This is one of those stats that’s sure to be both repeated and disbelieved, courtesy of Bill Clinton’s speech at the phenomenal DNC 2024 last night: since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the cumulative tally of job creation between the two parties is not even close: 50 to 1. Out of the 51 million jobs that have been created since then, about 50 million of them can be attributed to Democrats (under Clinton, Obama, and Biden who account for 97.4% of the total), and only 1 million to Republicans.
That is a pretty stark objective review of right-wing economic ideology. Which is billed, by the way, as “job creating” policy. Trickle down economics, supply side, Reaganomics, libertarian theory, Mudsill Theory — by whatever name you call it, the policy of giving massive tax cuts to the rich while cutting spending on the middle class is supposed to magically create great prosperity for all. Instead, the numbers show the exact opposite — prosperity is not trickling down. It is in fact being hoovered up.
Since 1989, the U.S. economy has created 50 million jobs. What's the score?
I hope to write more about the overall amazing, vibrant, and joyful atmosphere of the DNC this year — delivering not just the strongest support for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possible, but bringing back the sense of hope and optimism from the Obama years in the most refreshing and much-needed way. But for now I’ll just say that the Democrats are driving home this economic message that has already been wildly successful under Joe Biden: when we invest in the middle class, the economy truly does grow for everybody.
When the middle class is strong, America is strong. It’s a lesson we learned in the post-war era of the 1950s but have drifted away from since the 1970s when corporate leaders and big business interests mounted a concerted effort to turn the tide against the New Deal value system that lifted us out of the Great Depression and the economic policy that ushered in that broad distribution of wealth in the U.S.
It feels like the fever is finally breaking. The decades of epic gaslighting fomented by the merchants of doubt may have reached the peak disinformation tolerance of the American people. Here’s hoping the real economic stories will now get told — and that Americans will go to the polls this November and cast their ballots accordingly.
In an age where history is often twisted into a pretzel to fit the political narrative du jour, Heather Cox Richardson stands out as a truth-teller. She’s not just another academic tucked away in an ivory tower; she’s a historian with her boots on the ground (often literally, as she travels the country speaking about what she sees), dissecting the American past with surgical precision and connecting it directly to the chaos we’re living through today. Heather Cox Richardson books are like tours through the deep history behind the seemingly recent developments in US politics.
Richardson isn’t content to let history gather dust in old textbooks. No, she’s dragging it kicking and screaming into the present, showing us that the battles we’re fighting now—over democracy, race, and who gets to call the shots—are just the latest skirmishes in a war that’s been raging since the country’s inception. She doesn’t just recount the past; she wields it like a spotlight, illuminating the dark corners of our current political mess.
Her “Letters from an American” newsletter has become a lifeline for many who feel lost in the swamp of today’s political discourse. With each entry, she lays out the facts, cutting through the noise and reminding us that the problems we face aren’t new—they’re the bitter fruit of seeds planted long ago. But Richardson isn’t just about doom and gloom. She’s also about hope, about understanding the past so we can navigate our way out of the storm.
Why does her work matter so much right now? Because as we teeter on the edge of what sometimes feels like the unraveling of our democracy, Richardson offers us a lifeline: context. She shows us that the currents pulling us under have been swirling for centuries and that understanding them is the first step to changing the tide.
Richardson’s books are more than just historical accounts; they’re roadmaps that guide us through the muck of the present by showing us where we’ve been. Whether she’s unpacking the economic machinations of the Civil War, tracing the GOP’s evolution from Lincoln’s party to today’s fractured entity, or exposing how Southern oligarchy seeped into the national bloodstream, she’s always making one thing clear: history is not a straight line. It’s a loop, and if we’re not careful, we’ll find ourselves back where we started.
In a time when facts are up for debate and democracy is under siege, Heather Cox Richardson’s voice is not just important—it’s essential. She’s not just telling us what happened; she’s showing us what’s at stake. I look forward to immersing myself in the first three, but I’ve read the last 3 and wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone seeking to understand this current political moment and what’s at stake.
