said earlier — is when there is a mass movement.

    Actually they’re not leaders, they don’t go first, literally, to lead means to go first. That’s really all it means. And so that means that every single one of you listening right now: If you want to, you’re a leader. If you want to, you’re a leader.

    Let’s look, for example, at the Black Lives Matter resurgence that happened in 2020. During that protest, during that June, public opinion of BLM moved ahead by 12 points. It was only when the protests stopped And the right-wing coordinated backlash happened that opinion swayed back, which was an intentional thing.

    The same thing with the Muslim ban. When Trump was first promising the Muslim ban during his first run, it polled popular.

    But when it actually happened, and people took the extraordinary step of driving to the airport. And you live in New York. Nobody drives — your wife doesn’t drive you to the airport. I don’t know your business, but I’m telling you that. Who drives to LAX? Who drives to SFO? Nobody drives to these airports. That is not a thing that happens to everyday Americans.

    It’s showing, not telling — showing, not telling — that they are against this. That is actually what altered people’s perceptions of whether or not the Muslim ban was okay or not.

    So that’s really it. And that is what drags Democrats along. It’s ordinary people showing that they disagree.

    So this is so helpful and you are always so helpful. Even though I’ve spent so long engaging with your work, there’s like a particular unlock here. And a lot of people are responding to that also. I’m just going to try to summarize.

    I hear your point on managing the correct level of infighting or criticizing Dems. You talk about calling your representative, pressuring them to do things.

    Your idea about painting the barn really struck me because a lot of people — everyone who subscribes to The Ink, all their comments are like, “I call everybody, I do this, nothing’s happening.”

    And I don’t think a lot of people have thought of it as what you said, which is, yes, you’re trying to pressure some leaders, but a very tangible thing you can do is increase the perception of people around you about the number of people who feel this way.

    Exactly. Because that is something you can do and you can measure. I’m not saying don’t do the calling your reps and stuff, but that stuff just feels so remote to people I know.

    And people are so frustrated, like changing the perception about the number of people who feel that way around you. That is like a marching order.

    And the other thing to recognize and to realize, and we have a running list that we just keep for ourselves for our team of the actions that are happening right now. It is by no means comprehensive. It couldn’t possibly be comprehensive — stuff is popping up everywhere. It’s just the stuff that comes across our radar.

    Do you know how many people go to the average school board meeting in most towns? Do you know how quickly and easily you and two, three, four of your friends will be the only people at the school board meeting?

    A lot of what has happened in our politics is that we actually stopped organizing. And a lot of the heroic, extraordinary, wonderful organizations that I admire and respect and like count as colleagues, we all became so fixated on channeling ourselves through the electoral process. And that means that instead of organizing, everybody moved to field and called it organizing. And by field, I mean getting people registered, getting people to vote. Fine, do that. I’m not knocking it.

    But that’s not organizing. That is not organizing. And we need to stop kidding ourselves. Organizing is finding out who runs the PTA in your town? Who runs the biggest church? Who are the Boy Scout leaders? Who are the Girl Scout leaders? Are you actually talking to people and radicalizing them in the original definition? You know, radical just means “to the root,” right? Are you actually radicalizing them in a new political understanding of what is happening? Why is it happening? And what is the origin of it? Where does it come from?

    So that they can withstand all of these constant right-wing drumbeats that say it’s the immigrants or it’s the Black people or it’s the trans people or it’s whomever, it’s the Muslims. So that they actually have an authentic consciousness and that they themselves then are talking to other people.

    That’s organizing.

    And so go local. I cannot emphasize enough, especially if you live in a smaller place, especially if you live in a red state, in a purple district, whatever.

    You show up at your school board meeting and the two of you or the three of you or the four of you, you show up at your city council, you’re the only people there. These fascist policies, yes, they are being constructed at the national level. Of course, they are. But they have to be implemented at the local level. And it is at the local level.

    Let’s just take, for instance, Aurora, Colorado. That is where they want to massively expand a detention facility. In order to continue with their evil draconian plan of concentration camps for people who happen to not have been born here and, you know, speak English with the wrong accent, apparently.

    So Aurora is not Manhattan. It is not Los Angeles. It is not D.C. It is a particular town with a particular city council with a particular set of folks. And right now there is a battle going on to define Aurora, to massively expanded detention facility there.

    People in that town and surrounding communities could go and say, “We are Aurora.” They could do food trucks of every ethnicity, and nationality. They could do giant dance parties saying, “We are Aurora. This is what we believe.”

    I’m going to go to Aurora as they do all this. I mean, as God is my witness, I will. This is my pledge: I am going to make a 10,000 or however many food truck caravan from every contiguous state to D.C, in order to have the largest bhangra, K-pop, salsa, samba, polka — I’m not intentionally leaving out any kind of music fill in all the musics — dance party to show not tell that immigrants are awesome.

    Because we can not live, we can not survive in a dual narrative or a three-part narrative in which immigrants are either villains, which is of course what the right says, or they’re victims, which is all too often, sadly, where we have been in advocacy. What I call the ay pobrecitos narrative. You know, with due respect to the Statue of Liberty, give me your tired or your poor. Most people feel tired and poor. They’re not really out seeking that. Or the third narrative, that being immigrants are our valets. You know, they do the jobs that no one wants. They help us.

    Immigrants are awesome. Immigrants are joy. Immigrants are life. Immigrants are interesting. They’re entrepreneurs. You know, America is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. And that’s a good thing. And so let’s make it that way, as you recently wrote.

    Share

    One of the only silver linings for me of this whole era is that the thing that I wrote about before I met you, before I did Persuaders, was a book about billionaires. And it was very difficult to convince people to care. A lot of liberal and even progressive people were like, “Why are you going after these people? Like, sure, they’re not the best, but like, really? These are your enemies? You know, Bill Gates or whoever?”

    It was actually hard in 2018 when that book came out. It was hard. I was often on the back foot, right? I really had to make a case. People were very, very skeptical of why anyone would say anything negative about the ones who give money away and do all this stuff.

    It is really different. Seven years later, like everybody gets it. Everybody understands what oligarchs are, you know?

    Thanks to you.

    Well, I don’t think that’s the case. It’s thanks to AOC and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and others. But I wonder whether you think, again, with Elon, the oligarch frame, the warning of oligarchy — is this as salient and helpful with the mass public as we seem to think it is?

    Having people truly understand that this is a government by the bullies for the billionaires, that concept.

    I guess just the wrinkle is in a country where still a lot of people kind of want to be billionaires, is it as cool a message as I think it is?

    Yeah.

    It is, in fact, the case, as people often report, that in America, no one is poor. They’re just pre-rich, right? We’re all just temporarily embarrassed. You know, we just haven’t made our billions. Oprah hasn’t given us the car or whatever she’s supposed to give us. So there is still that very, very, very deep kind of yearning and with it an admiration and a cultishness around the extraordinarily wealthy.

    But wow, are people pissed at the rich. I mean, that may be the only thing that has bipartisan agreement in this country is just how extraordinarily furious people are, because I think the fundamental difference is that in the olden times, this cult of people are rich because they’re made out of awesome, because they’re uniquely smart, because they’re uniquely capable and hardworking and so on. That’s largely been punctured. And people understand.

    So it’s not just that they’re rich. It’s how they’re rich, why they’re rich. And the fact that the reason that they’re rich is because they’ve stolen from you. It’s that connection.

    Because sure, people can aspire to have their own, you know, whatever their dream is. In my case, an extensive shoe collection. But, you know, you do you.

    But the notion that the reason why people have so much money is because you don’t — that is increasingly salient. And that’s really the crux of it.

    Now, where this gets hard — and this brings us back to the earlier conversation of you can’t just articulate the problem for people, although that is absolutely extraordinarily essential — they also have to feel that the articulation of the problem lends itself to something that they can do.

    And so in the universe in which what people are “supposed to do” is petition their government in some way or another. And I say that broadly, right? So vote, register to vote, get other people to vote, call their member of Congress, ask for policy change.

    It’s extraordinary the degree to which people, even low information, low engagement folks, think the jig is up on that particular theory of change.

    And so I think we are now in a place in which people need to be directed, their anger and their ire need to be directed into what I am calling the “Mangione without murder” strategy. Without murder. Hear that whole phrase.

    You really do know how to coin a phrase.

    Yeah, we don’t need to be murdering people. I just want to say on the record here that I’m telling you. Anti-murder. I’m anti-murder, whatever you heard, whatever they told you. Sharp messages, no sharp weapons.

    That’s right.

    Imagine if we actually had people doing, you know, die-ins where corporate CEOs are. If we actually had people going to the places, it’s easy to look up. These motherfuckers are all hypocrites. They all go to church. Why aren’t we showing up in the parking lots of their churches? And this could both be MAGA Republicans and CEOs. Singing hymns that are actually about what Jesus preached. When they get out of church, say it to their faces.

    And so I think that the challenge with the billionaire articulation is not that it is not landing. You are correct in your supposition that it is absolutely landing. It’s that it quickly becomes, well, every election is a contest between their billionaires and our billionaires. And so the solution, which presumably has been, well, that’s why you should vote for Democrats.

    I know people are really responding to how clear your advice is. And I think it’s making a lot of people feel like they know what to do more clearly than they did before. So thank you. I want to go back to that and compile all of your advice. Let’s focus on marching orders for everybody here.

    People are in agreement with you about how grave this is and how serious it is. People feel incredibly undefended by elected Democrats in general and are not expecting them to change very soon. People are doing things already, like calling Congress, but maybe don’t know the third, fourth, and fifth things to do.

    Can you just give us some very, very, very tangible marching orders?

    So the first thing I would say is in the preservation of your own mental health and wellbeing. Pick a thing that you care about and can be motivated to stay the course with.

    For some folks, that’s going to be education. For some folks, that’s going to be immigrant rights. For some folks, that’s going to be policing, whatever. There are so many things happening at once that we can all become like cats with a laser pointer and make ourselves nuts.

    So you pick the thing. You go as local as possible about that thing. And so if it is education, just take that for instance, then you decide with yourself and a handful of your friends, you have a potluck beforehand, you do you. Do something fun and entertaining and get together beforehand. You look up in the public record when the next school board meeting is in your local community. And you go there and you make statements about ensuring that all children have the freedom to learn the truth of our past, and that all children have the freedom to belong and be who they are within their schools. And you oppose any kind of effort to implement the draconian fascist agenda in your own community.

    So that is one thing. You can do that within the context of immigrant rights. You can do that in the context of disability justice, racial justice, et cetera.

    The next piece of advice is to wear your beliefs. Get yourself a “Fabulously Fighting Fascism” t-shirt. One of the things that is most important to the right and to any authoritarian force is to suck our joy, is to suck our uniqueness, is to suck our our being. I say all the time, put up a billboard in the middle of nowhere that shows people across the gender spectrum just having themselves the best possible time, and say “Fabulously fighting fascism.”

    You will get so much local media and local attention, even if it’s in the middle of nowhere because it is a saucy message. Show, not tell that you do not agree with this, that you refuse it.

    So I think the name of the game is really resistance. refusal, and ridicule. And ridicule is a key and essential element that I have danced around.

    Join a union, if you can join a union. Support union efforts. That is a place where deep and authentic organizing actually happens and needs to happen much, much more expansively. One of the most important keys to fighting autocracy is a strong, integrated, active, in-your-face labor community.

    Before we go, to leave people on a note of hope, in a lot of the messaging that you do and the formal proper messages you draft for TV ads or other communication, there’s a certain structure, which I wrote about in my book. It’s often the beginning and the end where more hope and uplift come in and in the middle is where you explain the obstructions to that promise

    A lot of people really can’t see the after of this. It’s very hard to see anything. I find it very difficult to visualize 2026. I find it very, very difficult to visualize 2035. I could see a scenario where it’s totally fine, this thing blew over, it imploded, and my kids are just living a normal life, vaguely remembering this. And I could imagine a scenario in which most people I know don’t live in this country anymore. It’s so hard to picture the after.

    Can you help us picture the after in a hopeful way if we get this right, if we do all the things you’re talking about?

    The fact that you can’t picture 2026. I can’t either. And that is either extraordinarily terrifying or fantastic. The reason why it is potentially fantastic is because it takes a fundamental rupture, a big rupture that we think that we have already had, but we have not — because we are still waking up in the morning and going to the store and answering our telephones and checking our social and getting our kids to school and all the things that, of course, we need to continue to do.

    That rupture has not happened for most people. And it is only in a fundamental rupture that we get a period — and obviously, the decimation of it is one of the most tragic and horrible things in American history. But Reconstruction wouldn’t have happened without the Civil War. The New Deal wouldn’t have happened without the decimation of the Gilded Age and God forbid, the Depression.

    Moments of extraordinary rupture are moments of extraordinary possibility where, as my colleague, Mike Podhorzer points out, pre the Revolution, when people were hanging out in the colonies, and trying, you know, to do the Boston Tea Party and to petition the king, “Hey, yo, like, we’re not fond of this. We’re not keen.”

    And I’m not discounting the fact that things were pretty bad for most people and enslavement and no women’s rights and so on. I’m not making believe that that period was a beautiful era in American history.

    The only point that I’m making is that there has to be a rupture so fundamental that people are like, “Oh no, how about we just don’t have a king? How about we just don’t be a colony anymore? How about we decide that we are going to invent a new country from scratch?”

    Obviously not really from scratch because of the destruction and usurpation and genocide of Native people — again, I am not trying to say this was like a beautiful era.

    All I’m trying to say is that in the unknowing, in the what-the-fuck-is-going-to-come-next, is actually where invention comes. And it requires us recognizing that. To give you a tautology, the problem is made out of the problem, as we were discussing at the top of our conversation. To think that a system that is working largely as designed, to bring us representatives who, with notable and noteworthy and laudable exceptions, are not actually serving our interests and are not stepping up to the plate. To think that they would behave any differently is to not understand that the entire progressive movement is begging the master for money to buy tools to take down his house, and it always has been.

    And because we’ve continued to limp along in this, “But maybe we’ll win this election, but maybe we’ll get people to vote, but maybe we’ll pass this one little policy,” is not to recognize the fact that actually within U.S. politics, there is no correlation between majority support for a policy and that policy passing. And so we have to stop thinking that tinkering at the edges of the old ways, as we have done, is going to yield a new result.

    And I don’t know if this isn’t sounding hopeful, but to me, it is always the case. The most fundamental truth of life is that the future is made out of the decisions that we take collectively.

    We make the future. What comes next will be decided on the basis of what we do. And that’s up to us.

    Leave a comment


    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you! We hope you’ll consider giving a subscription to The Ink as a gift.

    Get 20% off forever

    Give a gift subscription


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Yesterday, we spoke with one of the most brilliant minds in politics in America, and one of the most brilliant in the world: Anat Shenker-Osorio. She’s a messaging guru, who I met when I was reporting my book, The Persuaders — there’s a whole chapter about her in it — and ever since at The Ink we have often turned to her whenever we need the best advice.

    But she’s so much more than a messaging guru. She’s a comedian. She is a person who, in spite of her messaging prowess, will always say something that really pokes and inflames people, but she does it intentionally, to provoke them into seeing what they might not otherwise have recognized. And in a moment when so many people do not know what to say, or how to say it — or seem to have lost the use of their vocal cords and spines — she is someone we can ask to tell people what they should be saying, because she knows just how to frame the most important questions of this time, and has answers for so many of them.

    Share

    For those who’ve been looking for leadership from above, she made it very clear that nicely asking Democrats to do something has never brought about real change. So stop doing that. Stop trying to get Chuck Schumer to do something.

    This conversation is an incredibly practical guide to what you need to — and can — do. Anyone and everyone can lead: we make the future, and it’s time to do it by stepping up. If you want to, you are a leader!

    Congrats! Sorry. But congrats!

