The Collapse of Democracy in the USA: A chilling View

Europe is at a crucial juncture of its history. The American shield is slipping away, Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia is being strengthened. Washington has become the court of Nero: an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers, and a buffoon on ketamine tasked with purging the civil service.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. [President Donald] Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, because he will not defend you, he will impose more tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories, while supporting the dictators who invade you.

The king of the deal is showing that the art of the deal is lying prostrate. He thinks he will intimidate China by capitulating to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but China’s President Xi Jinping, faced with such wreckage, is undoubtedly accelerating his plans to invade Taiwan.

Never in history has a president of the United States surrendered to the enemy. Never has one supported an aggressor against an ally, issued so many illegal decrees, and sacked so many military leaders in one go. Never has one trampled on the American Constitution, while threatening to disregard judges who stand in his way, weaken countervailing powers, and take control of social media.

This is not a drift to illiberalism; this is the beginning of the seizure of democracy. Let us remember that it only took one month, three weeks, and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its constitution.

I have confidence in the solidity of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in the four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator; now we are fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very moment when Trump was patting French President Emmanuel Macron on the back at the White House, the United States voted at the United Nations with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the Oval Office, the draft-dodger was giving moral and strategic lessons to the Ukrainian president and war hero, Volodymyr Zelensky, before dismissing him like a stable boy, ordering him to submit or resign.

That night, he took another step into disgrace by halting the delivery of promised weapons. What should we do in the face of such betrayal? The answer is simple: Stand firm.

And above all: make no mistake. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic states, Georgia, and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to the Yalta Agreement, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.

The countries of the global South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe, or whether they are now free to trample it.

What Putin wants is the end of the world order the United States and its allies established 80 years ago, in which the first principle was the prohibition of acquiring territory by force.

This idea is at the very foundation of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the aggressed, because the Trumpian vision coincides with Putin’s: a return to spheres of influence, where great powers dictate the fate of small nations.

Greenland, Panama, and Canada are mine. Ukraine, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe are yours. Taiwan and the South China Sea are his.

At the Mar-a-Lago dinner parties of golf-playing oligarchs, this is called “diplomatic realism.”

We are therefore alone. But the narrative that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to Kremlin propaganda, Russia is doing poorly. In three years, the so-called second army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country with about a quarter its population.

With interest rates at 21 percent, the collapse of foreign currency and gold reserves, and a demographic crisis, Russia is on the brink. The American lifeline to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made during a war.

The shock is violent, but it has one virtue. The Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in a single day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands, and that they have three imperatives.

Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that Ukraine can hang on, and of course to secure its and Europe’s place at the negotiating table.

This will be costly. It will require ending the taboo on using Russia’s frozen assets. It will require bypassing Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself through a coalition that includes only willing countries, and the United Kingdom of course.

Second, demand that any agreement include the return of kidnapped children and prisoners, as well as absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know what Putin’s agreements are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.

Finally, and most urgently because it will take the longest, we must build that neglected European defense, which has relied on the American security umbrella since 1945 and which was shut down after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The task is Herculean, but history books will judge the leaders of today’s democratic Europe by its success or failure.

Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is a recognition that France has been right for decades in advocating for strategic autonomy.

Now it must be built. This will require massive investment to replenish the European Defense Fund beyond the Maastricht debt criteria, harmonize weapons and munitions systems, accelerate European Union membership for Ukraine, which now has the leading army in Europe, rethink the role and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, and relaunch missile-shield and satellite programs.

Europe can become a military power again only by becoming an industrial power again. But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament.

We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and above all in the face of Putin’s collaborators on the far right and far left.

They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump says is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of a de Gaullian Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain under Putin’s thumb. The peace of collaborators who, for three years, have refused to support the Ukrainians in any way.

Is this the end of the Atlantic alliance? The risk is great. But in recent days, Zelensky’s public humiliation and all the crazy decisions taken over the past month have finally stirred Americans into action. Poll numbers are plummeting. Republican elected officials are greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical.

