The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Uncategorized Page 1 of 116

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 19, 2026

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 19, 2026

by Tony Wikrent

 

War on voting

Letters from an American, July 11, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson, Jul y12, 2026

Meanwhile, on Friday a Pentagon official told Rebecca Turco of WJLA 7News in Washington, D.C., that National Guard troops will stay activated in Washington through Inauguration Day 2029 “until law and order are fully restored in our Nation’s Capital.”

“So,” Bill Kristol of The Bulwark commented. “[M]ilitary troops under the direct control of Trump and Hegseth will be on the streets of our nation’s capital for the rest of Trump’s term. The rationale—they’re here to help with a crime emergency—is laughable. But of course the real reason is ominous.”

 

Miller Labels Leftists a “Cancer” That World Must “Root Out” in Fascistic Speech

[Truthout, via Naked Capitalism 07-17-2026]

Representatives from 67 countries gathered in the U.S. on Thursday for a meeting called Rubio on the supposed “Resurgence of Political Terrorism.” In addition to Rubio and Miller, several U.S. officials spoke, including figures like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

The remarks from top officials quickly made clear that the meeting’s purpose was to put forth a global offensive against people with left-wing beliefs….

 

Letters from an American, July 17, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson, Jul 18, 2026

Yesterday President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller all threw the weight of the U.S. government behind a far-right conspiracy theory that says Trump and his loyalists are defending the United States of America against a communist takeover.

As Gil Duran of The Nerd Reich recalled today, two years ago, far-right influencer Jack Posobiec and co-author Joshua Lisec wrote a bestselling book called Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them). Trump ally and media guru Stephen Bannon wrote the introduction. Donald Trump Jr. blurbed the book, saying that it provided a playbook to deploy “immediately to save the West.” Then–Ohio senator J.D. Vance also blurbed the book, saying: “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Posobiec is a loyalist who worked to keep Trump in office after voters elected Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. He is known for courting controversy by promoting what Maya Oppenheim of the The Independent in 2018 called “wholly erroneous and debunked conspiracy theories,” including the infamous 2016 “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory that Democrats were operating a child sex ring in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant.

In Unhumans, Posobiec and Lisec argue that the United States is under siege by “the left,” which in their view means anyone from communists to “progressives.” “For the purposes of this book, we will call them the unhumans,” the authors write, because they “oppose everything that makes up humanity. As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman.”

 

Miller’s Ministerial: The Most Dangerous Speech Wasn’t Trump

Jim Stewartson, July 17, 2026 [MindWar]

While everyone focused on elections, Stephen Miller was putting the architecture in place to ensure they never matter….

… a few hours before Trump’s dud of a speech, Stephen Miller gave a “ministerial” to an international audience at the State Department that was nothing short of Third Reich plagiarism. If this had just been a rally speech, it would be extremely disturbing, but it went along with a simultaneously released document entitled “Trump Administration Unleashes Global Campaign to Crush Radical Left Terrorism.”

Put together, Miller’s speech and official policy document enshrine an overtly fascist, transnational program to persecute nearly anyone the regime wants in the name of “leftist terrorism.”

Here is a key section of Miller’s speech which is textbook dehumanization—the precise language Joseph Goebbels used to target Jews, communists, and Bolsheviks.

Miller draws a picture of the in-group as “morally superior,” ordered,” “beautiful,” and “normal.” The out-group on the other hand, identified as “leftists,” is “abnormal,” “scarred,” and “deformed.”….

 

Trump not violating any law

‘He who saves his Country does not violate any Law’

Trump Stuns By Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ When Asked Directly NBC’s Kristen Welker ‘Don’t You Need to Uphold the Constitution?’

Joe DePaolo, May 4th, 2025

 

Dr. John Gartner: Trump is “the most pure incarnation of evil that I have ever encountered” (video)

Dean Obeidallah, July  18, 2026

… Dr. Gartner explained that he meant that very much from a clinical point of view, explaining that Dr. Erich Fromm had studied Hitler and coined the term “the essence of evil.” Fromm explained that “evil” from this perspective is not a supernatural force but a severe psychological pathology.

And when you see what Fromm said next you will see Donald Trump. Fromm explained this essence of evil was marked by a dangerous combination of extreme self-absorption, sadism, destructiveness, and a lack of empathy or conscience. It was also Fromm who created the term “malignant narcissism”—which many apply to Trump today.