    You can start by creating social proof locally — which is to say, create a perception in your community that lots of people feel the way you feel. You might start with signs, hats, talking to people, or, as she put it, the painting of a barn. Just pick something, and get started. And soon enough you’ll be leading.

    If you’re not sure where to jump in, Anat’s team keeps track of actions across the country, so visit her ever-evolving list of Ways to Resist. And read her Freedom over Fascism toolkit for tons of ideas and insight into how to communicate all of the ideas you’ll find below.


    We know some of you prefer reading to watching, so we’re publishing text excerpts of the conversation below. If you missed our live conversation, we encourage you to watch the entire video above.

    In the public interest, we are opening this video and transcript to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber today.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, with no paywall.

    Get 20% off forever

    Give a gift subscription


    I wanted to start maybe on a positive-ish note by asking you who is telling the right story right now? Who do you see in the pro-democracy movement? And I know that your answer to this may not take a lot of time because it may not be a very long list of people, but who is telling the right story?

    Well, let’s start with a story that you helped bring to light, in your Live with Senator Chris Murphy. I thought he was absolutely spot-on in many ways. I don’t know whether we’ll come back to this, but I thought his response in particular when you held his feet somewhat to the fire about why other Democratic leaders are not stepping up. That was probably him at his most diplomatic. But I thought his description of reality was really spot on.

    Unsurprisingly, he’s an MVP, is always there, always prescient, always saying the thing, speaking truth, not just to power, but ensuring we’re speaking truth to each other.

    AOC, Jasmine Crockett, obviously. Governor Pritzker’s responses yesterday were extraordinary. Exactly what’s needed. And then outside of the elected official space, there’s a lot going on. There are burgeoning protest movements, both from known organizations like Indivisible and Move On and Working Families Party, but also from brand newbies that just self-assembled on Substack, like the 50501 movement, and the burgeoning general strike movement.

    And because there’s no up without a down, as they say, who is getting it most dramatically and maybe for you infuriatingly wrong?

    Do you want to open this Pandora’s box? You know, the list is very, very, very long.

    One might say infinite.

    Most infuriatingly, it’s the siren song of the authoritarian that they are fomenting a counterrevolution against a revolution that never occurred. This has always been their story, time and place immemorial, that you’re being attacked, you’re being put upon by some usurping minority, whether that be immigrants, whether that be Roma people in Hungary, whether that be people seeking asylum in Australia, whether that be Southern Europeans in the case of Brexit, whether that be trans people. It’s always some other who is coming to get you and they have amassed too much power.

    And so I think what is most infuriating beyond just the absolute unwillingness to locate a single vertebra let alone a spine is the layering on of the misdiagnosis of why we are here when we blame when we make believe that the people with too much power in our society are undocumented immigrants and trans people. If it weren’t so pathetic and sad it would be funny. So I think that that is what is particularly infuriating.

    Talk to me about specific moments in the last month where you’ve seen someone give a press conference, you’ve seen someone give a floor speech — give me the hall of shame because I consider you one of the only people, frankly, who I could ask to do that and you’ll just do it.

    I mean, who am I most disappointed by? I think I’m extraordinarily disappointed by many of our senators. I’m thinking in particular, really sadly, because of all the extraordinary work that I know movement groups like Lucha in Arizona went to, putting him into power. But Ruben Gallego, not only refusing to stand up to this administration but also actively sponsoring the Laken Riley bill, which let’s not kid ourselves, is about eliminating due process rights. It is about creating an unjust — even more unjust — legal system in the name of genuflecting at the altar of immigrants are the problem.

    I think that Amy Klobuchar has said things that are really infuriating and incensing. I think obviously Chuck Schumer’s stance of, “We’ll just rap about the price of eggs.” Hakeem Jeffries, in a very similar vein, and just a lot of, “Well, we can’t do anything. We don’t have any power.” Excuse making.

    It’s so interesting when you see a lot of the folks on TV and when you’re under a Biden presidency or an Obama presidency maybe you don’t notice the mediocrity as much because it doesn’t like risk the republic — and now to see some of those same people, they’re not evil or awful the way that we’re talking about on the right, but they are so profoundly mediocre and not up to the task of responding to a once-in-a-century emergency.

    You know, I referenced earlier before the conversation that you had with Senator Murphy and I was reflecting, because obviously I spend a lot of time listening to people because if you want to be decent at messaging, you have to spend a lot of time listening to people.

    And by listening to people, I mean in focus groups where we are asking them deep questions, we are extracting metaphors, we are uncovering their underlying assumptions and beliefs about what is going on. What is the origin story behind it? What are their desired solutions?

    And so I think a lot about what people’s underlying motivations are, and the psychology of how they came to be where they are and doing what they’re doing. And I think when I think about these folks who have risen to the halls of power, it kind of makes sense because to be honest, that they’re behaving in these milquetoast ways.

    Is that what it takes to get there?

    Well, partly it’s what it takes to get there, but also it is an accurate fact that that has worked for them. The things that they have done in their life have brought them to The New York Times newsroom, because — let’s just widen the net of culpability a little bit here — has brought them to the pinnacle of journalism, has brought them to the pinnacle of politics, has brought them to the pinnacle of whatever it is I assume they desired to do once they became old enough to have a thing that they really wanted to do.

    And so… If taking certain steps and engaging in certain ways and refusing to upset people has been successful or at least successful within a trajectory that you define for yourself, then it actually kind of makes a lot of sense that random lady with big hair being like, “What the actual fuck are you doing? There’s a hostile takeover of our government happening on your watch, friend.”

    It feels like, well, this has worked for me and it has achieved the things that I desire to achieve. So why would I change course?

    Share

    So here’s something I’m struggling with. I think part of what explains the election loss going back to November is this problem you and I have talked about before of a tendency to kind of misappraise what is really, really salient with people. And you are someone who studies this and measures it. There are things you and I are worried about. There are things you’ve been screaming about that it turns out, way more people should be worried about it than are.

    If you were right about the election, if I was right about the election, a lot more people should have been concerned about things that, maybe did not reach the top rank.

    And so even now, now that we’re in this presidency, I struggle with my own sense of how grave this is, how serious this is.

    This is a coup. This is that. And then sometimes I just, I live in New York City. Like I’ve walked down the street. I see people living their lives. These are people, 90 percent of them vote for Democrats, but you can just tell, if you sit in a restaurant, you hear conversations or you watch a normal TV show, the Jennifer Hudson talk show, you see normal life. And normal people living their lives are not living as though, as Senator Murphy says, this is the most serious crisis since the civil war and we may be a few months from irreversibly losing democracy.

    So my maybe difficult question for you is, is this thing that you and I share, this concern that everybody watching this shares. Is this concern out of touch in some way, maybe accurate, but is it out of sync with how regular people read things? Are we too ahead of the curve? Is it not landing with people?

    Talk to me about that disconnect.

    Yeah, it is not landing with people.

    So I want to say two things about that. The first is that in the lead-up to the election, I coined this phrase, the credulity chasm. And what the credulity chasm means is that when we look at the fundamental attitude that was most predictive of voting for Harris versus doing something else, and by something else I mean voting for Trump, staying at home, voting third party, etc.

    It wasn’t, “Wow, that Project 2025 agenda, that sounds real sweet. That’s like a Baskin Robbins tasty level of flavors. I’m excited.” It was whether or not people believed the agenda would come true. So this notion that the country has shifted rightwards is actually not supported by data.

    What has actually happened — and what happened through the election — was what the people who got it were saying: “No, it’s for realsies. This is not hyperbolic. This threat is real. And all of this will come to pass and come to fruition.”

    And in fact, there’s a Project 2025 tracker that shows that already within this first month of being in a hostile takeover, they have made good on one-third of the Project 2025 agenda. Just a little side note.

    So that credulity chasm, which I would argue we are still in — it is a basic facet of human psychology, and we see this among respondents in many, many parts of the world.

    This is not a uniquely U.S. phenomenon, but there’s a U.S. layer on top of it that John Jost, the psychologist at NYU, calls system justification theory. Basically, there’s kind of a fundamental human need to feel like I can predict what’s going to happen. Tomorrow is going to be somewhat like today. Things are more or less okay. Things happen for a reason. Good things happen to good people. Bad things happen to bad people. There’s a fundamental explanation for the universe because to question that and to really truly be living within that — the badness or the recognition of the badness, I should say — it requires a level of upset and a level of agitation and a level of awareness that is understandably very difficult for most people, because for most people, the basic facets of life, like being able to see a doctor, being able to help out your parents when their water heater breaks and being able to send your kid to university, et cetera, is pretty challenging.

    And so to ask people to layer on another thing is a lot. And I think that what we are experiencing over and over again, and it’s been happening for a while. It’s the frogs in boiling water problem, where we truly think this is a hot tub. And a little toasty, get a little cozy. But, you know, it’s winter and a hot tub is nice and winter in most parts of the country. And I’m joking, but not by much.

    Anticipating this is actually why it is absolutely so fundamental that we be crystal clear and that our leaders be crystal clear that what’s happening is in fact what’s happening because not every problem that is named can be faced, but zero problems that we refuse to name and refuse to recognize can actually be faced. And this is where I think the strategy of hat in hand, please, sir, may I have a tuppence begging Democrats to locate a spine is wrong. And we need to stop pushing in that direction.

    Share

    Okay, but I guess what I’m wondering is, and I wonder this very personally, because I’m afraid that I’m doing it wrong.

    When I see Elon Musk shadow presidenting his way through these agencies. It basically gets rid of Congress. I mean, it’s as grave a series of things as you know. And I talk about Elon Musk’s anti-constitutional coup. I feel like I am describing reality as clearly as I can. I feel like I’m saying things that, given what I understand about this country and what people claim to care about, should be ringing bells.

    And I also feel like I can almost hear with that double consciousness, people are not going to care about that. Everybody watching this is going to care about this, right? But not all the people not watching this, who actually outnumber the people watching this. And so, is that even just doing it wrong? Like, should it just be, “Your grandma’s social security check is in danger?” Like, just the practical things?

    Because this kind of parallels the whole thing in the election about crime and eggs and democracy, all that stuff. Am I doing it wrong when I really fixate on the anti-constitutional coup by Elon Musk?

    You’re right to fixate on it. You’re wrong in voter-facing and public-facing messaging to call it that. And it’s for the reasons you’ve already intuited. The Constitution is an abstraction, even though it is actually a physical document, I am aware. Whenever we are in the language of protecting institutions, protecting norms, protecting democracy — democracy never bought anyone dinner.

    And in point of fact, the way that most people, the way that the average American thinks about democracy, if they think about it at all, is the system as it is presently construed. The thing that we have now. And by the way, the thing that we have now, I’m not loving. I’m not very fond of it.

    So anytime our language, our messaging implies that what we are asking for is a return to January 19th, 2025, meaning right before inauguration, people weren’t psyched about that day either. And so the answer is, As you’ve already intuited, is how do we make it person-facing, voter-facing, American-facing? How do we make it tangible?

    So what do we say? We say: “This is a government of the bullies for the billionaires.” Trump and the billionaires who bought him, Musk — you can name both of them, you can name either of them — are coming for your life and your livelihood. He is coming for your freedom. He is coming for your privacy. He is coming for your information. And he is conducting a hostile takeover of our government so he can take our money.”

    That’s the simplest way of expressing it.

    But do you think that is working? Right now?

    It’s not happening enough. But, you know, I can tell you from experimentation, both within focus groups and within our own internal polling that we continuously do. Yes, the most the highest impact way that we can characterize what Musk is doing is, “a hostile takeover of our government and an armed robbery of our money and our and our very deliberate there.

    But ultimately, there is absolutely nothing that we can say that will ever be as loud as what we can do.

    Yes, we should be calling our representatives. And yes, we are rightly incensed about the fact that these people who purportedly have sworn an oath to govern in our name apparently can’t be bothered to work on Fridays and, you know, don’t want to use the mechanisms at their disposal to throw sand in the wheels of government in order to stop this hostile takeover.

    Infuriating. Rightly so. Call them. Call the Republicans, too. But understand what has stopped autocracy in other places and within our own history, when we think about the civil rights movement, when we think about ACT UP, when we think about the movement to get the Americans with Disabilities Act, and women’s suffrage.

    Imagine if the Montgomery bus boycott folks were like, “I know, here’s an idea. Let’s ask the Democrats if they would pretty please end this whole completely unjust, horrifying segregation thing.”

    Or when folks newly in the throes of the HIV AIDS crisis, dying en masse from this disease that apparently came out of nowhere, watching their loved ones suffer and struggle, if they were like, “You know what we should do? We should ask the Democrats if they would pretty please do something about this.”

    No, that isn’t what they did. They broke into the New York Stock Exchange, as you may know, and they hung a banner from where the bell gets rung saying, “Sell Burroughs Wellcome” which is the pharmaceutical corporation that was making AZT at the time.

    And sure enough, by the end of the month, the price had dropped. And not that much later, there had been an appropriations bill, the Ryan White bill, to actually bring money into this fight and force research and so on.

    And so what we do is so much louder than what we say, because what we do, people being out in the world saying, physically opposing this and speaking about it and writing songs about it and making parodies and making TikToks and painting “Fuck the Fascists” on the side of their barn.

    That is actually what sways public opinion. What sways public opinion is what we call social proof. People do the things they think people like them do.

    And so it’s this chicken-and-egg problem where you’re walking around New York or I’m walking around the Bay area or someone’s walking around in the middle of America and you don’t see anyone else freaking out. You don’t see anyone else angry. You don’t see anyone else upset. And so you’re like, I guess really nothing’s happening. And so it’s about the doing more than it is about the saying.

    Get 20% off forever

    This is so important what you’re saying. And it’s reframing something for me.

    It’s almost like when we talk about protest, mass mobilization right now, resistance, I think the frame in people’s mind is, the object of that is the right. You’re protesting against the right, you’re resisting the right. And you’re hoping for maybe Democrats to be part of this. You’re the subject opposing that object and you’re kind of inviting them to be part of the subject.

    And you’re reframing this like, no, no, no, the Democrats are like a second object. They’re not here. They’re there. They’re another thing you are mobilizing against for different reasons. It’s a different kind of mobilization. But you are mobilizing against their passivity and then against the things the right is doing.

    Does that sound right?

    I mean, yes and no. I think… and feel free to lob the charge of hypocrisy at me. Bring it on, because I’m about to perform a big old hypocrisy on you.

    I’m obviously extraordinarily pissed off at Democrats. I have spent the last many years of my career helping elect Democrats. And so you can understand how it feels especially galling to me and many of you. However, it is the fact that when our public discourse — this is where you’re going to come at me, come at me because I’m guilty. Do as I say, not as I post, I would say.

    When we are loudly saying, “Democrats aren’t doing this, Democrats aren’t doing that, Democrats are weak here, Democrats are weak there, Democrats refuse.” Then that is the narrative. That is the discourse that is in the public. And insofar as people continue to view the Democrats as the rightful centerpiece of the opposition — which is a reasonable conclusion, they’re purportedly the opposition party in a duopoly — it looks like the regime is unopposed. What the regime is doing is fine. People are largely O.K. with it.

    And so because in life you cannot actually make other people do things — it is very, very unfortunate. It’s one of the hard lessons of parenting. You can’t actually physically make people do things. You can only really focus on what you’re doing.

    I’m not saying stop pressuring them, but I’m saying what would actually cause a sea change among the calcified leadership — and yes, hashtag not all Democrats, there are extraordinary Democrats who are doing the right thing, as we said earlier — is when there is a mass movement.

    Actually they’re not leaders, they don’t go first, literally, to lead means to go first. That’s really all it means. And so that means that every single one of you listening right now: If you want to, you’re a leader. If you want to, you’re a leader.