The Trumpists are no longer at the height of glory. They control the executive branch, Congress, the Supreme Court, and social media. But in American history, the supporters of freedom have always won. They are starting to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine will be decided in the trenches, but it also depends on those who defend democracy in the United States, and here, on our ability to unite Europeans and find the means for our common defense, to make Europe the power it once was and hesitates to become again.

Our parents defeated fascism and communism at the cost of great sacrifice. The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century. Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe

The Value of Compassionate Governance

THIS I BELIEVE;

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. No, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

3. I believe  higher education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. Graduating with crippling debt is NOT good for the economy.

4. I DO NOT believe our money should be taken from us and given to people who don’t want to work. I have never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can’t afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

5. I don’t throw around “I’m willing to pay higher taxes” lightly. If I’m suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it’s because I’m fine with paying my share as long as it’s actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. Ezra Klein said the other day, “When people complain about their taxes they say, “My taxes are too high.” When they should say, “MY TAXES ARE TOO HIGH AND I GET NOTHING FOR IT.” “

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn’t have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is – and should be – illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I’m not “offended by Christianity” — I’m offended that you’re trying to force me to live by your religion’s rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That’s how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

8. I don’t believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

9. I don’t believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN’T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they’re supposed to be abusing, and if they’re “stealing” your job it’s because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

10. I don’t believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It’s not that I want the government’s hands in everything — I just don’t trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they’re harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

11. I believe our current administration has some serious fascist tendencies. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I’ve spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. From masked agents kidnapping college students because of their beliefs to rounding up Venezuelans because of their tattoos and sending them to El Salvador. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege, like me, white, straight, male, economic, etc. — need to start listening, even if you don’t like what we’re hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that’s causing people to be marginalized.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. My name is Anthony. I prefer to be called Tony. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you’re using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

So let’s clear a few things up.

I don’t fit into some one-size-fits-all stereotype, and neither do most people who share my views. What I believe in is fairness, compassion, and the idea that a civilized society should look out for its people. If that sounds radical, maybe the problem isn’t me.

Somewhere along the way, these beliefs have been twisted into something extreme, impractical, or even un-American. I’ve been told what I stand for, what I believe, and what my values are by people who’ve never once asked. And quite frankly, I’m tired of it.

So, for the record—this is what I believe. This is why I stand where I stand. If that makes me a liberal, then so be it.

Liberal. 

lib·er·al

/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

adjective

  1.  relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise
  2. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.

noun

  1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.”she dissented from the decision, joined by the court’s liberals”
  2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Why History Matters: Learning from Europe’s Educational Approaches

As many of you know, I have lived and worked in Europe off and on for the last few years. When it comes to current educational standards and philosophy I feel we Arte moving in the wrong direction. As a gymnastics coach I tell my athletes that they do not start REALLY learning until they get out of their comfort zone. The same is true with HISTORY. While many states in the USA right now do not want to make any white student uncomfortable with our past, many countries in Europe take on their past head on .

​In Germany and Italy, the teaching of fascism, Nazism, and World War II is approached with a commitment to confronting historical truths, ensuring that students understand the complexities and atrocities of their past. This educational philosophy contrasts sharply with current trends in several U.S. states, where legislative measures are restricting discussions on racism, sexism, segregation, and the Civil War. Such limitations hinder students’ ability to engage critically with history, depriving them of essential knowledge and understanding.​

Educational Approaches in Germany and Italy

In Germany, the education system mandates comprehensive coverage of the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Students visit concentration camps, engage with survivor testimonies, and analyze the socio-political factors that led to the rise of Nazism. This immersive approach fosters a deep understanding of the consequences of totalitarianism and the importance of democratic values.​

Italy’s educational system also addresses its fascist past, though with some differences. Post-World War II, Italy underwent a less extensive de-fascistization process compared to Germany. However, contemporary Italian textbooks strive to present an objective analysis of Mussolini’s regime, its alliance with Nazi Germany, and the impact on Italian society. This includes discussions on the implementation of antisemitic laws in 1938 and Italy’s role during the war. ​RedditHolocaust Encyclopedia

