Several days ago, Politico wrote about the scurrilous text messages shared by Young Republican leaders. When Vice President jD Vance was asked about the chat, he said in effect, “Boys will be boys.” Other GOP bigwigs had the same reaction. But the people in the chat group were not teenagers. They were adults in their 20s and 30s. The chat included racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, homophobic comments. One said “I love Hitler.”
It shows the attitudes that Trump has unleashed and encouraged among the younger generation of Republicans. They knew enough to worry what would happen if their chats ever went public. They knew.
But they also demonstrated what a fraud the Trump administration’s concern about anti-Semitism is. It’s a useful ploy, nothing more. People who actually care about anti-Semitism don’t make jokes about gas chambers.
Here’s an excerpt:
NEW YORK — Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway.
They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.
William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n–ga” and “n–guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.”
Giunta was referring to an upcoming vote on whether he should become chair of the Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s 15,000-member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old.
“Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers,” he continued….
“Can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don’t fit the Hitler aesthetic,” Joe Maligno, who previously identified himself as the general counsel for the New York State Young Republicans, wrote back.
“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, New York’s national committee member, said.
The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening.
“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, New York’s national committee member, said.
The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening…
Together, the messages reveal a culture where racist, antisemitic and violent rhetoric circulate freely — and where the Trump-era loosening of political norms has made such talk feel less taboo among those positioning themselves as the party’s next leaders…
Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f—-t,” “retarded” and “n–ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.
Vice President JD Vance laughed about the exchanges. Just the jokes that “kids” say, although these “boys” were adults.
The vice president suggested the real problem is the idea that an offensive joke can ruin a young person’s life.
“The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys,” Vance said on “The Charlie Kirk Show.” “They tell edgy, offensive jokes. That’s what kids do. And I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke — is cause to ruin their lives.”
The hateful language has entered the GOP mainstream with no filters. One far-right blogger said the conversation was “tame” compared to the chatter on far-right sites. It’s no longer taboo to admire Nazis, Hitler, and gas chambers.
In the post at 9 a.m. today, two scholars of racism and equity explained that Trump’s scrubbing of museums, national parks, and other federal facilities is an attempt to capture control of the culture and erase the place of Blacks, women, and anyone else who is not a straight white male.
But, as scholar Julian Vasquez Heilig writes here, Trump and his commissariat cannot control the popular culture. In time, we can hope, his mean-spirited efforts to revise history will become a bad joke, a cruel joke, a stupid joke. He and all those who carry out his orders will become a public laughing stock.
Vasquez Heilig writes on his blog Cloaking Inequity:
The Super Bowl has always been more than football. It is a ritual, a spectacle, a national performance. It’s where America tells the world who it thinks it is, and who it wants to be. Which is why the announcement that Bad Bunny will host the halftime show is far more significant than a musical lineup change. It’s a cultural earthquake.
I remember the first time I heard Bad Bunny. It was December 6, 2019, at La Concha Hotel in San Juan. In the downstairs lounge, the beat of reggaetón was shaking the walls, and I pulled out Shazam to figure out what it was. The song was Vete. The room was electric, filled with Puerto Ricans singing every word in Spanish, unapologetically themselves. That night, it hit me: Bad Bunny was not just making music in San Juan, he was celebrating culture. He wasn’t crossing over into the mainstream by adapting; he was dragging the mainstream toward him. He refused to translate, refused to dilute, and now he is everywhere—on playlists, on charts, SNL, in crowded places from San Juan to New York to Madrid.
That’s why his Super Bowl moment matters so much. It is not just a performance, it is the culmination of a global movement that began in places like that basement lounge in Puerto Rico. What felt local then is now universal. Bad Bunny’s rise shows how culture flows upward, from the margins to the center, from overlooked communities to the biggest stage in the world. For millions of us, this is affirmation. For the right wing, it is destabilization. Because when the halftime show belongs to Bad Bunny, it proves that America is no longer just what they imagine it to be. It is bigger, louder, and more diverse than great again nostalgia can contain.
Jay-Z, Kendrick Lamar, and the New Halftime Era
The NFL’s halftime choices haven’t shifted by accident. When the league came under fire for its treatment of Colin Kaepernick and broader criticisms about racial injustice, it needed credibility. Enter Jay-Z and Roc Nation. The NFL tapped him to advise and help curate halftime shows.
The results have been undeniable. Kendrick Lamar’s halftime performance last year was a watershed moment—unapologetically Black, politically charged, and culturally defining. That performance sparked widespread discussion, and even a blog post I wrote about it entitled “TV Off”: What Kendrick Lamar Was Really Saying at the Super Bowl drew more than 100,000 readers in just a few days. Clearly, the hunger to talk about representation and ownership of the halftime stage is real.
Now with Bad Bunny taking the baton, the NFL is making another cultural statement, whether it fully realizes it or not (I think it does). The league’s biggest platform is no longer reserved for the safe, predictable acts of yesterday. It’s becoming a stage where hip hop, reggaeton, and the voices of communities once marginalized are front and center.
Bad Bunny and the Right’s Panic
For decades, the halftime show was dominated by choices that reinforced a narrow image of America: classic rock icons, country stars, or pop acts who wouldn’t ruffle feathers but had wardrobe malfunctions. Bad Bunny shatters that mold. His performance won’t be a side act, it is the show. Spanish won’t be a novelty; it will be central.
This is exactly why the right wing panics. To them, football Sundays and Super Bowls have long been “their” cultural territory. They’ve wrapped the game in patriotic rituals, military flyovers, and moments of silence for conservative heroes. When someone like Bad Bunny steps into the spotlight, it disrupts their monopoly. It forces a new definition of America—one that is multilingual, multicultural, and undeniably Latino. That’s what makes his halftime role so radical: after focusing on the Black experience with Kendrick, this year signals that Latino identity is no longer peripheral. It’s woven into the fabric of America’s biggest stage.