Summary: The book examines how the Republican Party’s economic policies during the Civil War shaped the United States’ economy and political landscape. Richardson argues that these policies, including the establishment of a national banking system and the introduction of a national currency, laid the groundwork for the modern American economy and solidified the Republicans’ control over the national government.
Summary: Richardson explores the Northern perspective on the Reconstruction era, focusing on how Northern attitudes toward race, labor, and politics contributed to the failure of Reconstruction. She argues that the North’s retreat from Reconstruction was driven by concerns about class and labor rather than race alone, leading to the abandonment of African Americans in the South.
Summary: This book extends the traditional narrative of Reconstruction beyond the South, exploring how the Civil War and its aftermath reshaped the entire nation. Richardson connects the experiences of people across the country, showing how the Reconstruction era led to the creation of a new American identity and a modern national government.
Summary: Richardson provides a comprehensive history of the Republican Party from its founding in the 1850s through the early 21st century. She traces the party’s evolution from a force for emancipation and national unity to its modern incarnation, examining the ideological shifts and internal conflicts that have shaped its trajectory.
Summary: In this book, Richardson argues that although the South lost the Civil War militarily, its ideology of oligarchy and white supremacy continued to shape American politics and society. She traces the spread of this Lost Cause ideology from the post-war South to the West and its eventual influence on national politics, culminating in the rise of modern conservative movements.
Summary: Richardson reflects on the current state of American democracy, drawing on her expertise in history and her popular “Letters from an American” newsletter. She examines the challenges facing the country in the era of Trumpism, including political polarization, disinformation and misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the erosion of democratic norms, while also offering hope and a path forward based on historical lessons.
Christian nationalism, a belief system that intertwines national identity with Christian faith, has been a significant force in American history — and the Christian nationalism timeline may go back further than you think. It erroneously asserts that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation and should be governed by biblical principles.
This flawed ideology has influenced various aspects of American life, from politics to education, and continues to shape the discourse around national identity and public policy. Understanding the evolution of Christian nationalism provides critical insights into its current manifestations and implications for the future.
In recent years, the resurgence of Christian nationalism has become more visible and influential in American politics. The events of January 6, 2021, and the Big Lie rhetoric surrounding the 2020 presidential election highlighted the power and reach of this movement. With key figures like Russell Vought and organizations like Project 2025 advocating for policies that align with their interpretation of Christian values, it is essential to examine the timeline of Christian nationalism to grasp its roots, growth, and contemporary relevance.
Vote them out, while we still can
Then, get to the polls and take everyone you know with you. Do not allow the right-wing to establish a theocracy in this country — no matter what your faith (or lack thereof), we have common interest in preventing any one faith from informing the US government.
Just because they say the words “Christian nation” does not alter the actual history in which the founders were deists who were adamant about keeping the political and religious spheres separate — having seen the ills it can cause to entwine them. Is America a Christian nation? No. We rejected the divine right of kings, very consciously and loudly so at the time. It is easy to pick up this sentiment in the writings of the founders both inside and outside of the founding documents.
Christian nationalism timeline
1607 — The Jamestown Colony is established in Virginia. Early settlers bring a mix of Christian beliefs that will influence American culture.
1620 — The Pilgrims arrive on the Mayflower, establishing the Plymouth Colony. They seek religious freedom after being persecuted for their lack of conformity to the Anglican church in England, and establish a community based on their Puritan beliefs.
1630 — John Winthrop delivers his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity,” articulating the vision of America as a “city upon a hill,” influencing the concept of a Christian nation.
1730-1740s — The First Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals, sweeps through the American colonies, strengthening evangelicalism.
1776 — The Declaration of Independence is signed. The Founding Fathers, while influenced primarily by Enlightenment ideas, also incorporate some Christian principles.
The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.
Project 2025 plans
Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.
At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.