    Let’s look, for example, at the Black Lives Matter resurgence that happened in 2020. During that protest, during that June, public opinion of BLM moved ahead by 12 points. It was only when the protests stopped And the right-wing coordinated backlash happened that opinion swayed back, which was an intentional thing.

    The same thing with the Muslim ban. When Trump was first promising the Muslim ban during his first run, it polled popular.

    But when it actually happened, and people took the extraordinary step of driving to the airport. And you live in New York. Nobody drives — your wife doesn’t drive you to the airport. I don’t know your business, but I’m telling you that. Who drives to LAX? Who drives to SFO? Nobody drives to these airports. That is not a thing that happens to everyday Americans.

    It’s showing, not telling — showing, not telling — that they are against this. That is actually what altered people’s perceptions of whether or not the Muslim ban was okay or not.

    So that’s really it. And that is what drags Democrats along. It’s ordinary people showing that they disagree.

    So this is so helpful and you are always so helpful. Even though I’ve spent so long engaging with your work, there’s like a particular unlock here. And a lot of people are responding to that also. I’m just going to try to summarize.

    I hear your point on managing the correct level of infighting or criticizing Dems. You talk about calling your representative, pressuring them to do things.

    Your idea about painting the barn really struck me because a lot of people — everyone who subscribes to The Ink, all their comments are like, “I call everybody, I do this, nothing’s happening.”

    And I don’t think a lot of people have thought of it as what you said, which is, yes, you’re trying to pressure some leaders, but a very tangible thing you can do is increase the perception of people around you about the number of people who feel this way.

    Exactly. Because that is something you can do and you can measure. I’m not saying don’t do the calling your reps and stuff, but that stuff just feels so remote to people I know.

    And people are so frustrated, like changing the perception about the number of people who feel that way around you. That is like a marching order.

    And the other thing to recognize and to realize, and we have a running list that we just keep for ourselves for our team of the actions that are happening right now. It is by no means comprehensive. It couldn’t possibly be comprehensive — stuff is popping up everywhere. It’s just the stuff that comes across our radar.

    Do you know how many people go to the average school board meeting in most towns? Do you know how quickly and easily you and two, three, four of your friends will be the only people at the school board meeting?

    A lot of what has happened in our politics is that we actually stopped organizing. And a lot of the heroic, extraordinary, wonderful organizations that I admire and respect and like count as colleagues, we all became so fixated on channeling ourselves through the electoral process. And that means that instead of organizing, everybody moved to field and called it organizing. And by field, I mean getting people registered, getting people to vote. Fine, do that. I’m not knocking it.

    But that’s not organizing. That is not organizing. And we need to stop kidding ourselves. Organizing is finding out who runs the PTA in your town? Who runs the biggest church? Who are the Boy Scout leaders? Who are the Girl Scout leaders? Are you actually talking to people and radicalizing them in the original definition? You know, radical just means “to the root,” right? Are you actually radicalizing them in a new political understanding of what is happening? Why is it happening? And what is the origin of it? Where does it come from?

    So that they can withstand all of these constant right-wing drumbeats that say it’s the immigrants or it’s the Black people or it’s the trans people or it’s whomever, it’s the Muslims. So that they actually have an authentic consciousness and that they themselves then are talking to other people.

    That’s organizing.

    And so go local. I cannot emphasize enough, especially if you live in a smaller place, especially if you live in a red state, in a purple district, whatever.

    You show up at your school board meeting and the two of you or the three of you or the four of you, you show up at your city council, you’re the only people there. These fascist policies, yes, they are being constructed at the national level. Of course, they are. But they have to be implemented at the local level. And it is at the local level.

    Let’s just take, for instance, Aurora, Colorado. That is where they want to massively expand a detention facility. In order to continue with their evil draconian plan of concentration camps for people who happen to not have been born here and, you know, speak English with the wrong accent, apparently.

    So Aurora is not Manhattan. It is not Los Angeles. It is not D.C. It is a particular town with a particular city council with a particular set of folks. And right now there is a battle going on to define Aurora, to massively expanded detention facility there.

    People in that town and surrounding communities could go and say, “We are Aurora.” They could do food trucks of every ethnicity, and nationality. They could do giant dance parties saying, “We are Aurora. This is what we believe.”

    I’m going to go to Aurora as they do all this. I mean, as God is my witness, I will. This is my pledge: I am going to make a 10,000 or however many food truck caravan from every contiguous state to D.C, in order to have the largest bhangra, K-pop, salsa, samba, polka — I’m not intentionally leaving out any kind of music fill in all the musics — dance party to show not tell that immigrants are awesome.

    Because we can not live, we can not survive in a dual narrative or a three-part narrative in which immigrants are either villains, which is of course what the right says, or they’re victims, which is all too often, sadly, where we have been in advocacy. What I call the ay pobrecitos narrative. You know, with due respect to the Statue of Liberty, give me your tired or your poor. Most people feel tired and poor. They’re not really out seeking that. Or the third narrative, that being immigrants are our valets. You know, they do the jobs that no one wants. They help us.

    Immigrants are awesome. Immigrants are joy. Immigrants are life. Immigrants are interesting. They’re entrepreneurs. You know, America is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. And that’s a good thing. And so let’s make it that way, as you recently wrote.

    Share

    One of the only silver linings for me of this whole era is that the thing that I wrote about before I met you, before I did Persuaders, was a book about billionaires. And it was very difficult to convince people to care. A lot of liberal and even progressive people were like, “Why are you going after these people? Like, sure, they’re not the best, but like, really? These are your enemies? You know, Bill Gates or whoever?”

    It was actually hard in 2018 when that book came out. It was hard. I was often on the back foot, right? I really had to make a case. People were very, very skeptical of why anyone would say anything negative about the ones who give money away and do all this stuff.

    It is really different. Seven years later, like everybody gets it. Everybody understands what oligarchs are, you know?

    Thanks to you.

    Well, I don’t think that’s the case. It’s thanks to AOC and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and others. But I wonder whether you think, again, with Elon, the oligarch frame, the warning of oligarchy — is this as salient and helpful with the mass public as we seem to think it is?

    Having people truly understand that this is a government by the bullies for the billionaires, that concept.

    I guess just the wrinkle is in a country where still a lot of people kind of want to be billionaires, is it as cool a message as I think it is?

    Yeah.

    It is, in fact, the case, as people often report, that in America, no one is poor. They’re just pre-rich, right? We’re all just temporarily embarrassed. You know, we just haven’t made our billions. Oprah hasn’t given us the car or whatever she’s supposed to give us. So there is still that very, very, very deep kind of yearning and with it an admiration and a cultishness around the extraordinarily wealthy.

    But wow, are people pissed at the rich. I mean, that may be the only thing that has bipartisan agreement in this country is just how extraordinarily furious people are, because I think the fundamental difference is that in the olden times, this cult of people are rich because they’re made out of awesome, because they’re uniquely smart, because they’re uniquely capable and hardworking and so on. That’s largely been punctured. And people understand.

    So it’s not just that they’re rich. It’s how they’re rich, why they’re rich. And the fact that the reason that they’re rich is because they’ve stolen from you. It’s that connection.

    Because sure, people can aspire to have their own, you know, whatever their dream is. In my case, an extensive shoe collection. But, you know, you do you.

    But the notion that the reason why people have so much money is because you don’t — that is increasingly salient. And that’s really the crux of it.

    Now, where this gets hard — and this brings us back to the earlier conversation of you can’t just articulate the problem for people, although that is absolutely extraordinarily essential — they also have to feel that the articulation of the problem lends itself to something that they can do.

    And so in the universe in which what people are “supposed to do” is petition their government in some way or another. And I say that broadly, right? So vote, register to vote, get other people to vote, call their member of Congress, ask for policy change.

    It’s extraordinary the degree to which people, even low information, low engagement folks, think the jig is up on that particular theory of change.

    And so I think we are now in a place in which people need to be directed, their anger and their ire need to be directed into what I am calling the “Mangione without murder” strategy. Without murder. Hear that whole phrase.

    You really do know how to coin a phrase.

    Yeah, we don’t need to be murdering people. I just want to say on the record here that I’m telling you. Anti-murder. I’m anti-murder, whatever you heard, whatever they told you. Sharp messages, no sharp weapons.

    That’s right.

    Imagine if we actually had people doing, you know, die-ins where corporate CEOs are. If we actually had people going to the places, it’s easy to look up. These motherfuckers are all hypocrites. They all go to church. Why aren’t we showing up in the parking lots of their churches? And this could both be MAGA Republicans and CEOs. Singing hymns that are actually about what Jesus preached. When they get out of church, say it to their faces.

    And so I think that the challenge with the billionaire articulation is not that it is not landing. You are correct in your supposition that it is absolutely landing. It’s that it quickly becomes, well, every election is a contest between their billionaires and our billionaires. And so the solution, which presumably has been, well, that’s why you should vote for Democrats.

    I know people are really responding to how clear your advice is. And I think it’s making a lot of people feel like they know what to do more clearly than they did before. So thank you. I want to go back to that and compile all of your advice. Let’s focus on marching orders for everybody here.

    People are in agreement with you about how grave this is and how serious it is. People feel incredibly undefended by elected Democrats in general and are not expecting them to change very soon. People are doing things already, like calling Congress, but maybe don’t know the third, fourth, and fifth things to do.

    Can you just give us some very, very, very tangible marching orders?

    So the first thing I would say is in the preservation of your own mental health and wellbeing. Pick a thing that you care about and can be motivated to stay the course with.

    For some folks, that’s going to be education. For some folks, that’s going to be immigrant rights. For some folks, that’s going to be policing, whatever. There are so many things happening at once that we can all become like cats with a laser pointer and make ourselves nuts.

    So you pick the thing. You go as local as possible about that thing. And so if it is education, just take that for instance, then you decide with yourself and a handful of your friends, you have a potluck beforehand, you do you. Do something fun and entertaining and get together beforehand. You look up in the public record when the next school board meeting is in your local community. And you go there and you make statements about ensuring that all children have the freedom to learn the truth of our past, and that all children have the freedom to belong and be who they are within their schools. And you oppose any kind of effort to implement the draconian fascist agenda in your own community.

    So that is one thing. You can do that within the context of immigrant rights. You can do that in the context of disability justice, racial justice, et cetera.

    The next piece of advice is to wear your beliefs. Get yourself a “Fabulously Fighting Fascism” t-shirt. One of the things that is most important to the right and to any authoritarian force is to suck our joy, is to suck our uniqueness, is to suck our our being. I say all the time, put up a billboard in the middle of nowhere that shows people across the gender spectrum just having themselves the best possible time, and say “Fabulously fighting fascism.”

    You will get so much local media and local attention, even if it’s in the middle of nowhere because it is a saucy message. Show, not tell that you do not agree with this, that you refuse it.

    So I think the name of the game is really resistance. refusal, and ridicule. And ridicule is a key and essential element that I have danced around.

    Join a union, if you can join a union. Support union efforts. That is a place where deep and authentic organizing actually happens and needs to happen much, much more expansively. One of the most important keys to fighting autocracy is a strong, integrated, active, in-your-face labor community.

    Before we go, to leave people on a note of hope, in a lot of the messaging that you do and the formal proper messages you draft for TV ads or other communication, there’s a certain structure, which I wrote about in my book. It’s often the beginning and the end where more hope and uplift come in and in the middle is where you explain the obstructions to that promise

    A lot of people really can’t see the after of this. It’s very hard to see anything. I find it very difficult to visualize 2026. I find it very, very difficult to visualize 2035. I could see a scenario where it’s totally fine, this thing blew over, it imploded, and my kids are just living a normal life, vaguely remembering this. And I could imagine a scenario in which most people I know don’t live in this country anymore. It’s so hard to picture the after.

    Can you help us picture the after in a hopeful way if we get this right, if we do all the things you’re talking about?

    The fact that you can’t picture 2026. I can’t either. And that is either extraordinarily terrifying or fantastic. The reason why it is potentially fantastic is because it takes a fundamental rupture, a big rupture that we think that we have already had, but we have not — because we are still waking up in the morning and going to the store and answering our telephones and checking our social and getting our kids to school and all the things that, of course, we need to continue to do.

    That rupture has not happened for most people. And it is only in a fundamental rupture that we get a period — and obviously, the decimation of it is one of the most tragic and horrible things in American history. But Reconstruction wouldn’t have happened without the Civil War. The New Deal wouldn’t have happened without the decimation of the Gilded Age and God forbid, the Depression.

    Moments of extraordinary rupture are moments of extraordinary possibility where, as my colleague, Mike Podhorzer points out, pre the Revolution, when people were hanging out in the colonies, and trying, you know, to do the Boston Tea Party and to petition the king, “Hey, yo, like, we’re not fond of this. We’re not keen.”

    And I’m not discounting the fact that things were pretty bad for most people and enslavement and no women’s rights and so on. I’m not making believe that that period was a beautiful era in American history.

    The only point that I’m making is that there has to be a rupture so fundamental that people are like, “Oh no, how about we just don’t have a king? How about we just don’t be a colony anymore? How about we decide that we are going to invent a new country from scratch?”

    Obviously not really from scratch because of the destruction and usurpation and genocide of Native people — again, I am not trying to say this was like a beautiful era.

    All I’m trying to say is that in the unknowing, in the what-the-fuck-is-going-to-come-next, is actually where invention comes. And it requires us recognizing that. To give you a tautology, the problem is made out of the problem, as we were discussing at the top of our conversation. To think that a system that is working largely as designed, to bring us representatives who, with notable and noteworthy and laudable exceptions, are not actually serving our interests and are not stepping up to the plate. To think that they would behave any differently is to not understand that the entire progressive movement is begging the master for money to buy tools to take down his house, and it always has been.

    And because we’ve continued to limp along in this, “But maybe we’ll win this election, but maybe we’ll get people to vote, but maybe we’ll pass this one little policy,” is not to recognize the fact that actually within U.S. politics, there is no correlation between majority support for a policy and that policy passing. And so we have to stop thinking that tinkering at the edges of the old ways, as we have done, is going to yield a new result.

    And I don’t know if this isn’t sounding hopeful, but to me, it is always the case. The most fundamental truth of life is that the future is made out of the decisions that we take collectively.

    We make the future. What comes next will be decided on the basis of what we do. And that’s up to us.

    Leave a comment


    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you! We hope you’ll consider giving a subscription to The Ink as a gift.

    Get 20% off forever

    Give a gift subscription


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Let me make you this promise: If watching this conversation doesn’t make you feel more hopeful than you have felt in a long time, I will consider cutting my hair short.

    I just had an extraordinarily inspiring conversation with political strategist and messaging guru Anat Shenker-Osorio, one of the smartest people in politics and one of the most practical. She might dismiss such praise, but she gave us and the 1,500 people who were on the call an incisive analysis of the problems we are facing and ideas for how to respond generatively that we just haven’t heard from anyone else.

    Share

    More important, for those who’ve been looking for leadership from above, she made it very clear that nicely asking Democrats to do something has never brought about real change. Anyone and everyone can lead: we make the future, and it’s time to do it by stepping up. If you want to, you are a leader!

    Congrats! Sorry. But congrats!

    This conversation is an incredibly practical guide to what you need to do. And it’s full of very helpful don’ts. Stop trying to get Chuck Schumer to do something. Instead, focus on creating social proof locally — which is to say, a perception in your community that lots of people feel the way you feel. That is something you can do. You might start with signs, hats, or, as she put it, the painting of a barn.

    If you missed our live conversation, we encourage you to watch the entire video above. In the public interest, we are opening this video to all. But we’re also asking candidly that folks support the half dozen or so people who now write for and edit and otherwise support the work of The Ink by becoming a paying subscriber.

    Take a moment to support fearless, independent reporting, and to help us keep bringing you conversations like this one. Or give a gift or group subscription.

    Your support allows us to open these ideas to as many people as possible, no paywall.