Why ICE Wants to Loom Over the Moment
It might sound absurd that ICE wants to connect itself to the Super Bowl halftime show, but immigration enforcement has always thrived in the shadows of visibility. When Latino joy and success are celebrated so publicly, ICE apparently feels the need to remind America of its terrorizing power.
Bad Bunny performing at the Super Bowl is a triumph of belonging. But ICE’s assaults, raids, arrests, kangaroo courts, and deportations are constant reminders that belonging is conditional on politics. While millions watch a Puerto Rican superstar, ICE agents are throwing mothers and journalists to the ground, spraying pepper liquid into the eyes of Americans who dare to ask questions, arresting elected politicians at the behest of Washington politicians after turning off their body cameras, and authorized by the Supreme Court to detain people simply for looking Latino and poor.
The contradiction is sharp: on the world’s stage, Latino identity is being widely celebrated; on America’s streets, it’s criminalized. ICE doesn’t need to show up at the stadium—it already shows up in our daily life. Its existence ensures that even at moments of cultural triumph, there’s a purposeful shadow of fear and terroristic threats.
Danica Patrick’s Tone-Deaf Criticism
And then, inevitably, a silly critic emerges from the sidelines. This time it’s Danica Patrick, who dismissed Bad Bunny’s hosting role. Her comments were more than unhelpful, they were stupid.
Patrick should know better. She carved her own career by getting along in a male-dominated sport, where every step forward was a battle for representation. She knows the symbolic weight of breaking barriers. For her to turn around and mock or diminish Bad Bunny’s presence is hypocritical at best, willfully ignorant at worst.
Bad Bunny isn’t there to tick a diversity box, he’s there because he is one of the most influential artists alive— maybe THE most. The incredible success of his shows that he did for his most recent album this past summer ONLY in Puerto Rico is proof that the center of American culture is shifting. Criticizing that isn’t just a matter of taste. It’s a refusal to accept reality.
The Lions, Charlie Kirk, and Who Gets Tribute
The battle over cultural ownership in America doesn’t stop at the Super Bowl. It plays out every Sunday on the NFL field. When conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the league encouraged teams to hold moments of silence in his honor. Most complied. But the Detroit Lions, along with a few other teams, did not.
That decision matters. It was a quiet but deliberate act of boundary-setting, a refusal to let every NFL broadcast become a political ritual sanctifying right-wing political ideology. By declining the tribute, the Lions reminded us that not every form of patriotism must come prepackaged with conservative allegiance. It wasn’t loud or defiant. It was subtle and deeply symbolic. Sometimes resistance isn’t what you do, it’s what you decline to perform and participate.
The Lions’ restraint connects to the same cultural realignment symbolized by Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance. Both moments reject the idea that American culture belongs to a single tribe. They push back against the notion that sports, music, or patriotism must orbit one political pole. They insist, instead, that culture belongs to everyone, not just the loudest or the angriest voices claiming to defend it.
The Double Standard of Protest
Of course, this tension between culture, power, and dissent has long been visible in the NFL. When Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality, he was branded a traitor by many of the same voices now demanding “respect” for Charlie Kirk. His silent, dignified act of conscience was recast as an attack on America itself.
The outrage was never really about the flag. It was about control. It was about who is allowed to define what counts as “patriotic.” Kaepernick’s kneeling was an act of moral courage, but it exposed how fragile America’s cultural gatekeepers truly are when confronted with truth. They could not tolerate a protest that revealed their own comfort with injustice and brutality.
Meanwhile, state violence continues daily without the same moral outrage from the right-wing. ICE officers violently throw mothers and journalists to the ground without cause. They pepper-spray citizens in their eyeballs for daring to ask questions in a conversation. They arrest and detain American citizens in raids not for crimes but for looking poor, brown, or foreign. These acts have not provoked right-wing primetime outrage or public boycotts. Their hypocrisy is staggering.
A man kneeling quietly for justice was vilified. Agents brutalizing families are ignored. The problem has never been the method of protest, it has always been their morality. Silence in the face of injustice is acceptable; silence against injustice is not. The Lions’ quiet refusal and Kaepernick’s quiet protest share something profound: both disrupted the script of cultural obedience. Both reminded us that resistance isn’t always loud. Sometimes it’s the refusal to play along.
The Supreme Court’s Enabling Role
And looming behind all of this is the judiciary. Recent Supreme Court rulings have expanded law enforcement’s power, narrowing protections under the Fourth Amendment and giving politicians more leeway to persecute immigrants using federal data. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been the lead in the right-wing judicial majorities that have handed law enforcement broad authority to stop, question, and detain anyone with minimal cause. Its new rulings have created the legal cover that now makes racial profiling essentially legal.
Racial profiling has happen illegally before and the new legal result empowered by the Supreme Court is the same: citizens living under suspicion, families living in fear, communities targeted not for what they’ve done but for how they look. The Supreme Court has enabled ICE brutality in the same way NFL owners enabled the blackballing of dissent, by creating structures that justify exclusion and violence while insisting neutrality.
The Bigger Picture: Who Owns the Stage?
So what do Bad Bunny, Kendrick Lamar, Jay-Z, Danica Patrick, ICE, the Lions, Charlie Kirk, and Brett Kavanaugh all have in common? They are all part of the “fight, fight, fight” (see new Trump $1 coin) over who gets to define American culture.