It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.
Project 2025 goals
To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.
Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. The vitriol of our politics — the violent rhetoric, the animosity, the refusal to engage in democratic deliberation — is not loving our enemies. It seems to me that Christian nationalism isn’t very Christian, in word or deed.
Jesus hated fame, loathed fortune, and eschewed power. So many of these fake Christians and Christian nationalist groups fundraising for the profane idol of Trumpism are drunk on all three.
They’ve tied capitalism and Christianity together in a way that is both wholly unsupported by the Bible and wholly antithetical to the foundational idea of growing the size of your market, not shrinking it. Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, condemning the commercialization of religious practice. And yet the commercialization of religious practice is alive and well in the American version of Christian nationalism.
Jesus loved the poor, and frequently warned about the dangers of wealth and greed. He told the parable of the Good Samaritan, who stops to help a total stranger in need, expecting no help in return — and said “go and do likewise.” He was very much an original Social Justice Warrior.
Politics and spirituality are opposites
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s — indicating that he believed politics and spirituality were not a good mix. God’s realm is not like this one, and he does not care about our petty political trifles. He cares that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
Which is a value I believe in and agree on, even though I’m a Buddhist. There is much wisdom from pretty much all the religious doctrines worth listening to and adopting, even if one does not adopt the symbolism of the identity tropes of a chosen religious practice. Morality does not depend on being a member of the Christian faith or any other particular faith — despite the claims of some in the right-wing. There are moral people everywhere, getting up every day and doing their best to be good humans, good citizens, good neighbors, good parents, friends, volunteers, and so on.
Humans first, tribes second
We have to put our humanity ahead of our group identities if we have a chance of surviving the coming wars — the climate war, the food and water wars, the new cold war, lawfare, and new escalations of the information warfare and psychological warfare around the globe. We are all more alike than we are different — a deep truth that Jesus knew and shared strongly, asking us to live and share that message ourselves, even when it’s sometimes hard.
Biden gave a fiery speech in Detroit today and pitched his plan for his second term’s first 100 days, if given a Democratic Congress. Which would mean that by around May of 2025 we could have the following nice things:
Continue to lead the world in the climate change energy transition
It sure sounds like a far cry from whatever fiery white supremacist death zone backed by ravenous billionaires would be unleashed upon us in Trump‘s first 100 days (only 1 of which, we are led to believe, would be as a dictator… sure, Jan). It is the opposite direction of the literal End Times hellscape vision of Project 2025 and its Christofascist propagandists who have abused the American Evangelical church to the point of being unrecognizably distant from anything Christ himself taught.
Vote blue no matter who
I’m bored with the obsession over Biden’s age. He’s 81, he’s not 101. He certainly still passes the Turing Test to me — others apparently see something different. Superagers can go a long time these days — Charles Koch is 88 and leads both an oil empire and a conservative dark money juggernaut. Rupert Murdoch is 93 and only last year stepped down from leading one of the world’s largest media empires.
I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who can match Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience, having been at the table on major world events for decades now. He knows everybody — and has warm relationships with our allies. Unlike Trump, who has spurned everyone America has cherished and cozied up to (other) two-bit dictators with tiny hands syndrome. Biden is holding up the Western order against a revanchist Russia seeking to erode the post-Cold War consensus and spread the forces of authoritarianism widely around the globe — Trump would simply hand Ukraine to Putin and welcome the wave of illiberalism to wash over his slavering Project 2025 belligerents.
I think we urgently need Joe Biden’s unparalleled experience at this moment in history — no one else can match it. Although now Kamala Harris is no slouch in that regard either, given her 4 years of jetting around the globe as VP, years in the Senate before that, years as California AG, and a decade as the District Attorney of San Francisco before that. If Biden decides at some point in the next 4 years to stand down and hand the reins to Harris, that would be a fantastic outcome. In the meantime, why don’t we give the man some respect for his own self-assessment?