    Subscribe now

    Give a gift subscription

    Get 20% off a group subscription


    Call notes

    Below are some brief notes on Anat’s thoughts from our managing editor, Michael Berk

    Tinkering at the edges of the old ways is not going to yield a new result. The most fundamental truth of life is that the future is made out of the decisions that we make collectively. We make the future.

    Moments of extraordinary rupture — like this one — are moments of extraordinary possibility. Don’t let this one go.

    • Resistance, refusal, and ridicule are the things to keep in mind.

    • Pick a thing, and stay the course. You can’t do it all: That can be education, it can be policing, it can be immigrant rights. Make it something, not everything.

    • Go as local as possible about that thing: If it’s education, for example, decide with your friends and neighbors to go to the school board meeting, and you can make statements, and you oppose any efforts to implement the draconian agenda in your town. And you make that clear to everyone.

    • Wear your beliefs. Get a “Fabulously Fighting Fascists” T-shirt. They want to suck your joy, your uniqueness, your being. Don’t let them do it.

    • Put up a billboard that shows people — even in the middle of nowhere — how you feel and why you’re having a better time. Show, not tell.

    • Join a union, or support union efforts — it’s one of the most important keys to fighting autocracy

    Want to get involved, whether that’s by participating in protests, organizing, or educating yourself and those around you? Anat and her team have been keeping track of actions across the country, so take a look at her ever-evolving (though in no way comprehensive) list of Ways to Resist.

    Looking for tips on understanding what’s happening and getting your own efforts underway? Read Anat’s Freedom over Fascism toolkit for tons of ideas.


    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you!

    Subscribe now


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Yesterday we talked to Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, one of the fiercest voices speaking out against the Trump administration and in defense of the future of the American republic. He spoke very bluntly about just how real a threat this administration poses for the survival of American democracy, about why the Democratic Party has failed so far to meet the moment and what can be done to fix it — and why it’s ultimately up to the American people to mobilize to stop Trump and Musk from breaking the country’s institutions beyond repair.

    Share

    As we know some of you prefer reading to watching, we’re publishing text excerpts of the conversation below, and we encourage you to watch the full video above. It’s a frightening warning and a real call to action.


    In the public interest, we are opening this video and transcript to all. But please consider subscribing to support fearless, independent reporting, and build the kind of independent media that can continue to speak truth to power in this moment.

    Subscribe now


    Senator, you’re a student of American history, and you’ve studied the various stages in the history of this country: wars, crises, insurrections, fractures — serious things. I wonder how you would define this moment we are living through and situate it in the sweep of the very serious things this country has been through in its history?

    I’m very reluctant to engage in too much hyperbole here, but I think this is increasingly becoming the most serious moment since the Civil War.

    It’s a miracle that we’ve lasted as long as we have, 240 years of multicultural democracy. This is an absolutely revolutionary idea that gets pulled apart, as it seems, every generation or so, because it’s unnatural, the idea that we would make decisions for ourselves instead of investing decision-making power in a hierarchical structure, which is what we do for mostly everything else that we care about in our lives, and that we would choose to live amongst people who are very, very different from us, even while our biology, millions of years baked, tells us that we’re better off and safer retreating to our tribes.

    So what we’ve done is unnatural. Self-governance in a society that’s multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-racial. And so, of course, there are these times where folks get told it would just be a lot more efficient if one guy made all the decisions, get stuff done a lot faster. And wouldn’t it be easier if we just kicked out everybody who doesn’t look and feel and sound like us? That’d be a lot simpler.

    So I think that this is increasingly serious because I think what you’re seeing is that a lot of people are very transparently up for that transition. There are a lot of people in this country — and a lot of folks who now occupy positions of power in the United States Congress — who don’t even feel that it’s necessary to defend democratic norms and democracy.

    This idea that took root inside the conservative movement maybe a decade ago that democracy is outdated and antiquated and needs to be replaced by a CEO model is now pretty mainstream. And I think we need to confront it head-on.

    Instead of thinking that Republicans are really for democracy in their heart, but are being cowed into silence by a really strong leader, we need to understand that a lot of them — more than you think — are actually on board for this whole transition.

    That comparison you make, I think is valid — this is the most serious crisis since the Civil War. Obviously, we know how that one was resolved. I don’t think that way of resolving this would be what anyone wants, certainly not what you or I want.

    But I’m curious, maybe speak personally first. I think we’ve all witnessed you — not to say you were a wallflower before — go through something publicly in the last few weeks.

    You’ve been very clear about a lot of things for a lot of years. Can you talk about the experience you’ve gone through to get to that place of realizing the gravity, even in spite of how seriously you took it before? What has been your radicalization around this in the last few weeks and how have you changed?

    I’ve spent a lot of the last two or three years just stepping back and doing a lot of thinking about the spiritual state of the country. And I think I came into this moment maybe understanding better than some other people how angry and anxious this country is and how many people are in a truly revolutionary mood.

    And so for me, it made sense that there were a lot of folks in this country who were really willing to entertain the idea of throwing out 240 years of democracy. Now, that’s not the majority of the country, but it’s a strong, powerful minority movement.

    I’ve been pretty angry at my party for not realizing the spiritual unspooling that was happening in America and finding ways to plug into it in a more powerful, more constructive manner, even as the anti-democratic conservative movement very methodically put together a plan and an infrastructure to make sure that they were able to seize this moment.

    I think a lot of folks thought that Trump 2 was going to be Trump 1 again, just a lot of bluster. We’d survive. But I watched them get ready for this moment. And so I’m just convinced that they are operationalizing, as we speak, a plan to convert our democracy to something fundamentally different, an oligarchy, a kleptocracy in which only a handful of people have power and the rest of us are just pawns for profit and gain to that small set of elites.

    And so all of the moves that have been made, the targeting of independent journalists, the conversion of our justice system to an exercise in forcing loyalty to Donald Trump, the normalization and endorsement of political violence, are all not just random points on a map. They all exist on a continuum, part of an effort to ultimately try to install Donald Trump and his family in power permanently.

    And I think this has been coming. The groundwork has been laid for this moment for four years. And I just am absolutely confident that it is as grave and as significant as the crises that we faced 150 years ago.

    Share

    I think it is no surprise to you that Democrats out there feel completely abandoned by the vast majority of your colleagues. I think there’s a sense of being texted a lot for $5 by Democrats, often by people who have hundreds of millions of dollars in their own bank accounts, when we’re living through what you say is the most serious crisis since the Civil War.

    And I’m sure you could point to things someone said in committee and things that are being done that we don’t know about. But I think you probably sympathize with the broad feeling that I’m sure you’ve heard from your constituents and others, that basically people feel completely undefended by the Democratic Party in the worst crisis since the Civil War.

    You’re an exception to that, and I think most people would agree. Just put it as bluntly as you can: What is going wrong with your party that they are leaving so many of their most loyal supporters feeling this way?

    One is that it’s a lot easier to get up in the morning if you convince yourself that everything is going to be okay. It’s a lot easier to go do your job if you think that all of these are just random points on a grid and that this is going to look a lot like the first four years looked.

    If you actually think that we are months away from the destruction of democracy such that it is irreversible — man, that requires a different level of energy when you wake up every morning, a different level of urgency that, frankly, not everybody has inside the Democratic political infrastructure.

    I think it’s also true that when you get to this level of power, you start to care deeply about the institutions and you want to protect your institution. And so here in the Senate, there’s still a lot of talk about working with Republicans and not fighting Donald Trump on everything because we want to make sure that the Senate is preserved as a place where bipartisanship can happen.

    But that’s illogical when you’re fighting a would-be tyrant who doesn’t give a shit about institutions or norms and is willing to shatter every single one.

    If the rest of the field is burned to the ground and the Senate still stands on the top of a pedestal, what does it matter? So for me, it was easy to say, I’m not voting for any of Trump’s nominees. I’m not expediting any of these nominees until this constitutional crisis is solved. I’m not going to be complicit in populating an administration with people who are going to violate the rule of law.

    And then the last thing is that it’s hard when you’re fighting liars. It really is. We do hold ourselves to some concept of truth and provable truth. And I think it has caused us to not be clear about what is likely happening because we’re not absolutely sure. What is Musk doing inside the Treasury right now? Do we have irrefutable proof that he is stealing people’s data in order to enrich himself or in order to ultimately withhold your Social Security benefits because you post something ugly about him on Twitter?

    I don’t have a smoking gun, but why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything? I am going to lay out the worst-case possible scenario because I think the worst-case scenario is the most likely one.

    Does what you just said justify leadership changes in the House and the Senate immediately?

    I think the Senate and the House are stepping up here. I think you have seen my colleagues come to the decision almost to a person that they are not going to support these nominees.

    I think you will see a very vigorous effort to oppose the upcoming reconciliation bill, which is their attempt to steal money from the rest of us, to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits to fund their tax cuts. I think you are going to see Democrats starting to rise to this moment, and I’m going to continue to try to rally them to rise to this moment.

    But people are asking in the chat specifically about Senator Schumer and Leader Jeffries — and if you’re right about, “months away,” if you’re right about the worst crisis in 150-plus years, is it time to at least think about new leadership?

    I think they both have very difficult jobs. I wish that all 47 Senate Democrats were really easy to marshal and push into one direction, but they aren’t. We have a diverse cast of characters. And so leadership is pretty easy to critique from the outside. It’s harder to operationalize on the inside.

    And remember, leadership doesn’t only come from the folks that have the official titles. Leadership comes from AOC. Leadership comes from Jasmine Crockett, leadership comes from me, from other senators.

    I wanted to ask you about this broader point that people were making last year during the debate about whether President Biden should stay on the ticket. And that is the question of whether Democrats have a kind of culture of politeness that prevents them from stating hard truths. Things everybody was saying in group chats about President Biden’s capacity were not being said out loud. Things everybody is saying privately about this moment don’t necessarily reflect what they say in front of the cameras. Is there a politeness problem that needs to be shaken off given the stakes that you’re talking about?

    That’s a good question. I’ve never really thought about it as a politeness problem. But listen, there certainly has been a shaming exercise that has happened inside this party on folks who get too far out of the conventional wisdom. In retrospect, Dean Phillips, though I didn’t support his candidacy, understood something about where the American public was that it took the rest of us far too long to understand.

    Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren still get shamed by the mainstream of the Democratic Party because they are dangerously populist, even though they are plugged into the actual conversation that people are having in this country.

    Share

    I want to ask you a little bit about the new party chair of the Democratic Party. There was a question of how fundamental the change should be. What is the process, do you think, at this point, of really rethinking the party in the way that you were trying to do in the last few years and now with much greater urgency? It’s obviously difficult to do when you’re also running 80 miles an hour. How can this happen right now?

    I don’t think we should overhype the power of the DNC. It has never been a thought leader inside the Democratic Party. I’m not saying it isn’t relevant. I weighed in on behalf of another candidate, because I do think it’s important to have the right person there. But I think Ken Martin will do just fine. He will be a very good party chair.

    But yes, it does feel overwhelming. There was this, and there still exists, this meme, this idea that the resistance didn’t work in 2017. And so we shouldn’t do it again. And in part, because people want to focus on a bigger project, which is rebuilding the Democratic Party brand and winning back all those working-class voters. And I’ve talked a lot about that as well.

    I think the problem is we actually have to do the resistance and rebuild the party, and we have to do both at the same time. And I actually don’t think there’s a choice.

    The resistance, to my mind, worked. We didn’t stop the big tax cut in 2017, but we stopped the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We literally saved tens of thousands of lives. We won in the midterms in 2018. We beat him in 2020. Did it solve the underlying problems in the party? No, but there were political wins and really big ones. There were policy wins and some really big ones. So I think you’ve got to do that again, so that you shave the edges off of their policy agenda and ultimately you put yourself in the best position to win in 2026.

    But we have to rebuild the party because the party brand is just fundamentally broken. We are the party of elites. We are the party of the status quo right now. We are the party of market-based reforms. And people want real big revolutionary economic change. They want the system unrigged. They want a democracy unrigged. And right now we are not the party selling that convincing message.

    So I admit that these are two big projects that have to happen simultaneously. rebuild some form of the traditional political day-to-day resistance and convince folks that we cannot run back the Democratic Party that got our clocks cleaned in 2024. We’ve got to build a new party.

    One idea that’s been proposed is creating a single point of communication — people have suggested Pete Buttigieg, who’s out of government right now, have him do a daily response, or there are various “shadow cabinet” proposals. I’m sure you’ve heard a lot of these. Do you think any of those things are interesting as a way to solve the party’s communication problem, the problem of people not really having a clear response?

    Not really. I’m all for people searching for new ideas. That just sounds like something else for people to compete over. If you were to create a shadow cabinet and you had to pick Democrats to be in each one of those positions, you’d have to come up with a process and there’d be campaigns and backroom efforts to try to be the Shadow Secretary of Defense.

    It would be a lot of wasted energy and I’m not sure, ultimately, it would result in the best people being in those positions. I mean, what’s happening now is a little meritocratic. The folks who have more amplified voices are the folks who are just more plugged in with the actual emotional zeitgeist of the country.

    And I don’t necessarily have a problem with a moment in which the folks that are portraying the kind of urgency that the American public wants are the folks that are being self-selected by the movement in the country as leaders inside the party.

    Now, do I think that we have an information distribution problem? Yes. But I think that that is something that needs to be solved in a really thoughtful, planful way.

    We don’t have the echo chamber that Republicans have because they spent money on it and we didn’t. We spent a billion dollars — $2 billion in the last election — and most of that was on 30-second TV ads. That was a horrible mistake. We should be building the kind of permanent owned media, the permanent set of influencers and amplifiers that the right has.

    That should be our project, not coming up with a bullshit shadow cabinet.

    So you’ve talked about blanket holds. Senator Schatz of Hawaii has talked about this also. Are there other tactics in your arsenal, maybe ones we haven’t been talking about, maybe more serious ones? If you say we’re possibly a few months away from irreversibly losing democracy — what else have you got besides blanket holds?

    There are a limited number of tools in our toolbox as the minority party in the Senate and the House. The House has very few. The Senate has a handful. One of them is just kind of gumming up the works and making things take a little bit longer. But that tactically only prevents nominations or legislation from occurring by hours.

    The other is to just signal that we are not being complicit in any of this, and we are not going to support them doing anything legislatively, or we’re not going to support any nominations until they take seriously the destruction of our democracy and the handover of our government to billionaires.

    So I don’t want to overhype what we can do internally, while also telling my colleagues, you better do everything you can do.

    And that’s still an internal debate. There still are a lot of my colleagues who are voting for these nominees. They’ve got a lot of reasons they do that, but one of them is that they don’t think that our internal day-to-day tactics translate to the outside, that nobody pays attention to what happens inside the Beltway.

    I don’t think that’s true. I’m not saying everybody pays attention to whether there’s 47 of us or 21 of us voting against the nominee to go to the Department of Agriculture. But I do think that the most committed activists don’t love it when the Democratic Party isn’t putting up the loudest fight that they can. And if we aren’t putting up a loud fight, then they aren’t willing to give four hours a day or six hours or eight hours or 12 hours a day to the fight. And when that inner ring of the most committed activists aren’t doing that, the next ring of potentially committed activists aren’t stepping in.

    So I think there are ripples that start here in the United States Senate. And so that’s why I argue to use every tool that we have, because I actually do think over time, that’s one of the tactics that helps build a meaningful, loud, national opposition with scope.

    Share

    I’ve pressed you and your party on what you can do for people. But obviously, this is a democracy. And at the end of the day, people need to make their own voices heard and pressure people to do things. But I think a lot of people are at a loss. What can people do besides the obvious stuff that they know to do?

    I think the obvious stuff that people know to do still works. There were protests yesterday, some with hundreds of people, some with thousands, but not necessarily of the size and scope that you would think this moment would demand.