The right wing has long claimed the NFL as its territory: its rituals, its tributes, its symbols of patriotism. But culture evolves. It cannot be contained. From Detroit to San Juan to Los Angeles, new voices are shaping the narrative. Bad Bunny’s halftime show, Kendrick’s explosive performance, and even the Lions’ silent refusal all tell the same story: football does not belong exclusively to one political ideology. Neither does America.
The real question is whether we are willing to see that America’s identity is bigger than its old rituals. Are we willing to admit that inclusion is not a threat but a fact? Because culture doesn’t wait for permission. It claims the stage. And this year, that stage will belong to Bad Bunny.
Julian Vasquez Heilig is a professor, writer, and a legit lifelong Detroit Lions fan since 1981. He attended the NFC Championship in San Jose two years ago to support his Cardiac Cats and last year’s playoff loss to the Washington Commanders at Ford Field. He was also at the official Lions partners party during the NFL Draft in Detroit, where he met Robert Porcher and Jason Hanson. Over the years he’s spotted Billy Sims in Times Square, endured the heartbreak of the Lions’ 0–16 season, and treasures his personally autographed Barry Sanders helmet. Beyond education and equity, Julian dabbles in writing about sports, culture, and society.
Thomas Ultican, retired teacher of advanced mathematics and physics in California, has been keeping track of the privatization movement. In this post, he criticizes the Republican Party for its war on public schools. There was a time when Republicans supported their community schools. They provided strong support for bond issues and were active on local school boards. Today, however, Republicans as a party have led privatization efforts, knowing that it is intended to defund their public schools. None of the promises of privatization have panned out. Surely they know that they are destroying not only their own community’s public schools but a foundation stone in our democracy.
Privatization promotes segregation. Public schools bring people from different backgrounds together. As our society grows more polarized, we need public schools to unite us and build community.
Ultican writes:
This year, state legislators have proposed in excess of 110 laws pertaining to public education. Of those laws 85 were centered on privatizing K-12 schools. Republican lawmakers sponsored 83 of the pro-privatization laws. Which begs the question, has the Grand Old Party become the Grifting Oligarchs Party? When did they become radicals out to upend the foundation of American greatness?
The conservative party has a long history of being anti-labor and have always been a hard sell when it came to social spending. However, they historically have supported public education and especially their local schools. It seems the conservative and careful GOP is gone and been replaced by a wild bunch. It is stupefying to see them propose radical ideas like using public money to fund education savings accounts (ESA) with little oversight. Parents are allowed to use ESA funds for private schools (including religious schools), for homeschool expenses or educational experiences like horseback riding lessons.
In this table, ESA indicates tax credit funded voucher programs. There have been 40 bills introduced to create ESA programs plus another 20 bills designed to expand existing ESA programs. Most of 2025’s proposed laws are in progress but the governors of Texas, Tennessee, Idaho and Wyoming have signed and ratified new ESA style laws. In addition, governors in Indiana, South Carolina and New Hampshire signed laws expanding ESA vouchers in their states.
None of the 16 proposals to protect public education or 3 laws to repeal an existing ESA program were signed by a governor or passed by a legislature.
“… the program violates the Wyoming Constitution in two key ways. One for directing public dollars to private enterprises, which the lawsuit says is clearly prohibited. The second for violating the constitution’s mandate that Wyoming provide ‘a complete and uniform system of education.”’
On July 15, District Court Judge Peter Froelicher granted a preliminary injunctionagainst the state’s universal voucher program. He wrote, “The Court finds and concludes Plaintiffs are, therefore, likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Act fails when strict scrutiny is applied.” The injunction will remain in effect until the “Plaintiffs’ claims have been fully litigated and decided by this Court.”
Laramie County Court House
Last year, The Utah Education Association sued the state, arguing that the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program violated the constitution. April 21st, District Court Judge Laura Scott ruled that Utah’s $100-million dollar voucher program is unconstitutional. At the end of June, the Utah Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of Scott’s ruling. However, the decision seems well founded.
The Montana Legislature, in 2023, established a statewide Education Savings Account (ESA) voucher program. It allows families of students with disabilities to use public funds deposited into personal bank accounts for private educational expenses. In April this year, Montana Quality Education Coalition and Disability Rights Montana brought suit to overturn this program. In July, the Montana Federation of Public Employees and the organization Public Funds Public Schools joined the plaintiffs in the suit. The legal action awaits its day in court.
At the end of June, the Missouri State Teachers Association sued to end the enhanced MOScholars program which began in 2021 funded by a tax credit scheme. This year in order to expand the program; the states legislature added $51-million in tax payer dollars to the scheme. The teachers’ suit claims this is unconstitutional and calls for the $51-million to be eliminated.
Milton Friedman’s EdChoice Legal Advocates joined the state in defending the MOScholars program. Their July 30thmessage said, “On behalf of Missouri families, EdChoice Legal Advocates filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit brought by the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) challenging the state’s expanded Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program, known as MOScholars.” It is unlikely EdChoice Legal Advocates are representing the wishes of most Missouri families.
In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that its Education Trust Fund Scholarship Program was unconstitutional. The lawsuit was instituted by the state teachers union, parents and the NAACP. The program resumed this year after lawmakers revised it to funnel money from the lottery system instead of the general fund.
The South Carolina effort has been twice ruled unconstitutional for violating prohibitions against using public funds for the direct benefit of private education. Legislators are proposing funneling the money through a fund that then goes to a trustee and then to parents, who then use it for private schools.
Sherry East, president of the South Carolina Education Association stated:
“We just don’t agree, and we think it’s unconstitutional.”
“We’ve already been to court twice. The Supreme Court has ruled twice that it is unconstitutional. So, we don’t understand how they’re trying to do a loophole or a workaround. You know, they’re trying to work around the Constitution, and it’s just a problem.”
The South Carolina fight seems destined to return to the courts but they have vouchers for now.