The Consequences of Ignoring Difficult Histories

In contrast, numerous U.S. states have introduced legislation that restricts teaching about racism and related issues. As of early 2023, only California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Vermont have not attempted such bans.  These legislative actions often stem from misunderstandings about critical race theory (CRT), an academic framework that examines systemic racism within legal and social contexts. Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims, leading to bans in states like Tennessee and Idaho. ​World Population ReviewBrookings+5ABC News+5Statista+5Brookings

By limiting discussions on these critical aspects of American history, students are deprived of the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to understand the roots and ramifications of social injustices. This educational censorship undermines the development of critical thinking skills and the ability to engage in informed civic discourse.​

IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHERE YOU COMING FROM. Bob Marley

The Role of the Department of Education

The Department of Education played a crucial role in setting national educational standards and ensuring that curricula are comprehensive and inclusive. Abolishing this department will exacerbate the current trend of educational censorship by removing a centralized body that advocates for balanced and thorough historical education. Without federal oversight, states may have greater latitude to implement restrictive educational policies, further hindering students’ understanding of complex historical and social issues.​

The experiences of Germany and Italy demonstrate the importance of confronting and teaching difficult historical truths. By contrast, the current trajectory in parts of the United States toward restricting discussions on racism and other critical topics threatens to deprive students of essential knowledge and critical thinking skills. Maintaining robust educational standards through institutions like the Department of Education is vital to ensure that future generations are well-informed and capable of contributing thoughtfully to society. We must do better in embracing our full history, acknowledging its complexities, and learning from it to build a more just and equitable future.​

Recent Developments in Education Legislation

https://www.reachinghighernh.org/content-item/461/nh-state-board-of-education-adopts-controversial-minimum-standards-despite-sharp-public-opposition

Chron

AG Ken Paxton sues North Texas district for allegedly teaching critical race theory

8 days agoAxiosTexas AG sues Coppell ISD after conservative activist video claims district teaches critical race theory

7 days agoAxiosTexas Senate passes religious, anti-DEI education bills2 days ago

Embracing Diversity: Democrats’ Path to Victory in New Hampshire

The Path Forward for Democrats: Embracing Our Big Tent

A friend recently posted something that struck a chord with me. 

I’m so exhausted by the anti Trump hysteria of my friends. Kamala lost badly to a tremendously flawed candidate. Your party lost the elections by lying about Biden, putting out a weak candidate, and a platform that 50% plus of America don’t agree with. Put on your big boy pants, start working on a viable platform, find a viable candidate, and quit whining.

 It expressed his frustration with the anti-Trump hysteria among some Democrats and criticized the party for failing to put forward a winning strategy in the last election. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the post, I do think it raises an important point: we cannot afford to be the party of reactionary opposition. Instead, we must focus on building a strong, coherent platform and uniting under leaders who can effectively communicate our vision for the future. Not just at the National level but at the State and local level as well. 

Beyond Just Saying ‘No’

One of my biggest frustrations with today’s GOP is their reflexive obstructionism—saying “no” to everything simply because it comes from the other side. That’s not governance; that’s just political posturing. As Democrats, we need to be better than that. We should oppose policies, legislation, and judicial nominees that conflict with our values—not simply because they originate from Republicans.

Similarly, we need to ensure that our opposition to Trumpism isn’t just performative outrage. If we want to be effective, we must offer tangible solutions that speak to the needs of everyday Americans. Complaining about GOP hypocrisy will not win elections—offering a better alternative will.

Our Strength Is in Our Diversity

The Democratic Party is a big tent, and that is one of our greatest strengths. We represent a broad spectrum of ideologies, from progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC to moderates like Abigail Spanberger and (for a while) the likes of Joe Manchin. While this diversity can sometimes make it difficult to rally around a single message, it also means that we have the ability to reach different demographics and communities.