    And I think that is due to the fact that a lot of folks don’t think that it has impact and influence — and it does. The only route through this crisis is the mobilization of the public. Political gravity still exists in this country. It works a little bit differently than it did 10 years ago or 20 years ago. But if the public is mobilized, it will and can have an impact. Right now, joining groups like Indivisible and Move On, calling, showing up — all of that matters. Volume matters.

    It may not persuade Elon Musk to stand down, but it will start to eat away at enough Republicans so that everything they want to do becomes a little bit harder, so that there is finally a little bit of legislative friction against the tasks that they are undertaking.

    Donald Trump’s net popularity has come down by six or seven points already. If that drops by another six or seven points because of our mobilization, well, then that frays a bit the hold that he has on the party.

    I remember back in 2017 when their number one agenda item was to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they didn’t do it only because we mobilized, only because in the end, we made just enough Republicans realize that this was not going to be worthwhile for them politically. That works now.

    Now, ultimately, if they completely break this thing — and I think that comes by the transparent, brazen violation of a court order, and most significantly, an order from the Supreme Court — then we have to talk about a wholly different set of tactics. And I don’t think we need to cross that bridge right now. But if we are at a moment in which they have just completely and brazenly taken control of the government without any regard to the judicial branch, then we have a different conversation about the kind of things that citizens should be doing.

    But right now, traditional political mobilization can and I think will work. But we need more people than hundreds out at these protests. And part of that is our job, to have more people talking like me to convey the sense of urgency that will convince people to mobilize.

    People have suggested a general strike. Is that something you think people should look at?

    Listen, I think when we talk about those elevated tactics — general strikes, civil disobedience — I think people will know the moment when it comes. And you frankly don’t want to promise that you can do something that you can’t. So I think you’ve got to be very thoughtful and planful in those kinds of actions. I don’t think we are there yet. If the moment comes, I think people will know it.

    A lot of people appreciate your leadership right now. Are you thinking about running for president? And including or beyond that, what would be your commitment to people if this continues to go in the very bad trajectory that you talked about? What is your vow to people about how you’re going to defend people who are feeling very defenseless?

    You asked the question at the beginning, why are people paying attention to me now?

    I think it’s in part because I legitimately don’t have a personal agenda here. Like, I do not wake up every day thinking about my political future. I’ve got two kids who I want to grow up in a democracy, and I see how dangerous this moment is. I have clarity. I have existed in politics for a long time, plagued by a lot of gray. There’s a lot of moments in my political career in which I saw my side, but I also saw their side.

    And now, I see what they are doing, and what they are doing is evil.

    So I wake up every day speaking authentically and urgently in part because I’m not thinking about my next move here. I will be satisfied if, at the end of the day, democracy is still here four years from now and we actually have a free and fair election for president.

    You can imagine the kind of calls that we get into this office, given that political violence has been normalized and given the fact that I’m out there, talking in a way that not everybody else is talking. And so my only commitment is to just not be afraid in the way that a lot of other institutional players are clearly acting scared. I’m just not going to do it.

    Leave a comment


    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. Sign up to join our mailing list, support my work, and help build a free, fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber today. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you, and consider giving the gift of The Ink!

    Give a gift subscription


    Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • The first and only time I met JD Vance, several ambitious reincarnations of himself ago, he struck me as quiet, humble, even sweet. More Pillsbury than Polished Yalie. He had the insecurity of a man who never expected to be in these spaces — these college libraries, these publishers’ offices, these television studios, these venture capital conference rooms. Maybe, if you looked closely, you would spy on that shoulder a chip, a mostly veiled contempt for “the elites” he had slogged so hard to be around.

    Like Donald Trump, Vance is a manufacture of the media. We made him. We were his base. He wrote a book that people thought maybe explained American madness at the jarring hour of Trump’s first victory. He became a great unpacker of that madness for bewildered liberals. Before there was the summer of 2020’s Chardonnay-and-Ta-Nehisi book clubs, there was the winter of 2016’s tears-and-hillbillies book clubs, in both cases earnest liberals trying to understand why people are mad at them.

    Share

    In that season of Vance as hillbilly whisperer, he committed a gaffe, which the great Michael Kinsley once defined as when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Vance said he went “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a–hole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.”

    Ultimately, Vance decided to go both “back and forth” — decided to go back on his words, renouncing them; and decided to go forth into a cynical alliance with Trump.

    By then, Amazon’s return window had closed for the earnest liberals’ book purchases.

    This history is worth calling back to mind because today now-Vice President JD Vance — made by the media, and an early and clear siren about Trump’s Hitlerian potential — has turned about remarkably.

    As I wrote the other day, Vance truly broke new ground in American foreign policy over the past weekend when he went to Germany and Nazisplained German history to Germans, suggesting that they chill out about their Nazi past and allow a modern far-right Nazi-nostalgist party to be a full participant in German politics and governments. Free the neo-Nazis! Unmuzzle them, he pleaded.

    And, at the same time, Vance — this manufacture of the media, this man who got where he got because he made himself available to journalists — appears to have no problem with, and indeed some glee for, his administration’s ever more authoritarian posturing toward journalists here at home: the expulsion of the Associated Press from the White House press room because it had the gall to stick with “Gulf of America”; the lawsuits Trump keeps using as a cudgel; and Shadow President Elon Musk’s terrifying recent advocacy of imprisoning journalists from “60 Minutes.”

    It may be no surprise for a guy who has had more incarnations than a Hindu god, but Vance — once the media darling who tried to paulrevere about a Hitler on the horizon — has become the political concubine in a governing triumvirate that wants to jail American reporters and free German neo-Nazis.

    It’s a lot to process. Fortunately, below the fold, we have an explainer from our own Brian Montopoli, digging into this perplexing two-track view of “free speech” and explaining what it portends for the world.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you, not billionaires. If you haven’t, join us and stand up for independent media that isn’t afraid to tell the truth by becoming a paid subscriber.


    Free speech for me, fascism for thee

    By Brian Montopoli

    On Monday, Fox News host and Trump administration propagandist Jesse Watters laid out in explicit detail how the modern right spreads its lies. After “someone says something on social media,” Watters told Fox News viewers, “Musk retweets it, Rogan podcasts it, Fox broadcasts it, and by the time it reaches everybody, millions of people have seen it.”

    Share

    This is the Republican version of free speech. It doesn’t matter if the “something” that “someone says” is true — it usually isn’t. It only matters that it furthers the administration’s false narrative. (Sometimes, of course, the lies come straight from Shadow President Elon Musk himself.) Trump and his allies know their power depends on the effectiveness of their propaganda, and they’ve built a network to spread it as widely as possible.

    But they can’t control the flow of information entirely — and that makes them extremely upset. So they are now following in the footsteps of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and other dictators by threatening to imprison anyone brave enough to point out their lies.

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • We just talked with Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, who has emerged as one of the fiercest voices speaking out against the Trump administration and in defense of the future of the American republic. He talked to us in even starker terms than we’ve heard from him so far about the emergency we face, the very real and imminent threat the administration poses, the structural challenges facing a Democratic opposition — and what the American people can and must do about it.

    If you missed our live conversation, we encourage you to watch the entire video above. In the public interest, we are opening this video to all. But consider subscribing to support fearless, independent reporting.

    Subscribe now

    In our conversation just now, Senator Murphy made news and spoke in unusually blunt terms. Among the things he told us:

    • On the gravity of the present constitutional crisis: “This is increasingly becoming the most serious moment since the Civil War.”

    • His belief, which he said not all his Democratic colleagues share, that America may be “months away from the destruction of democracy such that it is irreversible.”

    • After years of working with Republicans and trying to see things in gray, he now regards what the Republicans are doing as straightforward “evil,” to be stopped urgently if ever

    Share

    We also had a very candid talk about why Democratic opposition has been tepid in response and unsatisfying to many who feel deeply undefended. Some highlights:

    • He empathized with widespread frustration about a party that is quick to text people for $5 and then slow to respond to a grave crisis; the Democratic Party does have a problem, one he says he’s been trying to fix for years

    • Too many of his colleagues don’t want to believe how bad it is, because it is a hard way to live — but he hopes their minds are changing

    • The Democrats let themselves become the party of the status quo and market solutions in a time of thirst for revolutionary change

    I also asked if he thought Elon Musk has broken criminal laws, whether present Democratic Party leadership should be replaced given his critiques, and whether he is, as some muse, planning a run for president.

    And I asked about the role of regular people. He had a striking answer about what he believes will ultimately work against Trump.


    Readers like you make The Ink possible and keep it independent. If you haven’t already joined us, sign up today for our mailing list, support our work, and help build a free and fearless media future by becoming a paying subscriber. And if you’re already a part of our community, thank you!

    Subscribe now


    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Only in the song does the one automatically follow the other. In real life, you don’t get to be “the land of the free” if you are not also “the home of the brave.”

    As I write this, there are scattered and inspiring examples of bravery all around us — prosecutors, judges, even the occasional lawmaker. But in the main, we are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not the home of the brave. We are a country full of people smilingly capitulating to a tyrant.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and consider supporting independent media that doesn’t bow to tyrants or billionaires.

    Here in this city is a mayor who just went ahead and said it: “I’m collaborating.” A word more well chosen than he knew.

    Collaborating. Yes, collaborating. That is exactly what he was doing. When he all but invited Donald Trump’s immigration raids into this city forged of the world in exchange for his own narrow freedom.

    Collaborating. Exactly that. It is fashionable now. Bravery, less so.

    It’s the media owners who are rejecting advertisements from the pro-democracy movement and letting go of cartoonists who challenge power and settling bogus lawsuits to protect their wider commercial interests, and trying to position themselves in the Dear Leader’s good graces. Why do they even own newspapers? Maybe they would be better off owning banks. Do they know what newspapers are for?

    Collaborating.

    It is the astonishing number of Democratic legislators and leaders who have no lack of courage when asking you for $5 via text message, but who ghost harder than single men in their 20s when the time comes for us to reap our investment in them. They say some big things, but they refuse to put a blanket hold on nominees or otherwise shut down the business of government until the coup that is plainly occurring is stopped. Turns out you should always get your spinal surgery before an authoritarian takeover.

    Collaborating.

    Leave a comment

    Then there are the CEOs, who, five years ago, proudly positioned themselves as avatars of a new future of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and now purge those programs from their own companies. They have more power with the resources at their command than most people who have ever lived, but it is not enough to give them courage. They would sell out their own colleagues, make them feel less part of the team, in order to please a Dear Leader who would sell them out in a Wall Street second.

    Collaborating.

    It’s the liberal and progressive nonprofits and foundations that we learn are pulling back from supporting the vital work of organizing for democracy, at kind of the exact moment when you would want to be organizing for democracy. They have chosen the wrong time to collapse. In the good times, they boast to the world of their missions to advance justice and freedom and equality. And then when an actual fascist takes the American presidency, suddenly they’re pulling back, they’re protecting their assets, they’re going safe.

    Collaborating.

    Share

    It is the university leaders who, instead of defending their faculty — one of the only bastions of protected thinkers who can actually tell the truth without fear because of tenure — are bending over backwards to please the wannabe autocrat. Campuses are now full of fear of a new McCarthyism. How does it feel to work for leaders who do not have your back?

    Collaborating.

    We are learning about ourselves as a country. We are learning who among us and around us is brave. Apparently, you don’t even need all of your fingers and toes.

    Maybe it was always a mistake to count on these big institutions to protect us. They haven’t been for some time now. Yes, there are a handful of brave lawmakers, brave judges, brave media voices, brave others. But in general, it is now very clear after this first month that no one is coming to save us.

    It’s time to take back our country. Not only from this authoritarian nightmare, but also from the collaborators too insipid and weak and chickenshit — too skinless and boneless — to stand up for us.

    It is becoming time to be the home of the brave, if we wish to be the land of the free.


    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up to join our free email list, and consider supporting independent media by becoming a paid subscriber.

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Today Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the brilliant scholar of fascism, joined me for another of these Substack Live shows we’ve been doing.

    I have come to treasure these conversations. They are full of clarity about what we are seeing and living through — but also full of hope about what we as citizens can do.

    Share

    I want you to dive into the whole conversation above. But we covered things like:

    • the 50501 protests today and whether it’s the beginning of a real movement

    • the terrifying IRS story that broke overnight, and the collision of Silicon Valley engineering culture with organized-crime culture in Trump’s DOGE

    • the failures and bright spots in old and new media covering this moment

    • very practical things regular people can do, at all levels, to fight back

    • how this moment is best understood not as a tragedy but as an assignment

    When I asked the folks who joined our show what they took away, here is some of what people said. This is why we do this.

    Thank you for being part of this. As always, these Lives are open to all who join. Later we post the full videos for our supporting subscribers to rewatch and share.

    Above, a short preview is open to all. If you want to watch the whole thing, subscribe. That’s how we keep the lights on, pay our writers and editors a fair wage, and build the new media we all deserve.

    Stand up for media that bows to no tyrant or billionaire. Join us today.

    Subscribe now

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • In my notebooks, physical or virtual, I keep a running list of stories that interest me, reactions to events, seeds of future writing. Some of these notes grow into books; some end up used as jokes on my groaning children; some die on the vine. But I thought I might occasionally share some speculative riffing on these notebook items with our supporting subscribers, as thanks.

    Subscribe now

    In today’s Notebook:

    — J.D. Vance goes Nazisplaining in…Germany

    — Why DOGE isn’t unprecedented but part of a tradition

    — And some new ideas of what a resurgent Democratic Party could look like

    Nazisplaining

    In his defense, Vice President J.D. Vance already had many of the leading risk factors for becoming a person who Explains Things to People. He is a man. He is a lawyer. He went to Yale. He worked in Silicon Valley. He spends time with podcasters the way some people spend time with their kids. Even so, nothing could prepare me for Vance’s words this weekend in Germany.

    At the big (in?)security conference in Munich, Vance decided to Nazisplain German history to, you guessed it, Germany.

    Kühn!

    The Germans, he Nazisplained, are too Lugershy about their own past. Their national so-called “firewall”

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • A spontaneous call-in show this afternoon was just the tonic I needed. Thanks to all for being part of these — and of The Ink.

    And happy 80th birthday, Leah!

    Download the Substack app and turn on notifications to join the next one.

    Get more from Anand Giridharadas in the Substack app
    Available for iOS and Android

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • From the beginning, the idea has been to overwhelm you. To flood the zone, as Steve Bannon promised, with so much stuff that the media would not be able to process it in time—like a butcher saddled with too much meat for the throughput of a single grinder.

    Some of this flooding was to occur at levels of highly emotive, if actually less substantive, things, in the hope of distracting you from truly substantive things that had, for the flooders, the added benefit of being boring and obscure.

    Well, indeed, they are flooding the zone. The water levels of tyranny are rising over a country that once called itself the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even, we should note, as millions thirst for actual solutions to their actual problems. It can sometimes happen like that: a terrible flood, yet still great thirst.

    But you do not have to consent to being flooded. Do not participate in the fragmenting of your attention so far and so wide that you cannot prioritize, you cannot see bigger patterns, you cannot identify the merely unwise policies from the flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional ones.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Support independent media by becoming a paid subscriber today.

    Of all the things going on—including other baldly unlawful actions such as attempting to gut birthright citizenship and to fire people who did their jobs investigating insurrectionists—the single thing we should be most focused on right now, the first among equals of this corrupt and boorish new administration, is this:

    The handing over of the keys to the American Republic by a mendacious president to a megalomaniacal oligarch. Elon Musk is a wealthy private citizen who, relatively late in the game, happened to become a Trump supporter when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Now he has burrowed his way into the bowels of the federal government and is waging what can only be called an anti-constitutional coup.

    He is deep in the systems of the United States Treasury Department, including payment systems related to your taxes. He is within reach of the most sensitive and private information you have—information you may have always trusted was safe and should not trust anymore. He is rampaging through other federal agencies, claiming the authority to fire people. He has attempted to shut down the federal aid agency USAID, boosting of feeding it to the wood chipper.