Last year in Anchorage, Alaska, Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman concluded that there was no workable way to construe the state statues in a way that does not violate constitutional spending rules. Therefore, the relevant laws “must be stuck down in their entirety.” This was the result of a January 23, 2023 law suit alleging that correspondence program allotments were “being used to reimburse parents for thousands of dollars in private educational institution services using public funds thereby indirectly funding private education in violation … of the Alaska Constitution.” Alaska has many homeschool students in the correspondence program.
Plaintiff’s attorney Scott Kendall believes the changes will not disrupt correspondence programs. He claims:
“What is prevented here is this purchasing from outside vendors that have essentially contorted the correspondence school program into a shadow school voucher program. So that shadow school voucher program that was in violation of the Constitution, as of today, with the stroke of a pen, is dead.”
The Big Problem
GOP legislators are facing a difficult problem with state constitutions prohibiting sending public dollars to private schools. The straight forward solution would be to ask the public to ratify a constitutional amendment. However, voucher programs have never won a popular vote so getting a constitutional change to make vouchers easier to institute is not likely.
Their solutions are Rube Goldberg type laws that create 100% tax credits for contributing to a scholarship fund. A corporation or individual can contribute to these funds and reduce their tax burden by an equal amount. Legislators must pretend that since the state never got the tax dollars it is constitutional. Lawyers who practice bending the law might agree but common sense tells us this is nonsense.
The big problem for the anti-public school Republicans is voucher schools are not popular. They have never once won a public referendum.
The U.S. Department of Education just canceled $36 million in magnet school grants to small high schools in New York City because these schools allow transgender students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity and they allow them to participate in sports.
New York City education officials say they are complying with state and city laws.
The Trump administration says the schools must follow the President’s executive order, not state and local laws.
Isn’t this a classic case of federal control vs. local control?
Didn’t Republicans used to be great defenders of local control?
Jess Piper lives in rural Missouri. She taught high school English for 16 years, then quit to run unsuccessfully for the legislature in Missouri. She is executive director of Blue Missouri and runs a weekly podcast called “Dirt Road Democrats.” She is relentless.
She wrote this post while listening to a biography of Mark Twain:
I am currently listening to Ron Chernow’s Mark Twain biography. The audio version is over 44 hours…Chernow is known for the very long biographies and I love to listen to him while driving across the heartland to speak to rural Democrats.
I spoke to about 130 people in Quincy, IL last Thursday. I drove through Hannibal (Twain’s hometown) on my way to the event, and I had been listening to Chernow’s book for about four hours when I finally arrived at the Machinists Lodge for the Adams County summer cookout.
This was my second time at the Adams County event, and when I arrived, I couldn’t help thinking there’s no way it had been a year since my last visit.
Time marches on, but I didn’t know it would be at such a quick pace.
When I last drove to Quincy, we hadn’t elected the current regime. I was still hopeful that Trump was in the past and we were moving forward. I was sure the country was going to vote for our first woman President because I was constantly in rooms with hundreds of rural Democrats across the country — they were motivated and excited and on the ground doing the work.
We all know how that went.
Adams County Democratic Party Picnic. Quincy, IL. 7/31/25.
When I arrived at the event, there were already several people there, so I decided to change in the back of my car instead of walking in with my bags and hangers and hairspray and makeup. My car has tinted windows, and if I push the front seats all the way up, I have enough room to hide behind the seats and do a quick change.
Superman’s phone booth has nothing on my Mazda.
Before speaking, I sat down to fresh tomatoes and a grilled pork chop and a salad and a piece of chocolate cake. No Diet Coke available, so I was forced to give my body the water I usually avoid.
After the event, a man came up, introduced himself, and said he was at the same event last year as well. He told me something I have been thinking about ever since: he said, “I saw you last year and your message has changed. You were light-hearted last year. You are pointed this year.”
True enough.
Last year, I had hope that we would make progress. This year I hope we won’t devolve into an autocratic police state. I hope I heave healthcare in January after the subsidies dry up. I hope my kids can afford to buy groceries and pay their rent. I hope my grandkids’ schools are funded. I hope my neighbor isn’t deported. I hope concentration camps don’t become a normal experience.
I have hope. I am also paying attention.
I have spoken so often that I almost have an autopilot switch. I rearrange the order at most events so I don’t get stale, and I usually throw in a new story or talking point at each event. I can speak unscripted for about 45 minutes, however, I would never. I am an old teacher, so I watch the audience for cues. I watch to see if I should hit a point even harder or if I should wrap up.
There is nothing as awful as a speaker who has gone on too long. I’d rather be booed than be boring.
Since March or so, I have spoken on the cruelty of ICE and the instances of kidnappings on American streets. I talk about the folks who are disappearing before our eyes. I speak on the ICE “agents” without badges or warrants or marked cars. Thugs covering their faces. Thugs who seem to have unlimited power from a regime who wants to turn the US into a police state.
I speak on my privilege and what people who look like me should do if they encounter their neighbors being kidnapped or harassed…get in the way.
Film the encounter. Ask for badges and warrants. Warn your neighbors if you see ICE. Remind them to not open the door for agents. Narrate your video, focusing on the agents not the detained.
Throw sand in the gears as best you can.
I reflected on my talking points on the drive home the next morning. My sweet host was up with me by 5:45 to let her dogs out and say goodbye and I started the journey home via Highway 36, the Twain bio roaring through my speakers.
A quick stop in Hannibal for a McDonald’s Diet Coke and back to the drive home.
And back to my audiobook. The narrator reminded me of Mark Twain’s newspaper writing in the West. How Twain had used racist rhetoric in both his notebooks and his writings since the beginning, but his attitude was slowly changing after leaving Missouri, a slave state.