But it’s the “evil” part of this that really stuck with me. As Dr. Gartner noted, Trump is a sadist who “gets pleasure from chaos, and destruction, and fear, and damage, and death.” He continued on, stating, “Every indication is that when Trump first started bombing Iran, he was gleeful and talking about, you want to see the fun and showing people the videos of the blowing up targets and talking about it like he was having fun.” ….

 

After Killings, Homan Says There Will Be ‘More Bloodshed’ Unless Dems ‘Shut Their Mouth’ About ICE

Stephen Prager, July 16, 2026 [CommonDreams]

… Instead of trigger-happy agents, he said that anti-ICE “rhetoric” from Democrats was to blame for the recent killings.

“It all goes back to the Dems who want to continually attack ICE and tell people to evade them and tell people don’t comply, tell people to resist, and tell people ICE isn’t a real law enforcement agency,” Homan said.

“You and I talked about this a year-and-a-half ago, Laura,” he continued. “I said, if the hateful rhetoric didn’t stop, there would be bloodshed.”

“I’m saying it right now,” Homan said. “There’s still going to be more bloodshed unless they shut their mouth and let ICE enforce the laws that they enacted.”

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 12, 2026

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 12, 2026

by Tony Wikrent

 

War on voting

Eighteen States Have Complied With the GOP’s Election Theft Infrastructure. How Many Is Enough to Kill a Democracy?

Christopher Armitage, July 05, 2026 [The Existentialist Republic]

… The court wins protect mostly the governments that sued. The June 25 injunction covers the 23 suing states and DC, and the administration told the courts this week that it is moving ahead with the system in the remaining states. Postmaster General David Steiner told the Senate on June 24 that under the proposed rule the Postal Service would refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that do not send their voter lists to the federal government. A voter in Houston or Columbus gets nothing from the injunction, because that voter’s state government joined the federal programs instead of fighting them. One ruling reaches further: in a separate case brought by the NAACP, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan found the plan to deliver ballots only to preapproved voters broke a 2021 agreement with the Postal Service, and his ruling applies nationwide. That ruling protects ballot delivery. It does not touch the data collection, the purge agreements, or the state purge laws. So the court protection concentrates in states whose governments already refused to cooperate. In the cooperating states that hold the races deciding control of Congress, only the ballot delivery ruling applies.

The 60 million registration checks flagged about 24,000 possible noncitizens, and officials also flagged several hundred thousand registrations of people who may have died. Those totals only show how many people the government has flagged so far. It can flag as many as it chooses, and no one has to prove a flagged voter is ineligible before the registration is canceled; the voter has to prove they are eligible. That arrangement is a devastatingly powerful voter disenfranchisement tool.

In Texas, flagged voters got a letter, and if the county heard nothing within 30 days, the registration was canceled; some who did answer turned out to be citizens. A new Ohio law makes local election boards promptly cancel the registrations of people the secretary of state flags as noncitizens in checks he must run at least monthly. That secretary, Frank LaRose, defends the law on the ground that flagged voters can “immediately restore their registration status” by showing proof of citizenship.

The system also discourages people from registering at all, separate from the cancellations. A federal official confirmed that people flagged by SAVE are referred to DHS for possible criminal investigation, and the judge who reviewed the system wrote that a centralized federal database like this would discourage registration because citizens could fear misuse of their personal information. In races decided by hundreds or a few thousand votes, losing voters from only one side, and mostly from one party, can change the result even when the national numbers stay small….

The Oligarchy Moves on Platner’s Voters, Donors and Consultants

Cross posted at Nat Wilson Turner

“…the timing of the politically fatal accusation against Graham Platner stinks. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the successful campaign to force Platner to give up his Senate bid was not about his character but his politics.” Yves Smith

After Graham Platner was forced from the Maine US Senate race — not because of the allegations printed in Politico, but rather because the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and Maine Democratic Party announced they were withdrawing their financial and technical support from the campaign — centrists have launched a campaign to purge the party of Platner’s voters, donors and key consultants.

Before we start…

I’ve already covered the machinery that forced Platner out of the race so this post will look at forces that are contending to capitalize on his campaign’s failure to punish political enemies or just boost their own clout.

I also covered the role of parasocial relationships, aka “stan culture,” in this situation in the previous piece. In short, I’m against cults of personality whether they’re built around putative progressives, fake-ass centrists, or reactionary fascists.