Expecting this banned books list will be ongoing, unfortunately…
Book bans represent a significant threat to the First Amendment by restricting access to diverse ideas and viewpoints, which are essential to a free and democratic society. These bans orchestrated by right wing groups often target literature that addresses complex and sometimes controversial themes such as race, sexuality, and political ideologies, under the guise of protecting young readers.
However, this form of censorship undermines intellectual freedom and the right to read, leading to a homogenized culture that stifles critical thinking and open dialogue. The American Library Association (ALA) and PEN America have documented thousands of instances where books have been removed from school and public libraries, reflecting a concerted effort by certain groups to impose their moral or political standards on the wider community, thus eroding the foundational principles of free expression enshrined in the First Amendment.
At least, not according to what Republicans promised when they passed them. The Trump tax cuts didn’t work to grow the economy, increase revenues, alleviate the debt, or benefit ordinary Americans as alleged.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was introduced by then-Speaker of the House (and fiscal hawk) Paul Ryan and signed into law by then-President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017. It permanently reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, and lowered the overall tax for all brackets — seems fair, right? Except the wealthy walked away with 50 times the amount of tax benefit as the lower brackets.
Trump tax cuts add $1.5 trillion to the deficit
Not only did the tax cuts not raise revenue as promised — they became a liability on the balance sheet when almost immediately going into the red. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the TCJA would add approximately $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, after accounting for any temporary growth effects. The national debt will rise to accommodate as we borrow money to make up the shortfall between earnings and expenditures.
The Trump tax cuts reduced federal tax revenue, with significant declines in corporate tax receipts (surprise, surprise!). They did the exact opposite of what they promised to do — leaving our economy in a more precarious position even before the pandemic hit.
Who benefited from Trump’s tax cuts?
Conservatives and right-wing economists claim that tax cuts will help ordinary people by raising wages. In reality, however, corporations instead used their tax windfalls to do other things: stock buybacks, dividends, and executive pay. In fact, this happens over and over again each cycle of empty promises from so-called “fiscal conservatives” who in large part know exactly what they do.
They seem to believe they are entitled to the lion’s share of America’s money (as they have been since at least Mudsill Theory in 1858 and even before) and by gum, nothing is going to stop them — not democracy, not a sense of decency, not a sense of institutional preservation as used to be the very core pillar of Conservatism. No longer. Now it’s a will to power and to plunder. It’s not so much trickle down as it is hoover up.
Reaganomics, Trickle down, Laffer curve, Supply-side economics — it’s all the same
The magical revenue-generating power of tax cuts has been long promised and never delivered by right-wing Republicans. Since the 1980s edition, Reaganomics — the economic “theory” drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin dubbed the Laffer Curve for the slightly drunken man who scribbled it — has moved immense amounts of wealth upwards into the hands and coffers of the 1% and 0.1% at the expense of the masses.
The argument is that rich people will take the extra billions in returned tax money and use it to innovate and grow the economy — except that never happens. And why would they? They don’t have to earn revenue the old-fashioned way, through free market competition — they can just sit back on their laurels, buy a Senator or two, and rake in a huge windfall every few years that a GOP officeholder is in the White House. It is rock solid orthodoxy for the right-wing now, that tax cuts are almost the only policy initiative they care about — along with a side of deregulation and the slashing of the social safety net.
We’ve seen this movie before. The rich guys take the money and run — in many ways literally, into the arms of tax-free havens like the Cayman Islands or Seychelles. They do not return it to the American economy — although they do inject it into American politics, to skew the playing field even further in their favor despite already extracting extraordinary privileges and benefits to themselves from all aspects of their coziness with the political elite and their direct capture of various institutions.
As LBJ once said:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
President Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1960
The economic elites are dividing us over race and religion, in order to pick our pockets. This is why we can’t have nice things. We should boot them out and have nice things.