Twain is a deeply complex man whose views changed and evolved throughout his life. He was vain and always seeking wealth, but he also fought for the oppressed through humor and satire.
The narrator coming through my speakers told of how offended Twain became at the treatment of Chinese immigrants in California and the constant berating and beating at the hands of both the police and politicians and random men on the streets.
As a reporter in San Francisco, Mark Twain witnessed police standing by while white men attacked a Chinese man for no reason. The narrator told me of Twain’s frustration with police complicity in racial violence perpetrated against Chinese immigrants.
No Californian gentleman or lady ever abuses or opposes a [Chinese person], under any circumstances, an explanation that seems to be much needed in the East. Only the scum of the population do it – they and their children; they, and, naturally and consistently the policeman and politicians likewise, for these are the dust-licking pimps and slaves of the scum…
I like that phrase. I usually call the folks fighting on behalf of the fascists “bootlickers”, but I think Twain’s description may predate the word bootlicker.
Dust-licking pimps and slaves of the scum…it seems very appropriate for the ICE agents I have seen and read about in the news.
ICE is getting closer and closer to my home. I just read of a raid in Lenexa, Kansas at a Mexican restaurant. I watched a video of the incident, and I am proud to say that Lenexa community members did in fact get in the way. They stood with their neighbors and tried to protect people in their community.
Rabbi Moti Rieber is the executive director of Kansas Interfaith Action, and says the raids happen without rhyme or reason.
“Because anyone who is perceived as Latino or African, wherever they are at a Home Depot, at a court hearing, out gardening, picking up their kids or at a restaurant in suburban Johnson County can be set upon by armed thugs, armed gunmen in masks, dragged into a van and disappeared. My friends, fascism in the form of uncontrolled executive power, lawlessness, political persecutions and racist law enforcement is not coming. It is here.”
The Rabbi is right. It’s not coming. It’s here. And we have to be ready to fight back on behalf of the people who are being persecuted by the police state.
The kidnappings are brazen to induce fear, but we have to act in solidarity and without hesitation. We can’t let this stand.
Twain was right in his summation of the dust-licking scum detaining and harming people for the color of their skin in the 1800s. Rabbi Rieber is correct in his description of ICE agents in the present.
As I travel around the center of the country helping to organize rural Democrats, I need you to know they exist. Rural people are also progressive people. There are people in every space in every state standing up for their neighbors and against thugs and fascism and authoritarianism. Against the racism and the disappearings.
Jess Piper lives on a farm in rural Missouri. She taught English literature for 16 years, then decided to run for the legislature even though her district is ruby-red. Since then, she has been organizing, agitating, encouraging Democrats to run for office in every district. It annoys her that Democrats don’t even put up candidates in districts, so many voters have no choice. She was a speaker at the last conference of the Network for Public Education in Columbus, Ohio, and she was wonderful. Oh, yes, she’s a big presence on TikTok.
Have you ever seen a bucket with live crabs in it? It’s fascinating to watch. I’ve seen it a few times when I visited the coast and stood to watch fishermen on the piers.
A fisherman can pull up crabs all day long and leave them in a bucket. He won’t have to babysit the bucket.
The crabs won’t let any of their own escape. As soon as one starts to find a place to pull itself up, another crab will grab it and pull it back down into the bucket. The creatures are stuck there not because there is no way out, but because they won’t let another crab try to get out.
No matter how long you watch in amazement and horror, the crabs are caught in a game that never stops. One crab gets high enough to grab the outer part on the bucket only to be pulled back by the others.
Like a circle of hell…round and round for eternity. Dante style.
It turns out, some people aren’t much better than crabs.
You have likely heard of the crab in the bucket mentality, but if you haven’t, here’s the gist: it’s the mindset of people who try to prevent others from gaining a favorable position, even if attaining such position would not directly impact those trying to stop them.
Every crab for itself. It’s jealousy and envy and spite.
If I can’t have it, neither can you. And if you try to get it, I will pull you back down.
The GOP mindset in two sentences.
It used to be a little less pronounced than it is now — I don’t know many Trump supporters who are happy these days even though they got every thing they’ve ever wanted and more. The crabs in a bucket mentality has only gotten worse.
Bitterness and cruelty are the point. The resentment Republicans show to people who aren’t like them is so ingrained in the party, that I don’t know that I need to expand on that point. They hate with a viciousness that seems to have no bounds.
A Trump supporter yells at counter-protesters outside of the U.S. Supreme Court during the Million MAGA March in Washington. Credit: Caroline Brehman.
Trump supporters, and most Republicans, have a problem with others getting ahead or even making progress. Look at the way the regime is dismantling public education and civil rights and women’s healthcare and even programs for the most oppressed and marginalized groups.
Attacks on public education are meant to keep poor kids off the playing field. The fact that states like Missouri have defunded schools for so many years that 33% of schools are running a 4-day week is evidence. Almost every 4-day week school district is in a defunded rural area.
The fact that my state is now 50th in educational funding while finding millions in taxpayer money to send to private religious schools is another piece of evidence.
If you try to better yourself through education, they will attempt to pull you back down into the bucket.
The crab mentality.
Why would I care if someone is gay and wants to marry? What has that got to do with me or my marriage? Nothing. Why would I ever interfere with the love two other people have for each other? Why would I stand in the way?
I wouldn’t, but many Republicans would. It would seem they think letting others get married keeps them down…in the bucket.
If a person feels they were born the wrong gender and wants to express their own gender differently, why would I have anything to say about that? It’s not my body and it’s not my business. Why would I stand in the way of trans rights or anyone’s ability to get the healthcare that helps them realize their happiness?
I wouldn’t, but many Republicans would. It would seem like letting a trans kid play soccer makes them uncomfortable and keeps them down…in the bucket.