With that out of the way, let’s get into the current round of the Democratic Establishment vs. Progressive Populists. Go team!

If He’s So Innocent Why Is He Dropping Out?

From Platner’s video statement announcing the end of his campaign:

The brutal political reality is that they are going to take everything away from us. Those in power who have the ability to do so are using these allegations as an excuse to take away all of the things that we need to run a campaign.

We are going to lose our ability to fundraise. We are going to lose our ability to access voter data. We are going to lose all of the things that any campaign needs on the basic level simply to function.

Larger organizations. The national level party. The bigger donor networks. They have all committed to spending no money in this race if I’m in it.

They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine.

In short, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), headed up by New York’s dynamic duo of genocide enthusiast Chuck Schumer and the astoundingly corrupt Kirsten Gillibrand (who also played a leading role in the defenestration of Al Franken), announced it “will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot.”

Given that both Schumer and Gillibrand were Cuomo dead-enders in last year’s New York City Mayoral election — despite Cuomo having resigned from the Governor’s office after facing “credible accusations” from over a dozen women that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice confirmed — neither of them is a credible advocate against sexual violence and exploitation.

And as Ian Welsh pointed out a very long month ago in his prescient piece “Establishment Attacks On Platner Are Classic Woke Attacks On The Populist Left”, it was pretty gross that Cuomo was forced out of office for being a sex pest but no one seemed to care about the 12,000+ of New Yorkers who died directly as a result of his corrupt COVID policy decisions.

But let’s get to the fight for power.

Reminder: The GOP Incumbent Is A Disney Villain

Forbes: More Than 100 Billionaires Have Backed This Moderate Maine Republican Democrats see the Maine U.S. Senate race as a place where they could flip the seat but as their nominee faces pressure to withdraw, these billionaires see something else: a Republican moderate worth keeping in D.C..

This woman has done and will harm more women from Maine to Palestine than Platner could do in 100 years

From the archived piece:

Collins is not showing up to the fight empty-pocketed. According to federal campaign filings for the 2025-2026 election cycle, updated through June 7, at least 111 billionaires and their spouses from across the country gave just shy of $10 million to help her keep the seat.

These donations include direct campaign contributions–which are capped at $7,000 per cycle–as well as contributions to other PACs supporting her bid. Among these, Pine Tree Results, the main pro-Collins super PAC, has raised over $16 million and has already spent nearly $4 million opposing Platner.

But the Democratic establishment has other priorities than winning a Senate majority. There’s a populist uprising to nip in the bud!

Open Secrets points out what a deep deep hole the loss of Platner puts any Democrat challenging Collins in:

Platner’s withdrawal … exposed a deeper problem – a financial crater left behind in a pivotal race Democrats view as central to their hopes of regaining control of the chamber.

Before his populist campaign unraveled, the 41-year-old combat veteran and oysterman raised $16.3 million through May 20 and held nearly $2.2 million in cash on hand, according to filings his campaign submitted to the Federal Election Commission before the June 9 primary. While that cash total falls well short of the $10 million banked by Republican incumbent Susan Collins – who in 2020 kept her seat even though Democratic challenger Sarah Gideon outraised her by more than $45 million – it nevertheless dwarfs every potential Platner successor.

Send the Hordes Home In Their Hundred Thousands, 600 Insiders Will Choose

So here’s how the Maine Democratic Party intends to decide who the party’s official nominee for US Senate will be — this after overruling the wishes of a record 156,000 who voted for Platner in the June 9 primary — per the WaPo:

Since Platner suspended his campaign, a half-dozen Maine Democrats have announced they would run to replace him. On Thursday, the Maine Democratic Party said those candidates would need to submit a declaration of intent to run at a nominating convention, including a 300-word statement outlining their campaign vision and at least 500 signatures from registered Democratic voters in Maine.

Hours after Platner’s withdrawal, the Maine party announced it would hold a nominating convention July 25 with 601 voting delegates — 101 who are members of the Democratic State Committee and 500 who will be appointed at nominating meetings in each of the state’s 16 counties. The voting will be conducted in rounds, with the five highest vote-getters advancing to the second round and the candidate with the fewest votes eliminated in subsequent rounds until one remains. Only registered Democrats will be allowed to participate, the party said, citing Maine law.

“We are proud that this is one of the most open and inclusive processes that any state party has ever undertaken to replace a Senate nominee,” said Charlie Dingman, chair of the Maine Democratic Party.

Yea right.