    There are now fevered speculations about where he and his young coder minions will go next: the Department of Labor? HR records of every federal employee?

    What Musk is doing right now, along with Donald Trump—but also usurping Trump’s at least elected authority—is waging a coup against the Constitution of the United States. Undermining the basic distribution of power within the American constitutional order. Usurping the power of Congress for a private citizen who happens to be very rich.

    You may have voted for whoever you voted for; you may have done so for whatever reasons you did. But surely the desire to be ruled by Elon Musk was not one of them.

    Subscribe now

    There are any number of abuses and nightmares being spewed right now. Just yesterday, the president seemingly proposed what is effectively the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip by the United States, which would then occupy it. It would become America’s third 51st state, one supposes, along with Canada and Greenland. The trade wars are disastrous. The pardons were ghastly derelictions of duty.

    But what Musk and Co. are up to is the unraveling of the constitutional order itself—the system that makes all these other choices possible. It is of supreme importance, and you need to keep your eye on that ball. More importantly, the media that serves you does.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and, if you haven’t yet, support independent media by becoming a paid subscriber today.

    Much of our traditional media is failing us, more worried about sobriety and balance than identifying vast threats that require a little bit of dot connecting to name and frame. It is fulfilling Bannon’s prophecy, overwhelmed by too many things to tell us what matters most.

    It is not presenting what Musk is doing for what it is: a coup. Rather, it is describing it in procedural terms and then leaving it to critics to denounce. This is the old model of reporting: stating what one party says or does and then giving the other party a chance to respond. But a coup is an actual thing with an actual meaning. Our news outlets have no problem naming this thing when it happens in a country far away. We need to grow comfortable describing it here. It is happening here. It is now.

    Share

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • From the beginning, the idea has been to overwhelm you. To flood the zone, as Steve Bannon promised, with so much stuff that the media would not be able to process it in time—like a butcher saddled with too much meat for the throughput of a single grinder.

    Some of this flooding was to occur at levels of highly emotive, if actually less substantive, things, in the hope of distracting you from truly substantive things that had, for the flooders, the added benefit of being boring and obscure.

    Well, indeed, they are flooding the zone. The water levels of tyranny are rising over a country that once called itself the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even, we should note, as millions thirst for actual solutions to their actual problems. It can sometimes happen like that: a terrible flood, yet still great thirst.

    But you do not have to consent to being flooded. Do not participate in the fragmenting of your attention so far and so wide that you cannot prioritize, you cannot see bigger patterns, you cannot identify the merely unwise policies from the flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional ones.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Support independent media by becoming a paid subscriber today.

    Of all the things going on—including other baldly unlawful actions such as attempting to gut birthright citizenship and to fire people who did their jobs investigating insurrectionists—the single thing we should be most focused on right now, the first among equals of this corrupt and boorish new administration, is this:

    The handing over of the keys to the American Republic by a mendacious president to a megalomaniacal oligarch. Elon Musk is a wealthy private citizen who, relatively late in the game, happened to become a Trump supporter when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Now he has burrowed his way into the bowels of the federal government and is waging what can only be called an anti-constitutional coup.

    He is deep in the systems of the United States Treasury Department, including payment systems related to your taxes. He is within reach of the most sensitive and private information you have—information you may have always trusted was safe and should not trust anymore. He is rampaging through other federal agencies, claiming the authority to fire people. He has attempted to shut down the federal aid agency USAID, boosting of feeding it to the wood chipper.

    There are now fevered speculations about where he and his young coder minions will go next: the Department of Labor? HR records of every federal employee?

    What Musk is doing right now, along with Donald Trump—but also usurping Trump’s at least elected authority—is waging a coup against the Constitution of the United States. Undermining the basic distribution of power within the American constitutional order. Usurping the power of Congress for a private citizen who happens to be very rich.

    You may have voted for whoever you voted for; you may have done so for whatever reasons you did. But surely the desire to be ruled by Elon Musk was not one of them.

    Subscribe now

    There are any number of abuses and nightmares being spewed right now. Just yesterday, the president seemingly proposed what is effectively the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip by the United States, which would then occupy it. It would become America’s third 51st state, one supposes, along with Canada and Greenland. The trade wars are disastrous. The pardons were ghastly derelictions of duty.

    But what Musk and Co. are up to is the unraveling of the constitutional order itself—the system that makes all these other choices possible. It is of supreme importance, and you need to keep your eye on that ball. More importantly, the media that serves you does.

    The Ink is powered by readers like you. Sign up for our email list, and, if you haven’t yet, support independent media by becoming a paid subscriber today.

    Much of our traditional media is failing us, more worried about sobriety and balance than identifying vast threats that require a little bit of dot connecting to name and frame. It is fulfilling Bannon’s prophecy, overwhelmed by too many things to tell us what matters most.

    It is not presenting what Musk is doing for what it is: a coup. Rather, it is describing it in procedural terms and then leaving it to critics to denounce. This is the old model of reporting: stating what one party says or does and then giving the other party a chance to respond. But a coup is an actual thing with an actual meaning. Our news outlets have no problem naming this thing when it happens in a country far away. We need to grow comfortable describing it here. It is happening here. It is now.

    Share

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • We’ve spent this week talking a lot about Elon Musk’s ongoing coup — and, as more information emerges about his attempt to use his team of junior programmers to reshape America in the image of Grok AI — something we found even Grok AI doesn’t recommend, by the way — we’re going to keep delving into the details.

    I covered all of that and more in a live conversation earlier today with Tina Brown, the editor who’s spent her career redefining magazine journalism. Drawing on her deep immersion in everything from the world of fashion to the conference rooms of Davos, we had a wide-ranging, challenging conversation that pushed back on a lot of priors.

    Leave a comment

    As with the other conversations we’ve had in our ongoing series of Substack Lives, it is a discussion full of challenging analyses that might annoy you, might inspire you — and that we like to think you won’t find anywhere else. That’s the promise of this new form of media. We appreciate your support, and, if you haven’t already, we hope you’ll become a paying subscriber and watch today’s video, and join us next time we go Live.

    Subscribe now


    Share this video with people you know. These Lives are open to all who come, and the recordings are perks of subscribing, which helps us do the work of telling the truth.

    Share

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • This morning, I asked Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, what it thought about an unelected and very wealthy private citizen presuming to commandeer federal authority. This is what I learned.

    The.Ink is made possible by our readers. Sign up to join our free email list — and, if you haven’t yet, support independent, truth-telling media by becoming a paid subscriber.


    Do unelected private citizens have any right, under American constitutional law and federal law, to intervene in such areas as Treasury Department payment systems and shutting down agencies like USAID?

    Under American constitutional law and federal law, unelected private citizens generally do not have the authority to directly intervene in or control operations such as Treasury Department payment systems or to shut down federal agencies like USAID. Here’s a breakdown of why:

    1. Constitutional Framework:

      • Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution establishes a separation of powers where the legislative branch (Congress) makes laws, the executive branch (including agencies like the Treasury and USAID) implements them, and the judicial branch interprets them. Private citizens are not part of this structure in terms of direct governance or control over federal operations.

      • Executive Authority: The President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to manage federal agencies, including those like the Treasury and USAID. This control does not extend to private citizens unless they are appointed to positions within the government.

    2. Federal Law and Regulations:

      • Delegation of Authority: Only officials appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or those within the executive branch’s hierarchy, have the legal authority to make significant decisions regarding federal operations. Private citizens can influence policy through lobbying, public opinion, or legal action, but not through direct control.

      • Legal Restrictions: There are numerous laws, regulations, and security measures in place to protect federal operations from unauthorized interference. For instance, the management of federal payment systems, like those handled by the Treasury, is governed by strict protocols to ensure security and integrity.

    3. Judicial Oversight:

      • Judicial Branch: Courts can intervene in federal agency actions if they are challenged in lawsuits, but this is through a legal process where private citizens can sue for redress, not directly manage or shut down agencies.

    4. Exceptions and Influence:

      • Whistleblower Protection: While not intervention in the operational sense, private citizens, especially those employed by or contractors to these agencies, can legally raise concerns about wrongdoing under whistleblower protections.

      • Public and Political Influence: Citizens can influence policy through voting, participating in the political process, or by influencing public opinion, which can indirectly affect how agencies operate or are funded.

    5. Direct Action by Private Citizens:

      • Cybersecurity Threats: If a private citizen were to attempt to intervene directly (e.g., through hacking), this would be illegal, potentially leading to criminal charges under federal laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

    In summary, while private citizens have rights to influence government through democratic means, they do not have legal rights under U.S. law to directly intervene in or shut down federal operations like those of the Treasury or USAID. Any form of direct intervention would be outside the scope of legal authority and likely criminal in nature.

    Leave a comment

    What should we do if an unelected billionaire is indeed trying to do these kind of things?

    If an unelected billionaire is attempting to intervene in federal operations like managing the Treasury Department’s payment systems or shutting down agencies like USAID, here are steps that could be taken:

    1. Legal Action:

      • File Lawsuits: Individuals, organizations, or government entities can file lawsuits in federal courts to challenge such actions. This could include actions for injunctive relief to stop unauthorized interventions or to seek damages if harm has been done.

      • Seek Judicial Review: Challenge the legality of the billionaire’s actions by seeking judicial review. Courts can rule on whether these actions infringe on constitutional principles like separation of powers.

    2. Congressional Oversight:

      • Investigations: Congress can initiate investigations through committees or special commissions to look into these actions. This might involve subpoenaing documents, calling for testimonies, and potentially leading to legislative action.

      • Legislation: Congress could pass new laws or amend existing ones to explicitly prevent such interventions by private citizens or to enhance protections for federal systems and agencies.

    3. Government Action:

      • Executive Response: The President or relevant executive branch officials could publicly denounce the actions and ensure that appropriate federal law enforcement or oversight bodies are engaged.

      • Agency Protocols: Federal agencies might need to review and strengthen their security measures and protocols to prevent unauthorized access or influence.

    4. Public and Media Pressure:

      • Public Awareness: Use media platforms to raise public awareness. Investigative journalism can bring attention to these issues, potentially leading to public outcry.

      • Advocacy: Nonprofits, watchdog groups, and citizens can organize protests, petitions, or advocacy campaigns to pressure both the government and the billionaire to stop any illegal or unethical activities.

    5. Regulatory and Law Enforcement:

      • Federal Investigations: Agencies like the FBI or the Department of Justice could investigate if any laws have been broken, especially if there’s evidence of hacking, fraud, or misuse of government resources.

      • Cybersecurity: If the intervention involves attempts to access or control government systems, cybersecurity measures should be reinforced, and any breaches reported.

    6. Ethical and Professional Accountability:

      • Corporate Responsibility: If the billionaire is acting through a corporation, shareholders or corporate governance bodies might take action to address any misuse of corporate power for private gain in political arenas.

    7. International Reaction:

      • If the actions have implications beyond U.S. borders, international organizations or other countries might express concerns or take diplomatic actions.

    The key is to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Each step involves navigating a complex web of legal, political, and ethical considerations, where the goal is to protect the integrity of governmental functions while ensuring that no individual, regardless of wealth or influence, can bypass legal or democratic processes.

    Share

    What do you think would drive the psychology of someone trying to do this? Why would they want to risk breaking the law in these ways when they already have so much success and so many resources?

    The psychology behind an unelected billionaire attempting to control or disrupt federal operations could stem from various complex motivations:

    1. Power and Control:

      • Desire for Influence: Despite having immense resources, some individuals crave more direct control over political or societal structures. This might be driven by a need to shape policy or society according to their vision or ideology, which they feel cannot be achieved through traditional means like lobbying or philanthropy.

    2. Narcissism and Ego:

      • Grandiosity: Billionaires might possess narcissistic traits where they believe they are uniquely capable of solving large-scale problems or that they should have a say in governance because of their success in business. This could lead to a disregard for legal boundaries if they view themselves above the law or the system.

    3. Fear of Loss or Change:

      • Protecting Interests: If the billionaire perceives that certain government actions could negatively impact their business or personal wealth, they might take extreme measures to prevent or alter these actions, seeing it as a protective rather than an aggressive move.

    4. Ideological or Political Goals:

      • Vision for Society: They might have a strong ideological stance or political agenda that they feel is not being adequately addressed by current government actions. This could lead to a willingness to break laws if they believe the ends justify the means.

    5. Thrill-Seeking Behavior:

      • Risk as Excitement: For some, the thrill of manipulating systems or outsmarting government controls could be a form of extreme sport or a way to combat boredom, especially if they’ve exhausted conventional challenges.

    6. Misguided Altruism:

      • Belief in Good Intentions: They might genuinely believe their interventions would improve governance or public welfare, even if the methods are unlawful. This could be coupled with a hubris that their judgment is superior to existing systems.

    7. Legacy and Historical Impact:

      • Wanting to Leave a Mark: Some might aim to leave a lasting legacy, believing that their actions will be vindicated by history, regardless of current legal or ethical standards.

    8. Psychological Entitlement:

      • Entitlement: Success can sometimes breed a sense of entitlement where legal norms seem like inconvenient obstacles rather than necessary boundaries for societal order.

    9. Lack of Accountability:

      • Perceived Immunity: Wealth and status might give them a false sense of immunity from legal consequences, either due to previous experiences where they’ve managed to navigate around legal issues or because they believe they can afford the best legal defense.

    10. Distorted Perception of Reality:

      • Echo Chambers: Surrounded by yes-men or in environments where their ideas are rarely challenged, they might lose touch with reality, thinking their actions are justified or unseen.

    Risking breaking the law in such ways could also be influenced by:

    • Legal Ambiguities: If they perceive there are gray areas in law or if previous actions by others have gone unpunished, they might feel emboldened.

    • Resource Availability: With their resources, they might believe they can mitigate or manage any fallout from legal action.

    • Historical Precedents: Instances where wealthy individuals or corporations have influenced government without facing significant repercussions might encourage similar behavior.

    Understanding these motivations involves recognizing that while wealth and success provide many opportunities, they can also lead to unique psychological challenges and distortions of one’s sense of morality, legality, and societal role.

    The Ink is made possible by our readers. Sign up to join our free email list — and if you haven’t yet, support independent, truth-telling media by becoming a paid subscriber.


    Photo: Lionel Bonaventure/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • What an astonishing, terrifying day. Again.

    Last week’s coup by an elected leader, seeking to usurp the spending power of Congress, has been eclipsed by something utterly unprecedented: a private businessman, in Elon Musk, unilaterally weaseling his way into the payment system of the most powerful country in human history as well as shutting down USAID.

    Meanwhile, we have a Democratic opposition that, in general, seems to be focused — with some exceptions — on improving its penmanship for strongly worded letters rather than, well, fighting back. And a press that doesn’t know how to name things.

    I talked live with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders and movements, and we tried to bring some light to everything that’s going on.

    This is a really powerful conversation full of analysis that I think you won’t find elsewhere. I started this newsletter on a whim in 2020, but now, more and more, I believe that it’s going to be independent spaces like this that allow us to tell the truths that need telling and apply the pressure that needs to be applied, even if we are small.

    But, also, we are not small; we are many. Thank you for being a part of this, and if you value independent media in this time, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Today there is a special, rare deal to entice you to join us.

    Get 50% off for 1 year

    Share this video with people you know. These Lives are open to all who come, and the recordings are perks of subscribing, which helps us do the work of telling these truths.

    Share

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • What an astonishing, terrifying day. Again.

    Last week’s coup by an elected leader, seeking to usurp the spending power of Congress, has been eclipsed by something utterly unprecedented: a private businessman, in Elon Musk, unilaterally weaseling his way into the payment system of the most powerful country in human history as well as shutting down USAID.