Rather than expecting one leader to unite the entire party, we should embrace the strengths of multiple voices. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez energize young voters and the progressive base. Ro Khanna connects with the tech and innovation sectors. Jamie Raskin is a strong advocate for constitutional democracy. We need to elevate all of these voices while also ensuring we have candidates who can speak to the broader electorate, including independents and moderates.

Trump Won Because He Promised to Get Things Done

Whether we like it or not, Trump resonated with voters because he promised to tackle real issues. Even though many of his promises—like ending the war in Ukraine or significantly lowering prices—were unrealistic, people were drawn to the idea of a leader who would take action. That is something Democrats need to learn from. We can’t just run on being against Trump or the GOP; we need to clearly define what we stand for and what we will accomplish.

The Future of Democrats in New Hampshire

New Hampshire has long been a political battleground, and we must be strategic in how we move forward. So, what can we do?

Find Leaders Who Can Speak to Our Big Tent – We need candidates who can appeal to different factions within the party while also reaching independent voters. This means supporting leaders who can bridge the gap between progressives and moderates.

Develop a Clear and Unifying Message – Rather than being defined by opposition to Trump or the GOP, we need a compelling vision for America’s future. Economic opportunity, healthcare, climate action, and democracy protection should be at the core of our platform.

Engage in Grassroots Organizing – Winning in New Hampshire (and nationally) isn’t just about big-name endorsements. It’s about knocking on doors, talking to voters, and mobilizing at the local level.

Encourage New Voices – The next generation of Democratic leaders is out there. We need to support and uplift young candidates who can connect with voters in ways traditional politicians may not.

Focus on Real-World Issues – If we don’t have a clear list of things we will accomplish, what is the point? Democrats at the state and city level need to lay out specific, tangible goals—affordable housing, public transportation improvements, lower healthcare costs, or better education funding. Voters need to see that we are working toward real solutions, not just playing politics.

The Democratic Party must evolve if we want to secure lasting victories. That means moving beyond knee-jerk opposition and working toward real solutions. It means embracing the diversity of voices within our party and building a coalition that speaks to all Americans. New Hampshire can be a model for this strategy if we commit to forward-thinking leadership and genuine engagement with the voters who will shape our future.

New Hampshire GOP: What’s Their Endgame?

What is it that New Hampshire Republicans want, at the end?

Dana Wormald

DANA WORMALD
MARCH 25, 2025 2:30 PM

 People protest various actions undertaken by the Trump administration and Elon Musk during a rally in front of the State House on March 14, 2025. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin)

I’m confused about what Republican voters in New Hampshire want.

I mean, I know what they want right now. Lower (or nonexistent) taxes, the dismantling of public education, fewer (or zero) protections for LGBTQ people, the disappearance of migrants who lack the proper documentation, the elimination of environmental regulations, the continued dominance of fossil fuels, reductions to (or the end of) the social safety net, more power for parents to control what their kids learn at school, a version of the American story that redacts any mention of genocide or slavery, a male- and Christian-dominated system of women’s reproductive health care, freedom from vaccination and other public health initiatives, and the overall elimination of the public sector as we know it.

That much is clear. What I don’t understand is what they want ultimately.

Once all of the so-called liberal or progressive policies and systems are eradicated, what kind of state and nation are we left with? The replies from the right are not tough to predict: “Sounds like paradise to me.” But that’s just the politics of retribution talking, with all of its B.S. bravado and “Make America Great Again” inanity.

Is a society without community-based public education a better society? Republicans seem to think so, but I can’t wrap my brain around what it is they are picturing instead. When education is privatized, which is the ultimate goal of school vouchers, how can the system create anything other than rich schools for rich kids and poor schools for poor kids, a predicament-by-design not unlike the one we find ourselves in now. So, vouchers can’t be the solution. The answer to New Hampshire’s equity problem is fair taxation and distribution — a system of public education no longer reliant on collective wealth within town lines. Republicans like to scare voters away from this kind of unity by screaming “socialism” at every opportunity, but what they are proposing instead is increased inequality through privatization. How is that a better situation for anyone other than the already wealthy and powerful?