There are many ways to organize far more representative caucuses which could engage far more than 0.002% of the 216,000 Mainers who voted in the June 9 primary — over 156,000 for Platner.

Call me crazy, but I really think an actually-democratic Democratic Party would have some kind of mechanism to remove a nominee through a vote of the electorate, but trial by social media followed by judgment by arbitrary elites is the system we’ve got instead, I guess.

Do the Mainers Even Buy This?

Morning Joe claims that Maine voters are not happy:

Joe Scarborough: I will say this, and this is just a word of warning to Democrats in Washington, D.C. Graham Platner was losing support with independents, no doubt about it. But I will tell you, me and [Mika?] have heard nothing — let me underline that, nothing but support from Maine Democrats on the ground for Platner.

Platner campaign signs are still up. They think that this is Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and the Washington establishment coming to get him.

They all have the same story. They started hearing 10 days ago that people were coming up to Maine and they were desperate to try to get Platner off the ballot because they thought Susan Collins had too much on him and would destroy him.

I will tell you, without revealing any names, that we have been bombarded by phone calls and text messages from people who want Graham Platner off the ballot, who are high up in Maine politics. And we’ve been getting that for the last two weeks.

So why do I say this? Because there’s a conspiracy? No, not at all.

Go back to what I said at the beginning — a warning to Washington Democrats. You do need to listen to Graham Platner, because whether it’s true or not just as Caddy said about her son who has been working on this campaign, rank-and-file Democrats who have been supporting Platner from the very beginning think that this was cooked up in Washington, D.C. with a lot of money behind it to find anything that could be found to get Graham Platner off the ballot.

And I will say, we know nothing about that. We just — [Mika] and I have been scratching our heads for the last couple of weeks going, why are we getting all these calls about Graham Platner needing to be off the ballot?

It’s almost like the last thing the Democratic establishment wants to do is engage an unruly, unusual coalition of real people.

At least that’s my inference based on this representative tirade from Dem “strategist” Karen Finney on CNN’s The Source:

Karen Finney: I think the the Democratic primary voters owe the rest of the Mainers an apology. Democrat primary voters knew Graham Platner was awful the whole time. They knew that he said society should be disrupted if you didn’t agree with him. They knew that women had credibly accused him of physical abuse. They knew that, in fact, Graham Platner said that he had a very flexible moral compass. The badness is why Democrat primary voters picked him, and they’re the ones that foisted this problem on us. Don’t just blame Graham Platner. Blame, blame Maine Democrats.

It’s hard to imagine why her MSNBC show Disrupt With Karen Finney was cancelled after less than a year.

With the Dem establishment having dismissed the vast majority of Maine voters, the right-wing decided to go full witch hunt.

Going After the Donors?

The right-wing Leadership Institute’s website Campus Reform immediately tried to relive the good old days of the Fall 2023 witch hunt on pro-Palestinian activists.

Campus Reform asks "Did your University empoloyees contribute to Graham Platner?"

Progressives should remember that they’re always in the gunsights of the right and that the centrist Democrats do NOT have their back.

Regardless, this attack is weaker than pressing criminal charges on people who mocked the martyred Charlie Kirk.

Let’s look at another story that isn’t as scary as it seemed from a glance at the headlines.

Next, Let’s Kill All the Consultants

(I’m alluding to Shakespeare, not claiming anyone is advocating actual violence)

As annoying as that kind of contempt for the will of the voters is and as scary as GOP witch hunts are, the forces of reaction weren’t done yet, or maybe this one was just Left factionalism, the ol’ circular firing squad.

Turns out some members of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) — the organization behind much of Zohran Mamdani and company’s success in New York City — have signed a letter calling for Platner and Mamdani consultant to no longer be hired by DSA affiliated candidates.

Here’s from The Intercept:

“We, the undersigned, call on DSA candidates and elected officials to no longer contract or work with Morris Katz or Fight Agency, his political consulting firm,” the letter reads.

Katz is not a member of DSA.

The letter also noted consultants at the agency like Rebecca Katz, who is not related to Morris, were also behind the campaign of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and said they continued to advise him even after he made a hard-right turn after entering the Senate.

Two sources with knowledge of the letter confirmed its authenticity.

“Morris Katz is one of the chief parties responsible for the catastrophic campaign of scandal-ridden Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner,” the letter says. “Billed as a top adviser to the campaign, Katz helped recruit Platner and supercharged his candidacy with slick video production, friendly media placements, and political connections.”