    Meanwhile, we have a Democratic opposition that, in general, seems to be focused — with some exceptions — on improving its penmanship for strongly worded letters rather than, well, fighting back. And a press that doesn’t know how to name things.

    I talked live with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders and movements, and we tried to bring some light to everything that’s going on.

    This is a really powerful conversation full of analysis that I think you won’t find elsewhere. I started this newsletter on a whim in 2020, but now, more and more, I believe that it’s going to be independent spaces like this that allow us to tell the truths that need telling and apply the pressure that needs to be applied, even if we are small.

    But, also, we are not small; we are many. Thank you for being a part of this, and if you value independent media in this time, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Today there is a special, rare deal to entice you to join us.

    Get 50% off for 1 year

    Share this video with people you know. These Lives are open to all who come, and the recordings are perks of subscribing, which helps us do the work of telling these truths.

    Share

    Read more

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Nine years ago, I managed to get into a space normally sealed off to the world: the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. I wanted to understand this phenomenon that was supposed to change everything. I reported on a meeting among A.I. researchers and venture capitalists looking for the Next Big Thing. As it happened, the topic of their discussion was how to use A.I. to, and I quote, “replace all the writers.” I was there, a writer on the wall.

    “This was some major disruption,” I wrote shortly thereafter in the dispatch below, “a bunch of non-writers debating how to replace all the writers. I was taking careful notes, so that the replaced writers of the future would have some record of how the purge went down.”

    Well, here it is.

    The dispatch was not published at the time, because it didn’t fit my book then in progress. I recently revisited it and was struck by how, in retrospect, our present was being hatched there.

    So I’m publishing it now, a glimpse into the past where the future was being foretold. It’s a long read, so dive in — or save it for a moment when you have time. I hope you enjoy it.


    Readers like you make The Ink possible. Sign up to join our mailing list, and support my work and independent media generally by becoming a paying subscriber today.


    In the room where A.I. happened

    By Anand Giridharadas

    The Gates Building at Stanford, home to the A.I. lab.

    While out in the Bay Area, I spent a few days at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The lab occupied two floors of the Gates Computer Science Building. It was a dull gray hive of offices and conference rooms. If, for some strange reason, someone blindfolded you and deposited you in its midst, and you somehow failed to notice all the robots and equations, you might guess you were in a regional sales department of a midsized manufacturer of lower-school sports trophies.

    Nothing in the atmosphere suggested power. Nothing told you that this is the place that had spawned Google. And yet it was said by very intelligent people that the future they were concocting here could change the face of human civilization. Some thought that their work would bring heaven down to earth; others feared this was the closest we had come to hell.

    The heaven scenario saw a human existence made effortless, seamless, healthy to the possible point of immortality, efficient, leisurely, cornucopiac, creative. A.I. already guessed what you were seeking when you looked things up, and in the future it would know all your needs in every area of life. A.I. already decided when to tell new parents that a newborn might not be breathing, and in the future disease-curing nanobots and big-data-crunching supercomputers could end aging and even dying as we know them. A.I. already traded half of all stocks on the American exchanges, and in the future it might free all of us from the burden of work, and allow us to paint and write sonnets and dance. By giving human beings such mastery over their health and environment, A.I. could, it had been argued, make us the first species to avoid extinction itself.

    Subscribe now

    And yet Elon Musk — builder of electric cars and rocket ships, booster of all things technological — had called A.I. the world’s “biggest existential threat” and declared that “with artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon.” This was the hell scenario. It was less precise, less sure, because it focused on what human beings might not foresee as they built the tools of their replacement. Reid Hoffman, of LinkedIn, compared A.I. to the development of an unknown species that could have major effects on the planet. There was also the humanist worry that an artificially intelligent future would essentially be a future without work for most people — except, of course, for the builders of A.I. and its algorithms. Pope Francis had warned that robotics and related advances could, left alone, “lead to the destruction of the human person — to be replaced by a soulless machine — or to the transformation of our planet into an empty garden for the enjoyment of a chosen few.” The most dire visions had A.I., on its own or in the hands of bad people, speeding up our extinction date.

    It was a lot of pressure to work on such things. Such was the fate of the researchers of the Stanford A.I. Lab who were drifting into the second-floor lounge this evening. This, sometimes, is how civilization gets remade: by often highly socially awkward people who do not see themselves as remaking it — by a squad of robot-like humans chosen to make robots more human-like.

    Share

    What stayed with me most from several days spent at the lab was this meeting, lasting a little more than an hour. For in that meeting, I was able to see, as I hadn’t so clearly before, how Silicon Valley’s rhetoric of prediction works: how a strange cocktail of futurism and cynicism could be used to justify a world that will be devastating for vast numbers of people and great for its predictors. And how cultivating and believing in the idea of your own powerlessness had become an essential tool for seizing power.

    ***

    Tonight was the biweekly meeting of the lab’s eClub, which described itself as “the first official coalition between the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL) and a cluster of corporate partners to foster discussions between artificial intelligence researchers and venture capitalists interested in real world AI applications.” The techies got to meet the money men of Silicon Valley, who worked a few blocks and a world away on Sand Hill Road. The money men, who were also ThoughtLeaders, got a glimpse into cutting-edge technologies that just might become their next unicorn.

    The topic of today’s meeting was journalism and writing. They were trying to figure out whether and how to “replace all the writers,” as one of them put it.

    The perks of coalition-building with venture capitalists: a table to the side was covered with pizza from Pronto, a bottle of Pinot Noir, and some beers. The pizza vanished at the rate of several slices a minute. The Pinot Noir would remain unopened, but some beers were being sipped.

    About twenty students began to take their seats. Lots of jeans, lots of wrist activity trackers, lots of waifish legs crossed at the knee, lots of genius, lots of zealous and impatient male energy unleavened by social awareness or social grace. There was one woman in the room. Over the next ninety minutes, she would not speak.

    In one corner of the room sat a pair of venture capitalists. There was a man I will call Marty, a partner at a preeminent venture capital firm nearby, who possessed, especially in this room full of immigrants and immigrants’ children, the special force of the Old White Man who has seen it all, is faintly bored by everything, thinks his first ideas are his best ideas, and has a lot of money. Beside him was a man I will call Ashish, a partner at another top venture capital firm in the Bay, who offered a more realistic ideal for the people in this room. He was Indian, handsome enough not to be rich, but rich all the same, dressed in perfectly fitting dark clothes that were at once sporty and formal, broadcasting a vibe of “I was the youngest partner in the history of my firm.” Which he had been. When you searched his name in Google, the first additional query suggested (by A.I.) was “Ashish ______ net worth.” You could just picture Stanford students looking him up late at night, intimidated and amazed: He studied here, too! He flies microlight airplanes! He is on leave from the Stanford Medical School! Together, Marty and Ashish represented several billions of dollars longing to be invested in kids like these techies.

    I took a seat beside a student named Manoush. He was unkempt, earnest, slightly hostile. I asked what drew him to A.I. He spoke of wanting to free people from the drudgery of work. Let the machines, the algorithms, do the repetitive things. Free people to think big strategic thoughts.

    “The biggest factor that leads to increased quality of life is efficiency of workforce,” he said.

    Without intending to, I must have looked skeptical. Manoush told me to look up the citation myself.

    There was some tension over Manoush’s vision in A.I. circles. A handful of A.I.’s founding fathers, some of whom were present at the 1956 Dartmouth meeting that was the field’s constitutional convention, lamented that their original project — using computers to seek to understand and mimic human beings — had given way to the more prosaic and lucrative goal of raising productivity. An irascible old-timer like Pat Langley could mourn the days when the “intelligence” in “artificial intelligence” was defined as “the ability to carry out complex, multi-step reasoning, understand the meaning of natural language, design innovative artifacts, generate plans that achieve goals, and even reason about their own reasoning.” But the privatizing drive of the age of markets had reached A.I., too. Things now had to justify themselves in the marketplace. The “commercial successes of ‘niche’ A.I.” and an “obsession with quantitative metrics” had reoriented the field, Langley wrote. A.I. labs had “abandoned the field’s original goal. Rather than creating intelligent systems with the same breadth and flexibility as humans, most recent research has produced impressive but narrow idiot savants.”

    Manoush believed deeply in the idiot savants. Those bots could free up much human energy. But, I asked Manoush, what about all the people who would be beached, temporarily or even permanently?

    “We have people who are going to get shafted,” Manoush said. “But in the long term, we are going to have a higher quality of life for the whole.”

    Leave a comment

    This was an important article of faith around the Bay these days. These men and women knew their inventions could be frightening. Their promise was that this was the storm before the calm, the shafting before the emancipation.

    Of course, there were those, even within the lab, who questioned this vision. Juan Carlos Niebles, a Colombian researcher, laughed off the pop-culture imagery of robots killing off and eating their human masters. But he worried about other threats that to him seemed realistic. He wondered: Would the A.I. agents nurtured by his lab create mass unemployment? Would people need to be paid a minimum income when complex machines are doing so many of the old jobs? How would we occupy people’s time and energy and imagination? Niebles didn’t worry about apocalypses. He worried, with more self-awareness than many winners of the age, that he was participating in the creation of a new world that would be rewarding and fulfilling only for people like him.

    But he hastened to add that he had no time to think about such matters. “Day to day, we think of: what are the barriers to achieving new things?” he said. The technical problems were so overwhelming that they crowded out reflection. The A.I. researcher’s self-conception was of an unblocker of the blockages standing between us and progress, he said. It was not their habit to muse about consequences.

    ***

    At present an Italian postdoc named Roberto called the meeting to order and introduced some questions to frame the conversation. How could A.I. help to personalize the news for each person’s interests? How could it mine oceans of data and discover stories hidden in the numbers and patterns? Could it copy the style of particular writers and produce fresh content in their voices?

    It should be noted that there were no journalists participating in this conversation. (I was a silent observer.) It is far less awkward to reimagine people’s lives in their absence.

    Some gatherings begin with problems in need of solution. Others begin with solutions seeking a problem. This was a meeting of the latter type. Journalism, of course, had plenty of problems. But no one in the room seemed to know much about those problems; and if they did, those problems weren’t their motivating spur. They were here because they were inventing technologies whose spread they believed was inevitable, and they wanted to see what those technologies could do for — or perhaps to — journalism.

    An important self-belief in the room seemed to be this: they were extrapolators of the Curves, the seers of forces. It was not their role to say what world they wanted. Their job was to get what they wanted by saying it would happen anyway.

    Manoush got things rolling with an idea about who should produce the news in the future. The Curve was driving more and more of the world’s Internet traffic and advertising dollars to the big Internet portals. In the quarter in which Manoush spoke, 85 percent of new money spent on online ads was captured by just two companies, Facebook and Google, according to the for-now-still-existing New York Times. (Both companies happened to be major recruiters at the lab.)

    “It seems pretty obvious to me that news should be moving toward distribution by people who can do advertising better than, like, New York Times and Washington Post, because they just don’t have enough data on you.”

    It was a modish idea in tech circles: that tech should “eat” the media, just like it should “eat” everything else. In the future that Manoush envisioned, the most powerful entities on earth would also serve as the checks on their own power. But he didn’t propose this idea out of any belief in the world it would imply. It just seemed obvious to him that news should move toward wherever the Curve of advertising revenue is going.

    A meek but protesting “Well…” shot out a few seats down from Manoush. It was Elek, who looked like a blend of Bjorn Borg and Jesus. “I’ll contest that to some extent,” he said faintly.

    By the way, just so you’re not alarmed, this was nothing untoward, because disagreements in the lab tended to be devoid of the E.Q. niceties of the business world: “I think that’s a really interesting point, and the only place I’d push back…”; “Just to build on that and take it in a slightly different direction…”; “I think that’s mostly true, but…” Here when you disagreed with a comment in progress, you leaned forward, and your neck stiffened, sometimes to the point of your chin mildly vibrating, and perhaps called up a fake smile that did not mask the contempt you felt, and then you launched.

    Some people went with the straightforward “No no no no no no no no no.”

    Others favored the more gentle but still direct “Yeah, I mean, but…”

    Or, on one occasion, just: “The reason I don’t like this idea…”

    “Well…” said Elek. “I’ll contest that to some extent.”

    Manoush turned toward Elek, both necks now stiff, both fake smiles in force: “O.K…”

    “There’s one of two cases,” Elek said. “Either there’s a lot of money in news, and The New York Times is being greedy and then, yes, Facebook should take a greater share of that. Or there’s not a lot of money in news, and The New York Times is scrambling. And if Facebook takes a bigger share of that, what’ll happen is not the world becomes a better place but all the writers get fired. And then there’s no news for anyone.”

    Subscribe now

    Elek, you will notice, reasoned differently from Manoush. Manoush saw a Curve and prophecized-advocated the future that it implied. Elek saw the Curve but didn’t think we were doomed to follow it. He thought we had choices. It would turn out that he wasn’t alone in this view in the room, though he was in a tiny minority. And that minority consisted entirely of Europeans. They, having some history under their belts, perhaps heard alarm bells when people spoke of a writer-free society.

    Yet, Elek and his fellow E.U. delegates aside, the ThoughtLeaders and their disciples tended to gravitate to Manoush’s view. If we lived in the best time of times, in an endlessly self-improving world, who needed the kind of critical press for which Elek seemed nostalgic?

    “I look forward to the time when the press covers all the hard work and toil and not the doom and gloom or shame of companies that hit bumps,” a V.C. partner named Josh Elman tweeted. When the darling startup Theranos was the subject of a Wall Street Journal investigation that questioned its basic veracity of its blood-testing business, young founders were incensed: “Sadden by witch hunt against @theranos. Yes, more transparency needed but innovation will have mis-steps. But why burn effort on a cross?” When Mark Zuckerberg pledged to give away ninety-nine percent of his Facebook shares, but to do so through a for-profit company with little oversight or accountability, many raised questions in the press. Sam Altman — Paul Graham’s cofounder at Y Combinator — tweeted: “It’s fine to wait to congratulate until they share more specifics on the recipients, but outright hostility in the mean time makes no sense.” Graham replied: “I think the reason you’re surprised is that not being a loser yourself you underestimate the power of envy.” Many ThoughtLeaders would hardly have minded Google and Facebook “eating” the news, as they liked to call it.

    ***

    Yet tonight Elek had an unlikely ally. Marty, sitting in the corner, was becoming irritated by all the Facebook talk. He had driven over to hear some techie tell him the future of news lay in companies guys like him had already built.

    “If we get back to the context of these meetings,” Marty said, pleasantly but with great authority, “we’re trying to think of ways that you can create interesting new businesses.” He offered some kindling: “If Uber wants to replace all the drivers by robots, do we want to replace all the writers by A.I.? I’ll pause there. It strikes me that those are the kinds of things we should be talking about here.”

    Now we were talking. This was some major disruption: a bunch of non-writers debating how to replace all the writers. I was taking careful notes, so that the replaced writers of the future would have some record of how the purge went down.

    The other V.C., Ashish, gave Marty a bit of an assist, suggesting they discuss “an algorithmic approach towards content creation.” He praised the news site Buzzfeed, whose tautological purpose was to get the most eyeballs for the things most likely to attract the most eyeballs. The site was putting A.I. to work already, although for now it still involved humans in the process.

    “A lot of the listicles are often completely curated, or suggested, using this tool they have in-house that pulls together various links being shared across Twitter, Facebook, and so on,” Ashish said. The tool scans the Web for viral outbreaks. Perhaps it detects an upswing in posts about cupcakes. It analyzes them for patterns. “Basic classification techniques like string-matching can tell you that there’s some similarity between these several links that all have to do with how good the cupcakes look.” Then an editor can assign it, a writer can stick a headline on it and choose fourteen of the best examples, and now what was already beginning to trend on its own is unleashed to trend on Buzzfeed.