How is society stronger when our transgender or immigrant neighbors are afraid for their very lives because of policies instituted or protections repealed based on nothing more than apocryphal anecdotes and cultivated fear? How is our beautiful state an even better place to live because environmental regulations are eliminated and clean power and energy efficiency initiatives are blocked? Even if you buy the economic arguments of the need for fossil fuel-based energy policies, is the degradation of New Hampshire’s natural environment (and, you know, the continued destruction of the planet) worth it? And are we such big fans of free-market liberty that we’ll accept the White Mountain National Forest being opened up to any and all kinds of corporate exploitation?

Is all of that the goal?

And what do New Hampshire Republicans want for their children? Freedom from vaccines that are intended to make their very future more assured? Do they want their kids to believe that the American experiment was of divine creation, that there was no tragic abandonment of human principles at any point along the way to the 21st century? No colonization, no genocide, no slavery, no segregation, no lynchings, no red-lining. To what end do we create those gaps in our children’s knowledge? Is it the belief that there can be darkness or light, good or evil, but not both? That we are a nation built and maintained only by heroes, so different from the rest of us in our daily imperfection and inability to live up to our own standards of behavior? What is more human than wanting, needing to know — about what lies over the horizon, in the stars, at the bottom of the ocean, in the hearts of those who are so different from ourselves? 

Is the point to stop the kids from yearning for knowledge and understanding about the complexities of how this moment came to be?

I know that not all New Hampshire Republicans want the same things. For some, it’s the pro-business, anti-tax piece of the platform that makes them register as Republicans. For others, it’s a desire for revenge against societal shifts that they don’t like or that make them uncomfortable — for which they use the shorthand “woke.” But in this moment, made unique by the appetite and actions of Donald Trump and his administration, it is impossible for a New Hampshire Republican to pick and choose the way the party does or does not represent their desires.

In the March 27 edition of The New York Review of Books, Neal Ascherson writes about a recent book by Richard J. Evans titled “Hitler’s People: The Faces of the Third Reich.” 

Here’s Ascherson, under the headline “Ordinary Germans”: “The late Erhard Eppler, a radical Christian who became ‘the conscience of Social Democrats’ in postwar West Germany, used to invoke the Roman fasces as the image of twentieth-century fascism: a bundle of quite disparate rods (or policies) held together by the strap of the leader. When the strap is cut, the rods scatter, and people could claim that ‘I agreed with Hitler about revising the Versailles Treaty or ‘degenerate culture,’ but I always thought the persecution of the Jews a grave mistake. So I never believed in the whole fasces-bundle. So I was never truly a Nazi!’ To which Evans’s book in effect retorts: During the Third Reich, you could not pick and choose between ‘rods.’ You either accepted or rejected the bundle as a whole.”

I bring up Ascherson’s description of the rods and the bundle not to compare regimes but rather to see what one political moment can tell us about another. To be a Republican in New Hampshire in 2025 is to be for all of the things I mentioned at the top of this essay. The social, cultural, political, and economic toll of that bundle is such that no one can claim liberty to choose from among the rods, now or later. 

There was a time when a Republican could declare themselves a “moderate” or a “fiscal conservative,” but times have changed in a way that disallows that luxury. All that remains is history’s clear choice: You either accept or reject the bundle as a whole.

Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for the Economy—When Used to Incentivize Reinvestment and Growth

Yesterday I posted this on social media:

Of course what I posted caused a bit of a firestorm with people arguing that the Department of Education was useless etc. What I didn’t understand were the people arguing for trickle down economics. No matter that it has NEVER worked the way they want/ dream. It is a ZOMBIE argument. No matter how many times it gets killed it keeps coming back. People are entitled to their own opinions. Just not their own facts.