The only reason people are attacking Morris Katz is that he’s incredibly effective.

An as Ryan Grim pointed out, this is a trumped-up nothing burger: “This is not a DSA letter. There may be some DSA members writing one, but there are 120,000 DSA members doing lots of different things.”

But let’s follow that pivot at the end of the letter to Michigan.

The Attempted Pivot to Michigan

Former George W. Bush speechwriter, David “Axis of Evil” Frum chimed in with a strong pro-genocide statement:

Naturally, as a “Never Trumper”, the Dem establishment loves Frum — despite, or maybe because they have literally zero electoral appeal — and he feels free to pontificate as if he had the moral high ground.

Establishment apparatchick Neera Tanden agrees:

I’ll let David Sirota have the last word on this exchange:

156,000 Mainers Can’t Be Wrong, and Now They’re Pissed Off

Nathan Barnard has a story with a bit more substance for DropSite News:

The 15,000 member volunteer network behind Graham Platner is now using its considerable leverage to push whoever replaces him as the Democratic Senate nominee to be aligned with the same policy platform that drove the largest primary turnout in Maine state history.

Drop Site has obtained a draft letter addressed “to the Maine Democratic Party and prospective candidates” notifying them of their policy demands.

“The volunteer infrastructure that this movement built – the organizers, door-knockers, the small-dollar donors, the hosts, the people who make phone calls and staff tables between now and November – does not transfer automatically to whoever the Party selects,” the letter states. “That infrastructure exists because people believe in a specific platform. It will only continue to exist and only continue to be deployed for a nominee who publicly and explicitly adopts these core commitments as their own.”


The tension between organizers and Maine Democratic party officials has grown as they determine a process to replace Platner. A former Platner staffer told Drop Site “all field and data” staff were moved onto MDP payroll before the rape allegations broke for “accounting purposes,” creating an awkward situation for the Platner organizers—who, like the volunteers, are unhappy with the MDP’s manuevers.

On July 8, Platner campaign organizing director Spencer Toth resigned from the MDP over its lack of engagement with volunteers and organizers in determining the replacement process. Drop Site obtained his resignation letter.

“Together, organizers and volunteers built something much bigger than one candidate. They built the largest grassroots operation in Maine’s history, a people powered movement rooted in working class politics and the belief that ordinary Mainers deserve a real voice in the future of the Democratic party,” Toth’s resignation letter says. “But yesterday, the Maine Democratic Party said the people who built this movement will “have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for US Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like.”

“That work matters. It cannot be treated as disposable. The people who knocked thousands of doors, organized their communities, and built local teams across the state deserve transparency, respect, and a meaningful voice in what comes next.”

Toth concludes there is “no path forward to defeating Susan Collins without honoring and engaging the grassroots movement” the Platner campaign built across Maine. The future of the race should not be decided without the people who made the movement possible, Toth says.

“You deserve to have your voice heard and it is incumbent on each of you now to hold the Democratic Party accountable.”

Volunteers for Platner have broadly supported the nomination of Troy Jackson in place of Platner. On Friday morning, the Maine AFL-CIO also endorsed Jackson.

“We can pass Medicare for all, we can take on corporate power and the politicians in their pocket,” Jackson said in his Senate announcement video. “I’ve won in deep red Trump country and progressive cities like Portland and Bangor.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My instinct is that the decision to destroy Platner’s campaign based solely on allegations with no due process has likely cost the Democrats the chance to defeat Susan Collins, but where there’s life there’s hope.

What Was This Really All About?

And I’ll end with Thomas Neuberger’s point about what the Democratic establishment really wants: to prevent change:

Someone wanted him gone, and they found a way. Someone who? And why? What will the outcome be?

Let’s take these one at a time. Someone who?

The perp, I think, is the Democratic establishment — the party in Maine, the Senate bigs in DC, the vast machine that composes the DNC, its well-paid consultant class and wide-ranging servicing groups like print and televised media. The pile-on, when the accusations were more smoke than fire, began early, were clearly political, and deployed in defense of Janet Mills, the establishment’s preferred choice. Platner’s anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC stance didn’t help with that group, and is likely a cause on its own of his strong opposition.

And chief among all the perps is Sen. Chuck Schumer, who clearly places seating compliant Democratics above beating Republicans.