If someone is religious, and it’s not my religion, what would that have to do with me? If they worship in a church or a synagogue or a mosque, why would I have any say about that and how in the world would that impose any restrictions on my own religion or non-religion?
It wouldn’t, but many Republicans think it does. It would seem letting other people make up their own minds about their own faith makes them feel less than and keeps them down…in the bucket.
This mentality is not contained to one party, though. Democrats do it as well.
Ask me how I know…
I ran for office in ‘22. I called the party to ask for help, they told me, “you can’t win.” Okay, I know I am not at all likely to flip a seat that no Democrat has won in three decades, but why is “you can’t win” the first thing the party would tell a rural person standing up in a red district?
I wonder if this quip has caused others to decide against running?
I ran anyway. I ran hard. I did everything I could to at least show up for the people, listen to folks, and make a difference. I raised almost 275K in a ruby red district. That’s nearly unheard of.
I signed up to walk in parades and have booths at fairs. My team knocked over 1,000 doors and we called about that many numbers. We cleaned up the VAN data that had not been recorded for years.
That was work I did for free for the party, but I was getting too much attention and some of the crabs weren’t happy. I needed to be pulled back down into the bucket.
Others might argue that Jess Piper’s energetic state House campaign in northwest Missouri, which has already raised over a quarter million dollars this cycle, is another counterexample showing Democrats’ commitment to branching out beyond the two major metros.
That’s an extraordinary fundraising haul for any rural House candidate, especially a Democrat in an un-winnable district. Piper has leveraged all available social media tools by tweeting, Tik Tok-ing and Instagramming her way to raise more than any other Democratic House candidate.
In fact, the last two fundraising reports show Piper with more cash on hand than the entire House Democratic Campaign Committee.
But, I suspect, instead of deploying a significant portion of her financial haul in large chunks to 4 or 5 swing districts where she could have a decisive impact and help her party gain seats — perhaps even helping position herself to chair the party next cycle — she’ll instead spend it to close her margin from 30 to perhaps 20 points.
See what he did there?
How dare I run in a rural race and expect to win? How dare I circumvent the party’s expectations? How dare I raise money in a red district because it’s not worth it and I can’t win anyway. How dare I not send donor money to the party or to others who might win an easier race in an easier district.
How dare I attempt to get out of the bucket and pull my community out with me?
We can easily recognize the crabs in the other party, but we need to examine what we do as well. We need to step away from jealousy and greed and pride and spite.
We can’t make progress by pulling others down. We can’t win by keeping others from rising above their condition.
Help those pulling themselves up and they will reach back down and help the others still stuck.
Thom Hartmann, accomplished author, blogger, and podcaster, urges progressives to learn from the success of the radical Right. The ultra-Right as for many years a fringe group, far from the power center of the Republican Party. Now the extremists control the Republican Party. Hartmann explains how they accomplished this feat and why progressives should do the same.
He writes:
What if, lacking an organized resistance to fascism like we have had in previous eras (the civil rights movement, SDS, BLM, the Wobbly’s) the Democratic Party itself could play the role of producing radical, positive transformation across America?
Sound crazy? It’s actually happened twice.
The first time was in the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal literally flipped our politics and the American economy upside down, turning us from a raw, harsh capitalist system to a democratic socialist system with Social Security, legalized unions, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, workplace safety rules, massive infrastructure construction, and millions of Americans being employed directly by the government to end poverty.
It happened again in the 1960s, with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, producing Medicare, Medicaid, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, food stamps, low income housing, National Public Radio, a transformation of our educational system for the better, USAID, Job Corps, VISTA, Head Start, a major Social Security expansion, The National Endowment for the Arts, and what was essentially free college.
Sunday, I was on Ali Velshi’s show on MSNBC a conversation about protest movements. I pointed out that back in the 60s, when I was in SDS, there were a number of groups that were quite active, particularly on college campuses, but today most of them have been gutted or banned.
Black Lives Matter has disintegrated, the movement against Israel’s slaughter in Gaza has led to universities rolling over and capitulating, and the #MeToo and abortion rights movements are essentially leaderless.
Which leaves the Democratic Party, as I mentioned on Ali’s show. Billionaires and racists turned the Republican Party into a neofascist protest party over the past decade; progressives and those of us who want to preserve democracy in America need to similarly says control of and radicalize the Democratic Party in the tradition of FDR and LBJ.
There is a vital lesson progressives must learn, which is how the far right took control of the Republican Party over a decade ago and forced the entire Conservative establishment to lurch so far to the Right that they’ve even dumped people like Liz Cheney and George W. Bush.
If progressives hope to have any shot at influencing today’s Democratic Party and kicking out the corporate sellout Democrats and replacing them with real-deal progressives, then we need to get to work right now to do exactly what the Tea Party did a decade and a half ago to take power.
And it starts in our own backyards.
Let me introduce you to the now-defunct Concord Project, a right-wing organization that, a decade ago, was in charge of helping the Tea Party’s Successful effort to take over and radicalize the GOP.
The Concord Project expanded their get-out-the-vote strategy beyond just traditional phone banking, canvassing, and putting up “vote Republican” signs. Instead, they decided to infiltrate local politics by encouraging Tea Partiers and conservatives more generally to become “Precinct Committee Members.”
“What’s the most powerful political office in the world? It is not the President of the United States. It’s Precinct Committeeman.”
So why is a Precinct Committeeman (or person) so important?
“First, because precinct committeemen and only precinct committeemen get to elect the leaders of the political parties; if you want to elect the leadership of one of the two major political parties in this country, then you have to become a precinct committeeman.”
As in the oldest and most basic governing reality in a republic: true and effective political power flows up from the bottom.