A historic day on Thursday, May 30, 2024 as the first former President in US history became a convicted felon. Found guilty on all 34 counts, Donald Trump finally faces the music for the first of his election-related criminal trials. Already the Trump trial disinformation machine is spinning up on the right, making wild claims about a politicized process.
The investigation into Trump’s fraudulent payments to Stormy Daniels actually began with Michael Cohen on July 18, 2017, when his bank First Republic Bank tipped off the FBI to some suspicious activity from the Trump’s fixer’s accounts. That investigation led to a 3-year sentence for Cohen for the same exact crime. Way back in 2018, we knew that “Co-conspirator 1” was Donald Trump — and now he has been convicted of that crime.
The federal case inspired an investigation into Cohen’s finances by the state of New York, where both he and the business were located. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inherited the case from former prosecutor Cy Vance, who began investigating Trump way back in 2018 after Cohen’s guilty plea, when Cohen admitted in court to making the hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 campaign. Vance ultimately declined to make a decision on the case before leaving office in 2021, leaving it open for his successor Alvin Bragg.
Bragg, a graduate of Harvard Law School, focused on fraud and money laundering cases during his tenure as a prosecutor at the Southern District of New York. He also led the team at the NY Attorney General’s office that secured a $2 million judgment and the dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2019 for misuse of Trump’s charitable foundation. After looking at the facts of the hush money case, he ultimately decided that it was much bigger than simply paying off a porn star: “it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election.”
The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank that was founded in 1984. Based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, its stated mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. However, it is perhaps most widely known for its controversial stance on climate change and its efforts to question the scientific consensus on the matter.
Early years and focus areas
Initially, the Heartland Institute focused on a broad range of issues, including education reform, health care, tax policy, and environmental regulation. It positioned itself as a proponent of free-market policies, arguing that such policies lead to more efficient and effective solutions than those proposed by government intervention. Later, it would begin to pivot towards advocacy around a singular issue: climate change denialism.
Climate change and environmental policy
The Heartland Institute’s engagement with climate change began to intensify in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, the Institute increasingly questioned the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, which holds that global warming is largely driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
The Institute has been accused of being a key player in the campaign to spread doubt about climate change science — following the disinformation playbook first established by Big Tobacco in the 1950s to fight against public awareness of the lethal dangers of smoking. Critics argue that Heartland has worked to undermine public understanding and acceptance of global warming through various means, including:
Publication of Skeptical Research and Reports: Heartland has funded and published reports and papers that challenge mainstream climate science. Notably, it has produced and promoted its own reports, such as the “NIPCC” (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) reports, which purport to review the same scientific evidence as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but often arrive at starkly different conclusions.
Conferences and Workshops: The Institute has organized and hosted numerous conferences that have brought together climate change skeptics, scientists, and policymakers. These events have served as platforms for presenting and discussing views that are at odds with the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.
Public Relations and Media Campaigns: Through press releases, op-eds, and social media, the Heartland Institute has actively worked to disseminate its views on climate change to the wider public. It has also attempted to influence policymakers and educators, at times by distributing educational materials that question the consensus on global warming.
Funding and controversy
The funding sources of the Heartland Institute have been a subject of controversy. The organization has received financial support from various foundations, individuals, and corporations, including those with interests in fossil fuels — including the Koch network and the Joseph Coors Foundation. Critics argue that this funding may influence the Institute’s stance on climate change and its efforts to challenge the scientific consensus.
In 2012, the Heartland Institute faced significant backlash following the leak of internal documents that revealed details about its funding and strategy for challenging climate change science. These documents shed light on the Institute’s plans to develop a K-12 curriculum that would cast doubt on climate science, among other strategies aimed at influencing public opinion and education.
Lies, Incorporated
The Heartland Institute’s role in the climate change debate is a highly polarizing one. Proponents view it as a bastion of free speech and skepticism, vital for challenging what they (ironically) claim to see as the politicization of science. Critics, however, argue that its activities have contributed to misinformation, public confusion, and policy paralysis on one of the most pressing issues facing humanity — as well as playing a role in fomenting a broader shift towards science denialism in American culture.