That answers the why. Control of the party comes before winning elections. And support for Israeli genocide is clearly a must, certainly for Schumer and other top Dems of his type. In case he hadn’t heard, total Israel-related contributions to Schumer total $1,727,974. That money buys something, happily given or not.

What’s Next?

The battle is shaping up now. As I write, I’m watching Rebecca Traister on MSNOW say Platner was always disliked by establishment Maine and national Democrats, largely because he brought people real hope for change. Yes, that’s what she said: real hope for real change. In my view, only the genuinely anti-establishment can do that.

Watch how the Party decides, and whom they nominate. Will Maine get a Harris-like coronation? A loyalist, solid pretender, or someone more real?

Then watch how Maine voters respond, especially those inspired by Platner’s rebellious stance. You’ll learn a lot.

The fight to return the Democratic Party to its historic role as a representative for the working classes will be long and brutal, and it may be too little too late in the context of the fascist Trump regime, but it’s a long way from over.

Related Posts:

Support my work at NatWilsonTurner.com

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 05, 2026

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 05, 2026

by Tony Wikrent

 

UNhappy birthday, America

Reconsidering the Constitution’s Preamble: The Words that Made Us U.S. — University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper Series Paper No. 1718

David S. Schwartz, September 25, 2021 [37 Constitutional Commentary 2022]

[TW: I now refer to the GOP and its members as (anti)Republicans and the (anti)Republican Party, because they believe in a philosophy of governance that is repugnant to the original principles of civic republicanism on which USA was founded. The two major principles of civic republicanism are promoting the general welfare, and justice, as explained by Senator Charles Sumner in a speech on February 5 and 6, 1866, The Equal Rights of All: The Great Guaranty and Present Necessity, for the Sake of Security, and to Maintain a Republican Government; Speech in the Senate, on the proposed Amendment of the Constitution Fixing the Basis of Representation. (Here are excerpts.)

[(Anti)Republicans have openly and explicitly rejected the founding principle of promoting the general welfare. This rejection is centralt to their attacks on the “welfare state.”  See Randall G. Holcombe’s 1992 article arguing that the major improvement of the Confederate Civil War constitution was the elimination of the General Welfare mandate. Holcombe served on Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors in Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign. Also see Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s May, 2011 misinterpretation of James Madison, enumerated powers, and the General Welfare mandate.

[Recovering the meaning of the General Welfare Clause  necessarily includes a rebuttal of conservative / neoconfederate / (anti)Federalist attempt rewrite the Constitution with their pet theories of constitutional originalism and enumerated powers.

[Until they were shocked by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, liberals and leaders of the Democratic Party have been blind to this reactionary project. Democrats and “the left” have committed a grievous error of omission by ignoring the historical record of the fight within USA between republicanism and oligarchy, and rejecting out of hand USA Constitutional law and political history as mere instruments of an oppressive and exploitative capitalist system tainted irremediably by slavery, racism and bigotry. This omission has crippled the ability of “the left” – not to mention the leadership of the Democratic Party – to comprehensively understand how thorough, insidious, and deadly the reactionary project is. They mistakenly believed liberalism was a derivative of civic republicanism instead of seeing how much of liberalism — with its emphasis on “private property” and “individual liberty” — was shaped as an oligarchical response to civic republicanism and the rise of the American republic. Thus they were disastrously outflanked by the Rehnquist / Scalia / Thomas assault on the law and persistent undermining of the principles of civic republicanism.

[Nevertheless, some constitutional scholars and historians — such as those listed in the excerpts below — were quite aware of the reactionary assault on the USA justice system, and working to correct a historical record that had been hijacked by the conservative / neoconfederate / (anti)Federalist project. The liberal / Democratic / “left” response to “the right” is bound to fail until it incorporates the work of these constitutional scholars and historians.

[Conservatives and originalists dismiss the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a “stylistic flourish with no operative legal significance,” but “the drafting history of the Preamble, observable by comparing the preambles in the Articles of Confederation, the Committee of Detail draft of the Constitution, and the Committee of Style’s final version, demonstrate that the Framers considered the Preamble to be substantively meaningful.” There is room to debate the exact meaning of the Preamble — “it might be viewed as a rejection of compact theory, as an interpretive guide to the powers granted in the body of the Constitution, or as a source of implied powers.” But concluding that the Preamble is “a legally inoperative flourish has no basis as a matter of text or history.”