It starts with Precinct Committeemen and women — people who are either appointed or win local elections with very few votes at stake, in some cases only 10 or 20 votes — to gain positions that pretty much anyone can hold but which wield enormous power.
It’s Precinct Committee Persons who elect district, county, and state party officials and delegates, who choose primary nominees that then go on to hold elected office, and who help draft a party’s platform.
They’re also generally the first people who elected officials meet with when they come back into the district. And those officials listen carefully to what Precinct Committee persons have to say.
So, the Concord folks told their people, if far right Tea Partiers moved in and took over Precinct Committee seats then they’d also be able to nominate a slew of Tea Partiers to hold higher offices within the Republican Party and for primaries.
And those Tea Party Republican Party primary candidates would then be winnowed down in the primary to one Tea Party Republican to run against the Democrat in the general election. This way, Tea Partiers would end up dominating the GOP.
That was their pitch: take over the party from the inside, from the bottom up. And it worked….
After the election, I confidently predicted that Trump would never be able to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education. To eliminate a Department required Congressional approval, and I was confident that Trump would never get that. He would need 60 votes, not 51, and he would never get them. There might even be Republicans voting to keep the Department.
But I was wrong. Obviously. It didn’t occur to me that Trump would fire half the staff of the Department and dismantle it without seeking Congressional approval.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President could continue to lay off the employees of the Department of Education while leaving aside the legal question of his power to destroy a Department created by Congress 45 years ago. Its ruling allowed him to achieve his goal without consulting Congress or abiding by the Constitution.
Because he wanted to. And because Congress–if asked– would stop him. And because six members of the Court wanted to help him achieve his goal.
Lower courts told him to reinstate those who were fired without cause. Federal Appeals courts agreed with the lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed them and gave Trump what he wanted.
The Republicans in Congress watched supinely, conceding another of their Constitutuinal powers. They had already abandoned their power of the purse. Trump might as well abolish Congress. He doesn’t need their approval. They have disemboweled themselves, with the approval of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court majority are extremists. They occasionally hold up a fig leaf and claim to be “originalists” or “textualists,” interpreting the Constitution as it was written. We now see that they are originalists when it suits them, but not originalists when Trump asks them to expand his imperial powers.
The Founders thought they had created a system of checks and balances, where no single branch could control the other two. Trump is the conniving scoundrel that they warned about in the Federalist Papers.
Republicans were not always hostile to the Department of Education. Reagan wanted to abolish it right away, but instead reaped the rewards of a 1983 report called “A Nation at Risk,” which excoriated the nation’s public schools and undermined the public’s faith in them.
Reagan’s successor, his Vice-President George H.W. Bush, did not try to abolish the Department of Education. Instead, he decided to use it to burnish his credentials. After first appointing a little-known president from Texas as Secretary of Education, Lauro Cavazos, President Bush decided that he wanted to be known as “the Education President.” He appointed Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander as Secretary and convened a gathering of the nation’s governors to set national goals. (Secretary Alexander selected me to become Assistant Secretary in charge of the Department’s research arm).
There was no talk of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education during the term of Bush 1.
When George W. Bush became President in 2000, he never sought to close down the Department. His first piece of legislation was called No Child Left Behind, and he expected the Department to help him build his claim to be “a compassionate conservative.”
Again, no talk of abolishing the Department during the eight years of Bush 2.
When Trump was elected in 2016, abolishing the Department was not on his agenda. He appointed billionaire Betsy DeVos as Secretary, and her goal was to use the Department to fund charters and vouchers. She shoveled nearly $2 billion into the creation and expansion of charters but got nowhere with a federal voucher plan.
And then came Trump’s second term, where he allied himself with the most extreme elements of the Far Right. They were there during Trump 1, but in his second term, the extremists are in charge. By extremists, I mean not only the anti-government billionaires like Peter Thiel, but the entrenched rightwing zealots of what used to be called the John Birch Society. When Trump denounces Democrats as “Communists,” “radical leftwing lunatics,” and other bile, I feel as if I’m time-traveling back to the McCarthy era, when unhinged rightwingers flung such insults at their political opponents.
With the Supreme Court’s approval, Linda MacMahon will resume firing employees of the Departnent of Education and sending its core programs to other departments.
If the Supreme Court ever gets around to deciding whether Trump has the legal authority to abolish the Department of Education, it will already be gone.
Democrats are tied up in knots trying to frame “the right message.”
Republicans are focused relentlessly on stupid, misleading culture war issues, invented out of whole cloth. They skillfully maneuver voters into arguing about fake issues, enabling them to sidestep their truly terrible policies and goals.
A few years back, Republicans launched a full-scale attack on “critical race theory,” which demonized any honest examination of American history. Parents turned out to school board meetings to protest the phantom CRT, which allegedly made white kids feel bad.
Republicans harped on the issue, and red states passed laws banning CRT and other “divisive” concepts. The base fell for the anti-CRT campaign hook, line, and sinker.
Have you heard about CRT lately? NO. It served its purpose. On to fomenting hate against other targets.
In the 2024 campaign, the Republican Party had two burning issues: transgender people and violent immigrants. They harped relentlessly on parents’ fears that teachers were indoctrinating their children to be gay, even to be transgender. School nurses, it seemed, were performing surgery at school so that students could switched to a different gender, even though the same nurses won’t prescribe an aspirin without parental permission.
Stoking hatred towards immigrants was equally successful for Republicans. Undocumented immigrants were here to rape and murder. When the election was over, Trump used the hatred he had stoked to unleash masked thugs to kidnap people off the streets and throw them into unmarked vans. The mass roundups continue, despite pleas by farmers and the tourist industry to leave their workers alone.