The Failure of Trickle-Down Economics and Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for Growth

For decades, politicians and business leaders have promoted trickle-down economics—the idea that cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy will lead to widespread economic benefits. This theory assumes that when the richest individuals and largest companies have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and ultimately improve wages for everyone.

But history has proven otherwise. Instead of spurring economic prosperity for all, trickle-down policies have increased income inequality, slowed wage growth, and allowed corporations to hoard profits rather than reinvest in the economy. It’s time to abandon this failed approach and adopt policies that encourage reinvestment, job creation, and fair economic growth—starting with higher corporate taxes.

1. Why Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed

The Wealth Stays at the Top

One of the biggest flaws of trickle-down economics is the assumption that tax breaks for corporations will eventually “trickle down” to workers through higher wages and more job opportunities. However, in practice, the wealth tends to accumulate at the top rather than being shared.

When corporations receive tax cuts, they rarely pass those savings on to employees. Instead, they use them for stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and offshore tax havens. For example, after the 2017 U.S. corporate tax cuts, corporations spent a record-breaking $806 billion on stock buybacks, benefiting shareholders but doing little to help workers.

Wages Have Stagnated While Corporate Profits Soar

If trickle-down economics worked, we would have seen wages rise significantly alongside corporate tax cuts. Instead, worker wages have remained stagnant for decades, even as productivity and corporate profits have surged.

Between 1979 and 2019, U.S. worker productivity grew nearly 60%, but wages for the average worker increased by only 15% (adjusted for inflation). Meanwhile, CEO pay skyrocketed by over 1,000% in the same period. Rather than fueling economic prosperity for all, tax cuts have primarily enriched executives and shareholders.

Corporate Tax Cuts Increase Income Inequality

By reducing corporate taxes, governments effectively shift the tax burden onto workers and small businesses. As corporations pay less, public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure suffer, disproportionately affecting middle- and lower-income individuals.

A 2020 study by the London School of Economics analyzed 50 years of data across 18 countries and found that tax cuts for the rich did not lead to economic growth or job creation but significantly increased income inequality. This means that trickle-down policies have only widened the wealth gap rather than lifting everyone up.

Corporate Profits:

According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), corporate profits in the United States have experienced significant growth over the past decades. For instance, corporate profits averaged $637.60 billion from 1947 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of $3,141.56 billion in the second quarter of 2024.

Average Employee Compensation:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides data on employer costs for employee compensation. As of December 2024, total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $44.67 per hour worked. Wages and salaries averaged $31.47 per hour, accounting for 70.5% of employer costs, while benefit costs averaged $13.20 per hour, accounting for the remaining 29.5%.

Trend Analysis:

Over recent decades, corporate profits have grown substantially faster than employee compensation. While the two measures tracked closely for most of the 20th century, workers have shared less of the gains more recently. Since 2000, employee compensation has increased 28% after inflation, whereas corporate profits have increased 107%

As the owner of a small business (about 50 employees) I am taking the risk. If my business fails I believe my employees will find different work before I am done cleaning out the buildings. Where I am on the hook. So YES- employers should be compensated at a higher rate. But I need to reinvest into the business and compensate my employees respectively.

2. Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for the Economy

Encouraging Reinvestment Instead of Hoarding

Higher corporate taxes—when paired with smart incentives—can drive economic growth by encouraging companies to reinvest their profits rather than hoarding them.

When corporate tax rates are too low, businesses have little reason to put money back into their companies. Instead, they often distribute profits to shareholders. A higher tax rate, combined with tax credits for reinvestment, would encourage corporations to:

  • Expand operations and hire more workers
  • Increase wages and employee benefits
  • Invest in research and development (R&D)
  • Upgrade infrastructure and production facilities

For example, Germany and Sweden maintain higher corporate tax rates than the U.S. but offer incentives for reinvestment, leading to strong job markets and industrial growth.

Reducing Income Inequality and Strengthening the Middle Class

Corporate tax revenue funds public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure—key drivers of economic mobility. When corporations pay their fair share, governments can invest in programs that support workers and create long-term economic stability.