[In his 1833 three-volume Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States — long considered the most through and faithful exposition of Constitutional interpretation — Justice Joseph Story wrote that while the Preamble does not confer any “substantive power” on the national government, it does “expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the
constitution,” and should be used as a guide to interpreting the Constitution when “the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal.” Further, interpretation should be “governed by the intent of the power;” that is, Constitutional interpretation of federal powers should “promote” and not restrict — Story uses the word “defeat”” — that power. Schwartz writes,

“For Story, then, the preamble is an argument against strict construction of federal powers: a statement that the Constitution’s grants of powers are to be liberally construed, to promote such things as “the general welfare.”

[This is, of course, the exact opposite of the doctrines of conservatives and originalists such as William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas,  and Samuel Alito, not to mention the entire (anti)Federalist Society.  Schwartz makes the important point that

The argument that the preamble meant nothing more than a stylistic flourish … was highly congenial to compact theorists, nullifiers, and secessionists.

[We have seen this throughout American history: the “domestic enemies” of the Constitution have tried repeatedly to have the Constitution reinterpreted in ways that limit and even abrogate the powers of the national government. Today, the “domestic enemies” of the Constitution want to dismantle “the administrative state” and allow “free enterprise” and “private property” free reign to foul our environment, alter our climate, exploit our labor, limit our economic prospects, mute our political participation, and surveil our lives.

[Schwartz ends by noting that at the time of ratification, the Anti-Federalists fully understood that the grand objectives proclaimed in the Preamble meant that the federal government was not at all strictly limited in its powers, but pointed to an expansive realm of implied powers, as Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton would argue in his February 1791 report to President Washington on the constitutionality of establishing a national bank.

[Schwartz writes,

The Framers felt they had to clarify that the new government was a truly national government, and moreover, one based on republican principles—that is, authorized by the sovereign people, not by a grand interstate compact.

Significantly, nothing in the Preamble makes “limited enumerated powers” an object, or—pace Madison—an essential characteristic of the national government. The preamble does not list “federalism,” or “state sovereignty” or “balancing national powers with the rights of the states” among its great objects. [p. 10] ….

Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates and early republic both understood the Preamble “as reinforcing a theory of sovereignty and national union that expanded the scope of national power, beyond either those powers that were enumerated or those powers that might be aggregated from that enumeration.”  This nationalist reading, channeling the constitutional vision most acutely expressed by James Wilson, was thus a prominent reading—although so read with horror by Anti-Federalists—as Federalists in the early post-ratification years argued that the Preamble was indeed a legitimate source of implied powers. [pp. 11-12]

[There is plenty of history that clearly demonstrates the wild inaccuracy of “originalist” interpretation: Hamilton’s reports, Justice James Wilson’s law lectures in the first years of the republic [and it was actually Wilson who wrote most of the Constitution; Madison is better known because he took notes on the proceedings and later became President], Justice Story’s Commentaries, and more. Never forget that yhe Southern slaveholders insisted the slave states were the true republics in their time. Failure to understand what a republic really is at that time, and repudiate the slaveholders accordingly, led to civil war. ]

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. If you’re in America, I hope you enjoyed the holiday.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – June 28, 2026

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – June 28, 2026

by Tony Wikrent

 

Trump administration begins mass layoffs at ODNI

Drop Site Daily, June 23, 2026

The Trump administration has begun mass layoffs at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with hundreds of employees expected to lose their jobs, CNN reported Monday.

Acting ODNI Director Bill Pulte, whom President Donald Trump tasked with downsizing the agency, is overseeing cuts expected to hit the National Counterterrorism Center and National Counterintelligence and Security Center, with as many as 400 employees at the counterterrorism center reportedly targeted.

 

War on voting

The Real Reason Trump Never Stops Talking About Voter Fraud

Jamelle Bouie, June 17, 2026 [New York Times]

… To say, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that there was systematic voter fraud is to lie. And Trump, again, was lying. But he was also making a specific political claim. If there were no shenanigans but there was still “fraud” because the election was “rigged,” then it’s clear that the meaning of fraud has less to do with any particular set of rules and procedures than it does with the more elemental aspects of American political life. And it doesn’t take much work to decipher the president’s conception of “fraud.”