By questioning the scientific consensus on climate change and promoting “alternative facts,” the Heartland Institute has played a significant role in shaping the public discourse on global warming. Its actions and the broader debate around climate science underscore the complex interplay between science, policy, and public opinion in addressing environmental challenges.
Stochastic terrorism is a term that has emerged in the lexicon of political and social analysis to describe a method of inciting violence indirectly through the use of mass communication. This concept is predicated on the principle that while not everyone in an audience will act on violent rhetoric, a small percentage might.
The term “stochastic” refers to a process that is randomly determined; it implies that the specific outcomes are unpredictable, yet the overall distribution of these outcomes follows a pattern that can be statistically analyzed. In the context of stochastic terrorism, it means that while it is uncertain who will act on incendiary messages and violent political rhetoric, it is almost certain that someone will.
The nature of stochastic terrorism
Stochastic terrorism involves the dissemination of public statements, whether through speeches, social media, or traditional media, that incite violence. The individuals or entities spreading such rhetoric may not directly call for political violence. Instead, they create an atmosphere charged with tension and hostility, suggesting that action must be taken against a perceived threat or enemy. This indirect incitement provides plausible deniability, as those who broadcast the messages can claim they never explicitly advocated for violence.
Prominent stochastic terrorism examples
The following are just a few notable illustrative examples of stochastic terrorism:
The Oslo and Utøya Attacks (2011): Anders Behring Breivik, driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant beliefs, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, then shot and killed 69 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya. Breivik’s manifesto cited many sources that painted Islam and multiculturalism as existential threats to Europe, showing the deadly impact of extremist online echo chambers and the pathology of right-wing ideologies such as Great Replacement Theory.
The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018): Robert Bowers, influenced by white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories about migrant caravans, killed 11 worshippers in a synagogue. His actions were preceded by social media posts that echoed hate speech and conspiracy theories rampant in certain online communities, demonstrating the lethal consequences of unmoderated hateful rhetoric.
The El Paso Shooting (2019): Patrick Crusius targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric about a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas. His manifesto mirrored language used in certain media and political discourse, underscoring the danger of using dehumanizing language against minority groups.
Christchurch Mosque Shootings (2019): Brenton Tarrant live-streamed his attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people, influenced by white supremacist beliefs and online forums that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric. The attacker’s manifesto and online activity were steeped in extremist content, illustrating the role of internet subcultures in radicalizing individuals.
Stochastic terrorism in right-wing politics in the US
In the United States, the concept of stochastic terrorism has become increasingly relevant in analyzing the tactics employed by certain right-wing entities and individuals. While the phenomenon is not exclusive to any single political spectrum, recent years have seen notable instances where right-wing rhetoric has been linked to acts of violence.
Right-wing media platforms have played a significant role in amplifying messages that could potentially incite stochastic terrorism. Through the strategic use of incendiary language, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, these platforms have the power to reach vast audiences and influence susceptible individuals to commit acts of violence.
The advent of social media has further complicated the landscape, enabling the rapid spread of extremist rhetoric. The decentralized nature of these platforms allows for the creation of echo chambers where inflammatory messages are not only amplified but also go unchallenged, increasing the risk of radicalization.
Challenges and implications
Stochastic terrorism presents significant legal and societal challenges. The indirect nature of incitement complicates efforts to hold individuals accountable for the violence that their rhetoric may inspire. Moreover, the phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the prevention of violence, challenging societies to find ways to protect democratic values while preventing harm.
Moving forward
Addressing stochastic terrorism requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting responsible speech among public figures, enhancing critical thinking and media literacy among the public, and developing legal and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the unique challenges posed by this form of terrorism. Ultimately, combating stochastic terrorism is not just about preventing violence; it’s about preserving the integrity of democratic societies and ensuring that public discourse does not become a catalyst for harm.