Nordic countries, for example, have higher corporate taxes but also provide robust social services and worker protections, leading to stronger middle classes and higher economic growth compared to low-tax nations like the U.S.

Preventing Corporate Tax Avoidance and Offshore Hoarding

Low corporate taxes encourage companies to shift profits to offshore tax havens, where they pay little to no tax. This results in massive revenue losses for governments. In 2021 alone, U.S. multinational corporations avoided paying nearly $1 trillion in taxes by stashing profits overseas.

A fair corporate tax policy would:

  • Close loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes
  • Implement a global minimum tax to prevent offshoring
  • Incentivize domestic reinvestment by taxing excessive stock buybacks

Stimulating Demand Through Higher Wages and Job Growth

Economic growth is driven by consumer demand—when workers have more disposable income, they spend more, which boosts businesses. Low corporate taxes do not create demand; higher wages do.

A tax system that rewards companies for increasing wages and benefits would ensure that corporate success translates into real economic gains for workers, fueling a cycle of growth rather than stagnation.

Leveling the Playing Field for Small Businesses

Large multinational corporations benefit disproportionately from tax cuts and loopholes, allowing them to undercut small and medium-sized businesses. Higher corporate taxes, along with targeted incentives for local businesses, help level the playing field by ensuring that all businesses compete fairly.

For instance, Amazon has paid $0 in federal income tax multiple times despite massive profits, while small businesses face an average tax rate of 21%. Ensuring that large corporations pay their fair share helps create a fairer, more competitive business environment.

3. A Smarter Approach: Higher Corporate Taxes with Growth Incentives

Instead of blindly raising or lowering corporate taxes, the best approach is a progressive corporate tax system that rewards reinvestment while preventing excessive profit-hoarding.

Policies could include:

✅ Tax credits for job creation and wage increases

✅ Deductions for R&D and infrastructure investments

✅ Penalties for excessive stock buybacks and executive bonuses

✅ Stronger anti-avoidance laws to stop offshore tax sheltering

By aligning tax policy with economic growth, we can ensure that corporations contribute to a thriving economy instead of extracting wealth from it.

It’s Time to Move Beyond Trickle-Down Economics

The evidence is clear: trickle-down economics has failed. Instead of spurring economic prosperity, it has led to corporate greed, stagnant wages, and rising inequality.

The solution isn’t more tax cuts for the rich—it’s a fair corporate tax system that encourages reinvestment in workers, innovation, and long-term growth. By shifting economic policy away from failed trickle-down policies and toward a growth-driven reinvestment model, we can build a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous economy for everyone.

Trust Was Once an American Superpower

Opinion: Trust was once an American superpower

Undermining one of our country’s greatest and least-appreciated assets.

I was on my way to Europe for a work trip when I read this opinion. The entire time I was away I ran into many European colleagues wondering, “What happened to the once great USA?”

Jhon Boy/The New York Times

By Brooke Harrington | For The New York Times

 Remember last month, when you didn’t have to think twice about the safety of America’s nuclear arsenal? Or how about last year, when you could file your taxes without wondering if the I.R.S. might share your Social Security number and banking details with an unvetted contractor? Those were the days.

In the weeks since President Trump unleashed Elon Musk’s initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency, on our federal institutions, it has profoundly destabilized basic systems we count on to make our society function. Two weeks ago, Senator Ron Wyden announced that DOGE agents had gained access to the I.R.S. and “are in a position to dig through a trove of data about every taxpayer in America,” raising concerns about privacy and delayed refunds.

In early February, Mr. Trump suggested the DOGE team — many of whom are younger than the typical age required to rent a car — should staff air-traffic-control towers in lieu of the trained experts he claimed were “intellectually deficient.” His proposal seems unlikely to reassure Americans spooked by the spate of airline collisions and fatal crashes that have occurred since Inauguration Day, following years of warnings about inadequate aviation safety. A poll released last week shows that Americans’ confidence in the federal government to ensure aviation safety has already dropped by 11 percent since last year.