The centerpiece of Trump’s massive Big Ugly Bill was the billions allotted to dertaining and expelling the immigrants that Trump used to stoke fear and hatred.
Culture war issues are very successful for Republicans because they distract the public from what is really happening. They distract from informed discussions of the radical downsizing of the federal government, the shutdown of foreign aid, the elimination of programs authorized by Congress, the incoherent tariff wars that alienate our allies.
The latest culture war issue has been building against the new “Superman” movie. It is even more pointless than the war against CRT and trans kids.
So apparently Superman believing in “basic human kindness” is now controversial. Who knew?
James Gunn, director of the new Superman film hitting theaters this Friday, recently sat down with The Times of London for an interview about his take on the Man of Steel. His crime? Describing Superman as “the story of America” — specifically, as an immigrant story centered on the apparently radical notion that being kind to people is good, actually.
“I mean, Superman is the story of America. An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country,” Gunn told the newspaper. “But for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”
Pretty anodyne stuff, right? The most famously wholesome superhero represents wholesome values. An alien refugee who becomes Earth’s greatest champion might have something to do with immigration. Real “water is wet” territory here.
But in the right-wing media ecosystem, Gunn’s comments were treated like he’d just announced Superman would be spending the entire movie reading The Communist Manifesto while wearing a pussy hat. Fox News immediately branded the film “Superwoke.”Jesse Watters suggested Superman’s cape should read “MS13.” Breitbart called it “terrible,” “superficial,” and “overstuffed” — which is impressive considering they hadn’t seen it yet. One OutKick writer declared that Gunn was “obviously upset that President Donald Trump is deporting illegal immigrants by the millions.”
All because a director pointed out that Superman — a character literally created by the children of Jewish immigrants — is an immigrant story about being nice to people.
The manufactured outrage machine kicked into overdrive so fast, you’d think Gunn had suggested replacing the S on Superman’s chest with a hammer and sickle. But this isn’t really about Superman. It’s about how conservative media takes the most innocuous statements and transforms them into culture war ammunition. It’s about how the right-wing ecosystem has become so reflexively oppositional that even “basic human kindness” reads as a partisan attack.
And perhaps most tellingly, it’s about what happens when you’ve built an entire media apparatus that needs a constant supply of things to be mad about — even if that means getting upset that Superman, of all characters, stands for truth, justice, and helping people.
Let’s trace how this nonsense actually unfolded, because watching the outrage assembly line in action is genuinely instructive.
The Times interview dropped on July 6. Within hours, the right-wing media apparatus had stripped Gunn’s comments of context and repackaged them as an assault on American values.
Fox News didn’t just report on Gunn’s comments; they created an entire narrative. “Superwoke” became their branded shorthand, repeated across segments like a mantra. Kellyanne Conway appeared on the network to declare, “We don’t go to the movie theater to be lectured to and to have somebody throw their ideology onto us.” Because apparently, suggesting people should be kind is now “ideology.”
But it was Jesse Watters who really went for it, quipping, “You know what it says on his cape? MS13.” Yes, the Fox News host actually tried to connect Superman — SUPERMAN — to a Salvadoran gang. Because he’s an immigrant, get it? Real subtle stuff.
The escalation was predictable. Ben Shapiro released a YouTube video through The Daily Wire, focusing his ire on lead actor David Corenswet’s refusal to say “the American way” in interviews. Instead, Corenswet had said “truth, justice, and all that good stuff,” which apparently constitutes treason in Shapiro’s America. “The reality that Hollywood is so far to the left that they cannot take a core piece of Americana and just say it’s about America,” Shapiro complained, seemingly unaware that “the American way” wasn’t even added to Superman’s motto until the 1950s.
The coordination across outlets was almost impressive. All the right-wing news organizations hit the same talking points within 48 hours. “Go woke, go broke” appeared in nearly every piece, because if there’s one thing conservative media loves, it’s a catchphrase that rhymes.
What’s particularly rich about all this pearl-clutching is that these same outlets constantly complain about “cancel culture” and “mob mentality.” Yet here they are, organizing a pre-emptive boycott of a movie because its director said… checks notes… immigrants can be good people and we should be nice to each other.
There is more to her brilliant critique. Open the link and finish reading. I subscribed.
Meanwhile, the actual film is getting great reviews and audience reactions. We are all in danger of being nice and kind to one another.
Trump and the Republican Party have long advocated for changes in federal law to allow churches to engage in political activities. The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, limited the ability of churches and other religious institutions from issuing endorsements from the pulpit. Trump’s base includes evangelical churches that wanted this ban lifted. Trump didn’t have to change the law. He just had to appoint the Director of the Internal Revenue Service.
The I.R.S. said on Monday that churches and other houses of worship can endorse political candidates to their congregations, carving out an exemption in a decades-old ban on political activity by tax-exempt nonprofits.
The agency made that statement in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit filed by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters.
The plaintiffs that sued the Internal Revenue Service had previously asked a federal court in Texas to create an even broader exemption — to rule that all nonprofits, religious and secular, were free to endorse candidates to their members. That would have erased a bedrock idea of American nonprofit law: that tax-exempt groups cannot be used as tools of any campaign.
Instead, the I.R.S. agreed to a narrower carveout — one that experts in nonprofit law said might sharply increase politicking in churches, even though it mainly seemed to formalize what already seemed to be the agency’s unspoken policy.
The agency said that if a house of worship endorsed a candidate to its congregants, the I.R.S. would view that not as campaigning but as a private matter, like “a family discussion concerning candidates.”
“Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the agency said, in a motion filed jointly with the plaintiffs.
The ban on campaigning by nonprofits is named after former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced it as a senator in 1954. President Trump has repeatedly called for its repeal.
Diane Ravitch's blog 