Understanding and mitigating the effects of stochastic terrorism is crucial in today’s increasingly polarized world. By recognizing the patterns and mechanisms through which violence is indirectly incited, societies can work towards more cohesive and peaceful discourse, ensuring that democracy is protected from the forces that seek to undermine it through fear and division.
Fundamentalism starves the mind. It reduces and narrows a universe of dazzlingly fascinating complexity available for infinite exploration — and deprives millions of people throughout the ages of the limitless gifts of curiosity.
The faux finality of fundamentalism is a kind of death wish — a closing off of pathways to possibility that are lost to those human minds forever. It’s a closing of the doors of perception and a welding shut of the very openings that give life its deepest meaning.
It is tragic — a truly heartbreaking process of grooming and indoctrination into a poisonous worldview; the trapping of untold minds in airless, sunless rooms of inert stagnation for an eternity. What’s worse — those claustrophobic minds aim to drag others in with them — perhaps to ease the unbearable loneliness of being surrounded only by similitude.
They are threatened by the appearance of others outside the totalist system that entraps them — and cannot countenance the evidence of roiling change that everywhere acts as a foil to their mass-induced delusions of finality. It gnaws at the edges of the certainty that functions to prop them up against a miraculous yet sometimes terrifying world of ultimate unknowability.
Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro — who wrote a book claiming credit for the idea to try and overthrow the 2020 election and bragged about it as the “Green Bay Sweep” to MSNBC’s Ari Melber — reported to prison today after the Supreme Court ruled he cannot get out of answering to a Congressional subpoena. Peter Navarro prison time is set to be 4 months for an independent jury’s conviction for Contempt of Congress.
The sentencing judge refuted Navarro’s allegations that he was the victim of a political prosecition: “you aren’t,” Mehta said. “You have received every process you are due.”
Election denialism, the refusal to accept credible election outcomes, has significantly impacted U.S. history, especially in recent years. This phenomenon is not entirely new; election denial has roots that stretch back through various periods of American history. However, its prevalence and intensity have surged in the contemporary digital and political landscape, influencing public trust, political discourse, and the very fabric of democracy.
Historical context
Historically, disputes over election outcomes are as old as the U.S. electoral system itself. For instance, the fiercely contested 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams resulted in a constitutional amendment (the 12th Amendment) to prevent similar confusion in the future. The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden was resolved through the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction and had profound effects on the Southern United States.
Yet these instances, while contentious, were resolved within the framework of existing legal and political mechanisms, without denying the legitimacy of the electoral process itself. Over time, claims of election fraud would come to be levied against the electoral and political system itself — with dangerous implications for the peaceful transfer of power upon which democracy rests.
The 21st century and digital influence
Fast forward to the 21st century, and election denialism has taken on new dimensions, fueled by the rapid dissemination of disinformation (and misinformation) through digital media and a polarized political climate. The 2000 Presidential election, with its razor-thin margins and weeks of legal battles over Florida’s vote count, tested the country’s faith in the electoral process.
Although the Supreme Court‘s decision in Bush v. Gore was deeply controversial, Al Gore’s concession helped to maintain the American tradition of peaceful transitions of power.
The 2020 Election: A flashpoint
The 2020 election, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, became a flashpoint for election denialism. Claims of widespread voter fraud and electoral malfeasance were propagated at the highest levels of government, despite a lack of evidence substantiated by multiple recounts, audits, and legal proceedings across several states.
The refusal to concede by President Trump and the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, marked a watershed moment in U.S. history, where election denialism moved from the fringes to the center of political discourse, challenging the norms of democratic transition. Widely referred to as The Big Lie, the baseless claims of election fraud that persist in the right-wing to this day are considered themselves to be a form of election fraud by justice officials, legal analysts, and a host of concerned citizens worried about ongoing attempts to overthrow democracy in the United States.