It’s as though the current administration is running Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days in reverse: Instead of rebuilding institutions and public trust at a moment of national peril, it seems to be trying to unravel both — and is creating a moment of national peril.

This threatens to destroy what’s left of Americans’ faith in government. Moving fast and breaking things — the Silicon Valley motto that appears to inspire Mr. Musk and his DOGE initiative — is “potentially wreaking havoc,” as Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Don Beyer recently wrote, on federal systems that ensure our physical and economic survival.

Those systems include the National Nuclear Security Administration: specialists who build and maintain the country’s nuclear stockpile. As many as 300 staff members were summarily firedearlier this month by DOGE officials who reportedly “did not seem to know this agency oversees America’s nuclear weapons” (some were reportedly asked to return to work). Worse yet, in its chaotic backtracking, the administration is now having trouble rehiring some of these specialists because it cannot find their contact information.

Even if all those nuclear specialists could be located, why would they consent to return now that Mr. Musk and DOGE have demonstrated their willingness to use federal authority as an instrument of capricious, arbitrary destruction?

This promises to be a tough way for Americans to learn a critical fact too often overlooked — that one of our country’s greatest and least-appreciated assets has been public faith and trust in a variety of highly complex systems staffed by experts whose names we’ll never know. In fact, high levels of trust used to be one of our superpowers in the United States: specifically, that meant trust in our government to operate with reasonable competence and stability, and without the kind of corruption that has hobbled other societies.

The key national asset was trust in the system overall, rather than in any individual or elected official. For decades, academics and polling companies have measured this with the question “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?”

Though that trust declined significantly as a result of the Vietnam War, it remained high enough that our country could regain stability and prosper after crises like the Covid pandemic, from which our peer nations struggled to recover. This was driven in part by faith in the competence and integrity of our civil service and federal institutions.

That is what is now at risk. Just before Mr. Trump took office the first time in 2017, Transparency International ranked the United States among the top 20 countries in the world for least corrupt government. Now the United States has plunged in those rankings to its lowest level ever. We now have the same ranking as the Bahamas, an offshore financial center rocked by recurrent fraud and corruption scandals (like the 2022 collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange).

Trust in government to do what is right, at least most of the time, is a form of wealth — call it civic capital — that breeds prosperity on many fronts. Anything that threatens that trust weakens our society and economy.

DOGE, with Mr. Musk’s leadership and the blessing of the Trump administration, seems determined to violate public trust on an unprecedented scale. The organization still operates with no clear legal authority to make the sweeping budgetary and personnel changes it is carrying out. Federal courts in Maryland, New York and Washington, D.C., are hearing lawsuits challenging DOGE as an unconstitutional “threat to democracy.”

Of course not all Americans think the disruptions from the Trump administration are creating distrust. He was elected to make changes, they say, and at least he is actually doing something. The White House itself argues that slashing the size of the federal government could yield major economic benefits.

Yet there is growing evidence that Americans doubt Mr. Trump’s leadership. In several polls, his approval ratings — which began at a high level for him but at a low level historically for a president just elected to office — have slipped. Another poll suggests that his administration’s priorities are misplaced, particularly in not doing enough to fight inflation. And perhaps above all, in recent weeks, as Republican lawmakers fan out across the country to face their constituents in town halls, they have been confronted by a barrage of fear and even fury at what the president is doing in Washington.

What’s more, the Musk initiative is raising the potential for long-term damage to vital government statistics: that is, to our public information infrastructure. DOGE staff members — whose names, titles and salaries the organization still refuses to release — have been granted access to vast data sets (like those of the Department of Labor) whose integrity is critical not only to the public but also to maintaining the web of trust linking federal agencies to one another. As the economics and technology journalist Lizzie O’Leary writes, “confidence in government statistics is a precious commodity.”

The same can be said of all forms of public confidence in government. Trust is the glue holding together our nearly 250-year-old democracy. But once it is lost for many Americans, trust is exceedingly difficult to win back.