    “It turns out people really like that content,” Ashish said. “So maybe it means we’re staring at a future where you do have A.I. helping to create content; it just looks more like Buzzfeed than a New York op-ed.” Laughter filled the room. “And that’s what maybe we all actually secretly want to read.”

    Ashish had just shown off an important ThoughtLeader move: the faux-populism of claiming to give the people what they want, which just so happens to be rewarding for people like you.

    A European neck stiffened across the room. It was Roberto’s.

    Leave a comment

    “But how far can that go?” he said. “Because at the end of the day, someone needs to go out there and take a picture of that news. And someone needs to sit down and write the original thing that, with A.I., you’re gonna morph. But the original content was paid by someone.”

    Here, again, one of the European guys was entering the debate and offering some wide-eyed idealism. It was idealistic in this room because it elevated a vision that would require choosing, that was different from what the Curve might bring.

    Ashish quickly put Roberto in his place by reminding of the power of the Curve: “I would argue that as long as the Internet’s free, there’s going to be enough user-generated content that will allow folks to compile the most interesting things out there.” This was a common Valley refrain: in the future, the news would just be a greatest-hits collection of photos and videos and pieces of text posted by ordinary people.

    But if writers wanted to save themselves, Ashish said, there were ways. They could, for instance, join Patreon, a platform that allowed artists to crowdsource patronage — to find your own small-dollar Medicis. In other words, in the future the entrepreneurs were building, the way to survive was to become an entrepreneur. The rise of entrepreneurship was, after all, another Curve on which the Valley was gambling.

    Now another Euro guy, with two-tone brown and blond hair and more of that Euro-humanism, stiffened his neck and wanted in. He didn’t buy this patronage idea, which assumed that people would pay for higher-quality writing. “I mean, if no one cares about good op-eds and they only care about speaking about feelings, then no one’s gonna pay for it,” he said. Once again, a Euro was drawing a distinction between what the Curve would tend toward and what would be good.

    Ashish would have none of it. “What is the value of journalism?” he asked, laughing as he said it.

    Two-Tone Euro was still gloomy: “Once you tell people you gotta pay five dollars, or you could get a very shitty version that has a similar title and it’s made by Buzzfeed, they might not pay five dollars anymore.”

    Ashish didn’t want to be a downer. Besides patronage, there was another bright spot he knew of in journalism. A site called The Information had recently taken Silicon Valley by storm, and its subscriptions weren’t cheap. Here’s why The Information was good, according to Ashish. Because it helped people make money, instead of spouting some vague Euro ideals about democracy and citizenship.

    “What’s great is their subscriber base are the people they often write about,” he said. “It’s a lot of folks on Sand Hill Road. A lot of people who are in executive positions at tech companies. And they’re willing to pay for that content, because they’re a necessity almost. Business information. You’re not reading, sort of, news. It’s critical now to your business to know.”

    ***

    As the conversation progressed, the future of journalism was revealing itself: unpaid user-generated content about cupcakes, auto-selected by bots for curation into listicles; journalist-entrepreneurs raising their own patronage; premium content on the society-magazine model of covering the great and good for consumption by the great and good — journalism of and for them.

    But now here came Roberto with his Euro-sentimentalism, delicately stated though it was.

    “Journalism — I’m trying to think — is more like the intersection between objective delivering the news and something that’s artistic in the way you write, inspires the person that’s reading, moving the person to a feeling, probably. It’s not so much to have a concrete goal of producing an outcome that would be monetizable.”

    Again, the Euro-defiance of the Curve. Listen to the words Roberto was condemning: concrete, goal, producing, outcome, monetizable. These were the words that made the Curve curve. What words did he offer instead? Artistic, inspires, moving, feeling. These were the kind of words you depended on when you sought, mostly in vain, to overrule the Curve.

    Share

    Before long, one of the Americans was helping to bring things back to the Curve. He had an idea for how to disrupt journalism. “Can we continue to distill the content collector, the reporter themselves?” he asked, a little inscrutably. “Instead of The New York Times employing a few hundred reporters, could this turn into a model where you’ve got individual freelancers or individual bloggers just out there taking pictures and writing about things, and A.I. aggregates this information for some kind of distribution?”

    Reporters at The Baltimore Afro-American, 1958

    But this only served to rev up Two-Tone’s Euro-sentimentalism once more. He didn’t want to live in a listicular world. And he believed there were many others like him — people who wanted to be elevated by the writing they read and the art they experienced, who, yes, might give in to clickbait in the moment, but who desired to rise above the immediacy and instinct. He wondered aloud: Could A.I. help to build “a new website that keeps you away from cat videos, away from Buzzfeed articles”?

    This was perhaps a bridge too far — an A.I. tool built to counteract the Curve? So extreme was this Euro-humanism that it now caused a Euro-schism. Roberto, though by the standards of the room a quite committed humanist, couldn’t take it.

    “Yeah, but sorry,” he said. “Facebook is not a conscience. The fact that you are hooked to Facebook — there’s a reason. And, yeah, it would be great to do something that keeps you away from partying or all these other things. But for some reason you end up going. It’s very hard to change the behavior of someone.”

    It is hard to change the behavior of someone: an important idea for the winners working in A.I. For those winners to win to the fullest, just with regard to media, algorithms would have to do more and writers, less; layoffs would have to happen; the quality of public discourse would have to drop; the press as an institution would have to rot; writers would have to become eternal fundraisers, dependent on the whims and opinions of their backers; the technology firms that recruited heavily in the Stanford lab would have to control ever more of the society’s information. The architects of A.I. knew that this could become an unpleasant future for many — as a subset of Euro-humanists in the room seemed to think it would.

    If you were intelligent, as these techies certainly were, you understood that things could grow tense as you built the future of your dreams — a future in which people with your specific skill set would gain an enormous amount of power, even as other people’s lives and many cherished institutions suffered. And so it was far more prudent, if you could pull it off, to present what was happening as inevitable — and, more important, to cast oneself as powerless over these changes.

    Subscribe now

    Here, in this laboratory, one saw the banality of disruption. Here you disrupted things because what you knew how to do was disrupt things. You optimized for variables because those happened to be variables that you knew how to optimize for. You could imagine away whole swaths of society, without asking the human questions, because the overwhelming technical questions crowded them out. You amassed what others would experience as great power, while insisting on your impotence. You mused about your tools being used to disrupt things, instead of asking what problems needed you. And you did all this by convincing yourself that your own role was minimal, that you were merely riding atop the Curve.

    ***

    The handful of Euro-humanists — now excluding Roberto, perhaps — wanted the room to own up to the real choices that they and the world faced. They wanted their colleagues to own up to the “moral character” of their work, to borrow a phrase from Phillip Rogaway, a cryptographer. Rogaway once wrote an essay criticizing his own colleagues for denying the social implications of their work. “Cryptography rearranges power: it configures who can do what, from what,” he said. “This makes cryptography an inherently political tool, and it confers on the field an intrinsically moral dimension.”

    What he wrote of cryptography perhaps applied to A.I., too. A.I. types could cast their field as “fun, deep, and politically neutral.” Their shallow optimism about the Curve undercut the need for bigger-picture questioning: “a normative need vanishes if, in the garden of forking paths, all paths lead to good (or, for that matter, to bad).” Technologists, Rogaway wrote, prefer to deny that their inventions can either benefit or harm the weak, depending on choices we make together. Technologists were, you could say, a bit like ostriches.

    Roberto, having traveled to the Americanish side in the ongoing Euro-schism, was in full ostrich mode. “Facebook is not a conscience,” he had said. “It’s very hard to change the behavior of someone.” Then he brought up broccoli. It would be great if people wanted to buy pieces of broccoli at fast-food restaurants. But they don’t. So we have McDonald’s. The world is what it is. They were powerless to change it.

    This gave Two-Tone Euro the opening he needed. People do want broccoli nowadays! And if such change was coming to food, why not to other things?

    “Before McDonald’s, there used to be organic farmers,” Two-Tone said. “Then everyone wanted to step away from the old to McDonald’s, and now they’re going back. So in a similar fashion, people were like ‘O.K., let’s go for New York Times,’ now they’re going Buzzfeed, but they’re gonna come back.”

    Manoush, that champion of efficiency, had been following the back-and-forth and now tried to turn the conversation in a new direction.

    “There’s a problem here that we’re not tackling, which is: how do you identify an atom of content, right?” he said. “So right now we’re dealing with articles’ being one atom of content. So I wonder if you can break that up further and further, and maybe you can figure out how much of that content to give to each person.”

    (One might note, as an aside, that even this style of diction aided the Curve view. Manoush, like many in the Valley, began a great many of his sentences with a declamatory “so” and ended a significant fraction with a faux-interrogative “right?” To speak this way was to leave no space for doubt, for choices that might resist forces, for the thwarting of inevitability. This way of speaking reinforced a view of the world’s problems as purely technical — the view that there was, in every situation, a right answer. “So…right?” was the opposite of “From where I sit,” or “but maybe that’s just me.” It rejected the idea that people have different interests and needs and ideals. It rejected the very premise of politics. It dismissed the notion that there are competing values in tension in any situation, and that those values must be weighed and negotiated. It saw a world in which there was always a right answer, and technologists like Manoush had special access to those answers, and the rest of us should speak now or forever be quiet. So when I spoke, it made sense to cajole your agreement, right?)

    ***

    So Manoush had been talking about how to identify an atom of content, right?

    A neck stiffened just to Manoush’s right. Mahesh, an Indian techie n a white T-shirt, seemed perplexed by this idea of breaking up news into bits and algorithmically distributing the packages. “I don’t know,” he said, seeming a little lost. “It’s like, what is the goal here? What are you trying to optimize on?”

    Now this was a great question — perhaps even the question with which the session should have begun. What problem were they actually trying to solve?

    But here was the problem with starting with problems. To start with the solution was easy: you looked at the tools you had invented and the Curves that were in progress and you imagined where the future would lead: If Uber wants to replace all the drivers by robots, do we want to replace all the writers by A.I.? To start with a problem was trickier, because not everyone agreed on what was problematic. Starting with a problem, your focus had to be on the society’s needs, not on your tools. Solving that kind of problem tended to involve democracy — collective action, contending values, the making of choices.

    What was most striking about the meeting was what hadn’t been discussed.

    No one had spoken of democracy and of the place of a press within it.

    No one had dwelled on what happens to art in an era of free everything.

    No one had reflected on the extraordinary market power of Amazon and the effect of that power on books and ideas.

    No one had asked whether the society could protect itself against the Facebook News Feed’s tinkerers slipping their own biases into the algorithm.

    No one asked these things, for to ask these things was to admit one’s own power and reveal to others their power, and to suggest that you and those others could decide what kind of future it would be, the forces and the Curves be damned.

    Here these bearers of great power over the future seemed in denial of that power. The world would be what it would be.

    Before the meeting ended, Two-Tone Euro got up, picked up what appeared to be a homemade hoverboard from the corner — a skateboard-sized platform with a cantaloupe-sized ball in its middle — and rolled away. Others mingled over the remaining pizza and drinks. Just outside, a man retrieving his bicycle from the rack was savoring what he had just imbibed upstairs. That room, he said, wonder filling his eyes, had collided some of the smartest minds in all of Stanford.

    Share


    Some names and identifying details have been changed. All dialogue is quoted verbatim.


    Readers like you make The Ink possible. Sign up to join our mailing list, and support my work and independent media generally by becoming a paying subscriber today.


    Photos: Eric Sander/Getty; Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty; Kimberly White/Getty

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.

  • Eleven days into the new Trump presidency, here is something we’ve been noticing. After four years on, and four years off, and the dawn of another four years, every new episode is a test of whether we and our institutions have learned anything — or not.

    This week, it became clear how much we have not.

    It was all so familiar — the action, and the reaction, and the reaction to the reaction. And all so inadequate to the task we face.

    The.Ink is brought to you by readers like you. Support independent media by becoming a paid subscriber today.

    It began, in this case, with a tragic plane crash. As is almost always the case in such episodes, there is little specific knowledge at the outset about the incident’s cause.

    Traditionally, that has meant that public officials of decency wait to…learn stuff. It’s a tried-and-true method — 10/10 recommend.

    But we’ve all been through enough rounds of this to know that President Trump and his acolytes will not abide by that principle.

    Share

    And so, right on cue, he filled the giant gaping void left by the reality-based community’s factualness, respectfulness, and decorum by ascribing the crash to…DEI.

    That’s right, ladies and gentlemen: The plane crash, according to the president, was caused by efforts to recruit talent from a wider range of backgrounds and to train people not to make others feel degraded at work and therefore underperform.

    Cool theory, bro. It is as if America is being governed by a manosphere podcast.

    So, already, we had the familiar cadences: the incident, the void of information and meaning, the Trumpian filling of that void, and then the Democratic Party’s and the media’s frenzy of reaction, repetition through critique, and unwitting amplification.

    Subscribe now

    Before long, and less out of ill intent than out of incompetence, even well-meaning and thoughtful reality-based people were essentially having his conversation about whether the miscegenation of the races is causing airplanes to drop out of the sky.

    The problem is not that Democratic Party leaders and media voices who were now responding to Trump’s hogwash were wrong. It was that that had been dragged into a conversation that was insane to be having.

    In the above, Person A and Person B disagree on the effects of diversity, but they have both somehow consented to having a conversation about the causal connections between race mixing and airplane crashes, which is sort of like consenting to enter into a conversation about whether Justin Bieber caused the sinking of the Titanic.

    The remedy is not to avoid reacting to Trump. He is, like, the president. The remedy, rather, is to live in more than mere reaction to him. It is to go on narrative offense.

    Public-relations professionals will tell you that to own a news cycle, you need to get in front of the story. Successful political leaders know that to own public sentiment, you need to help people make meaning out of the things that shape their lives, whether everyday challenges or national crises. “To lead effectively,” Heather McGhee has told us here, “you have to really be in people’s lives in a way that helps them make meaning out of everyday life.”

    Meaning doesn’t make itself, as you’ve heard us say many times. People need help connecting the dots of experience into a story. Such stories aren’t self-organizing.

    Leave a comment

    What an actual opposition might have considered doing in the aftermath of the crash, even before any details were known, was simply underscoring why government matters at a time when Trump and his cronies are setting out to eviscerate it.

    We don’t know what caused the crash. But the crash should be cause for reflection about the project of disemboweling the state.

    The crash should cause us to remember that government matters. That staffing at agencies matters. That public goods matter. That competent leadership at the Pentagon matters, instead of hegsethian vapidity. That it’s dangerous to email millions of government workers, trying to trick them into quitting their jobs.

    In short, there is much one can say in a moment like that while still being factual, still being classy, still being decorous. But refusing to be in the void-excavation business.

    Subscribe now

    If we’re going to get through another four years of this — and what choice is there? — we need to get better at this. That starts by acknowledging — Democrats acknowledging and media folks acknowledging — that they are not very good at this.

    But they can get better!

    The first rule is not to leave the void. Don’t wait for meaning to make itself. It won’t.

    The second rule: find ways of reacting that don’t end up being unconscious hyping.

    When Trump attributes plane crashes to DEI, you don’t have to consent to having a conversation about DEI and plane crashes. You don’t have to do the newspaper thing of calling the statement controversial or reporting it and citing a “lack of evidence.”

    Democratic leaders and media observers know enough to rise one meta layer up and describe the move being made, the job being done. Things have a history. DEI is a euphemism. Explain the move. At a minimum, call things what they are, as The Washington Post’s Karen Attiah reminds us.

    The real scandal here is not Trump talking about DEI. It’s the leaving of the void. The obliviousness to getting sucked into conversations. And the hyping of the madness.

    We will say it again. Meaning doesn’t make itself. If others are not making it, he will.


    The.Ink is brought to you by readers like you. Step up today as a paid subscriber to support independent media.


    Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    This post was originally published on The.Ink.