Implications, public trust, and voter suppression
The implications of this recent surge in election denialism are far-reaching. It has eroded public trust in the electoral system, with polls indicating a significant portion of the American populace doubting the legitimacy of election results. This skepticism is not limited to the national level but has trickled down to local elections, with election officials facing threats and harassment. The spread of misinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories about electoral processes and outcomes has become a tool for political mobilization, often exacerbating divisions within the American society.
Moreover, election denialism has prompted legislative responses at the state level, with numerous bills introduced to restrict voting access in the name of election security. These measures have sparked debates about voter suppression and the balance between securing elections and ensuring broad electoral participation. The challenge lies in addressing legitimate concerns about election integrity while avoiding the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.
Calls for reform and strengthening democracy
In response to these challenges, there have been calls for reforms to strengthen the resilience of the U.S. electoral system. These include measures to enhance the security and transparency of the voting process, improve the accuracy of voter rolls, and counter misinformation about elections. There’s also a growing emphasis on civic education to foster a more informed electorate capable of critically evaluating electoral information.
The rise of election denialism in recent years highlights the fragility of democratic norms and the crucial role of trust in the electoral process. While disputes over election outcomes are not new, the scale and impact of recent episodes pose unique challenges to American democracy. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including legal, educational, and technological interventions, to reinforce the foundations of democratic governance and ensure that the will of the people is accurately and fairly represented.
Dark money refers to political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors or how much money they spend. This allows wealthy individuals and special interest groups to secretly fund political campaigns and influence elections without transparency or accountability.
The term “dark money” gained prominence after the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that case, the Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the spending was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
This decision opened the floodgates for massive amounts of dark money to flow into political campaigns, often with no way for the public to know who was behind it. Dark money can come from a variety of sources, including wealthy individuals, corporations, trade associations, and non-profit organizations.
Hidden donors
Non-profit organizations, in particular, have become a popular way for donors to hide their political contributions. These organizations can operate under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which allows them to engage in some political activity as long as it is not their primary purpose. These groups are not required to disclose their donors, which means that wealthy individuals and corporations can funnel unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns without anyone knowing where the money came from.
Another way that dark money is used in politics is through “shell corporations.” These are companies that exist solely to make political donations and are often set up specifically to hide the identity of the true donor. For example, a wealthy individual could set up a shell corporation and then use that corporation to donate to a political campaign. Because the corporation is listed as the donor, the individual’s name does not appear on any public disclosure forms.
The money can be used to run ads, create content and propaganda, fund opposition research, pay armadas of PR people, send direct mail, lobby Congress, hire social media influencers, and many other powerful marketing strategies to reach and court voters.
These practices erode at the foundations of representative democracy, and the kind of government the Founders had in mind. One is free to vote for who one wishes, and to advocate for who ones wishes to hold power, but one has no Constitutional right to anonymity when doing so. It infringes on others peoples’ rights as well — the right to representative and transparent government.
Dark money impact
Dark money can have a significant impact on elections and public policy. Because the source of the money is not known, candidates and elected officials may be influenced by the interests of the donors rather than the needs of their constituents. This can lead to policies that benefit wealthy donors and special interest groups rather than the broader public.
There have been some efforts to increase transparency around dark money. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced in Congress several times since 2010, would require organizations that spend money on political campaigns to disclose their donors (the acronym stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”). However, these efforts have been met with resistance from groups that benefit from the lack of transparency — who, somewhat ironically, have been using their influence with the Republican Party to make sure the GOP opposes the bill and prevents it from passing, or even coming up for a vote at all.
In addition to the impact on elections and policy, dark money can also undermine public trust in government. When voters feel that their voices are being drowned out by the interests of wealthy donors and special interest groups, they may become disillusioned with the political process and less likely to participate.
Overall, dark money is a significant problem in American politics. The lack of transparency and accountability around political spending allows wealthy individuals and special interest groups to wield undue influence over elections and policy. To address this problem, it will be important to increase transparency around political spending and reduce the influence of money in politics.