There was a reason, to put it differently, that Trump centered his crusade on ferreting out “illegal votes”; there was a reason he focused on cities with large Black populations like Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia; and there was a reason that when his supporters fought their way into the Capitol, they unfurled Confederate flags to mark their achievement.
The president’s convoluted and false claims about “fraud” were little more than a smoke screen for a more basic claim about who belongs to the community — about who counts as a voter and who counts as a citizen. To say that Democratic victories in Pennsylvania or Georgia were the product of fraud in Philadelphia or Atlanta was to say, in short, that the wrong people were voting. And in the same way that Trump’s “birtherism” wasn’t really about whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, his crusade to “stop the steal” wasn’t about the nation’s election procedures. It was a declaration that the only real voters were his own….
“Voter fraud” is not about fraud. It is about who votes and how. It is about the breadth and scope of the political community. It is, as with most MAGA obsessions, about who can call themselves Americans — entitled to govern as equals — and who are mere subjects. Trump’s obsession with voter fraud is just another expression of the reactionary populist belief that the people who inhabit a place are not equivalent to the people, who are entitled to rule.
We should treat this contretemps in Los Angeles, as silly as it is, as a dress rehearsal for what will probably happen in November, if and when Republicans lose control of Congress. Any result short of victory for Trump and his allies will be denounced as “fraud.” Not because there is anything wrong with the system, but because, as they see it, this is their country and theirs alone.

Brad Reed, June 25, 2026 [CommonDreams]

 

Letters from an American, June 24, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson, Jun 25, 2026

… this morning at 9:49, Trump suddenly announced he will not sign the bill into law until Congress passes the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE or SAVE America Act, that he keeps pushing….

Then, at 10:26, he posted: “Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

That language is important. Since retaking office in 2025, Trump has used official emergency declarations at an unprecedented rate in order to claim emergency powers under which he can ignore laws. Although the Republicans hold a majority in both the House and the Senate, meaning Trump could work with Congress to pass legislation, he and his advisors appear to be applying the strategy of Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt.

Much of Schmitt’s philosophy centered around the idea that in a nation that is based in a constitution and the rule of law, power belongs to the man who can exploit emergencies that create exceptions to the constitutional order, enabling him to exercise power without regard to the law. Trump—who himself almost certainly has not read Schmitt—asserted this view in August of last year when he said: “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States. If I think our country’s in danger—and it is in danger in the cities—I can do it.”

Alex Kaplan of Media Matters notes that since Trump took office in 2025, his loyalists have urged him simply to declare a national emergency in order to justify dictating new voting and election rules to the states.

The U.S. Constitution gives to the states the authority to conduct elections, but the Trump administration wants state voter lists, at least in part so it can run them through a tool designed to find noncitizens who might have applied for benefits for which they’re ineligible. That system, known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements and, confusingly, also abbreviated as SAVE, is not designed for voter rolls, and as Liz Dye explained today in Public Notice, it explicitly did not cover U.S. citizens.

But, Dye explains, between last April and last August, employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Social Security Administration linked the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements to the master file from Social Security, called NUMIDENT. Then they reprogrammed SAVE to upload voter rolls for mass citizenship screening.

Certain Republican-dominated states, like Texas, handed over their voter rolls. An investigation by Jen Fifield of ProPublica and Zach Despart of ProPublica and the Texas Tribune in February showed that when used to try to identify noncitizen voters, the system had an error rate of at least 14%, misidentifying legal voters as illegal ones.

In addition to the system’s inaccuracy, the uploading of the files, Dye notes, was “a gross violation of the Privacy Act of 1974,” which prohibits the government from repurposing an individual’s data for a new use without notice and without providing for 30 days of public comment….

 

Marc Elias: The Stakes in November – The famed election lawyer sizes up where we stand

Win McCormack, June 26, 2026 [The New Republic]

 

War

Negotiating Without Leverage And With Lies – What We Are Seeing Is Astonishing For The USA

Phillips P. OBrien, June 24, 2026 [via Letters from an American, June 24, 2026]

… Personally, I have never seen the US in such a position of weakness.

Because the US has no significant leverage over Iran, the Trump administration (as it has been for months, it needs to be said) will simply have to dissemble about non-existent Iranian concessions to try and make it seem that they have not been completely routed. And that is the second part of this update. The US government has reached the stage where the default assumption must be that it is lying when it comes to Iran making any concessions. For months the Administration has been claiming that Iran was agreeing to this concession or that concession—and none of these claims has been true. Now that the US has even less leverage, the lies will probably get larger.

We are witnessing the most extraordinary negotiating moment in the history of US foreign relations, and that alone makes it worthy of note….

Page 1 of 116

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén