A new generation of political activists is quickly learning an age-old maxim: corporate Democrats would rather lose (or move) to the right than lose to the left. That was the case in 2016, when the Democratic Party and its allies in the corporate press threw their full weight behind Hillary Clinton, whose defeat gave Trump and MAGA the power, platform, and legitimacy to become the most dominant political force in the United States for the last decade.

For someone like Haley Stevens, backing Republican Mike Rogers makes perfect sense. Much like Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t believe in anything. She’s an empty political vessel. Stevens isn’t committed to a political vision, set of values, or principled worldview. She’s a self-serving hack, like many of her colleagues in Congress. A performative clown whose support for Israel apparently transcends her commitment to combatting Trump’s fascist aspirations, blatant corruption, and disastrous foreign policy.

This, of course, has been taking place throughout the country, where corporate Democrats have attempted to undercut progressive candidates, sometimes prevailing. For the corporate Dems, losing to MAGA Republicans isn’t the end of their political careers. They’ll go on to host liberal cable news shows, teach at liberal universities, staff liberal think tanks, or work for corporate lobbying firms. In 2028, regardless of their previous political failures, they’ll be platformed as “serious” and “seasoned” analysts on TV panels and op-ed pages. Or they’ll go back to campaigning for corporate Democrats. Anything to remain rich and relevant.

Like most Americans, I’m quite skeptical, to say the least, of the Democrats who could take power in both the House and Senate in January. The Senate candidate in Alaska, former representative Mary Peltola, has repeatedly defended the oil and gas industry and has committed to exploring previously banned offshore drilling sites. When she previously served in the House, Peltola was the only NRA-endorsed Democrat.

In Kansas, the Democrats have nominated mega-church pastor Adam Hamilton, who, in a recent debate against his GOP opponent, Sen. Roger Marshall, tacked to the right of Marshall when it came to eliminating the cap on income taxable for Social Security. Hamilton also didn’t rule out raising the retirement age for future beneficiaries. His position regarding ICE and immigration enforcement is ambiguous, at best. Hamilton, a self-proclaimed liberal-conservative, pines for the days when Tip O’Neal and Ronald Reagan sat in the Rose Garden and worked out bipartisan deals. Essentially, the Democrats nominated Bob Dole.

All that said, I do realize that allowing the MAGA Republicans to retain control of Congress is untenable. Trump and MAGA must be stopped at every turn. If for no other reason than for symbolic importance. Our fellow Americans and people around the world must understand that Trumpism doesn’t represent the majority. In my view, defeating Trumpism electorally is a crucial step toward rebuilding any sense of solidarity.

Now, to what degree will the Democrats be willing or able to make a material difference in people’s lives? That remains a question. Structurally, the Democrats will be hampered by the legal constraints of the Constitution and the procedural mechanisms of Congress, both of which are purposely crafted to slow progressive reforms. Plus, Congress has ceded much of its power to the executive branch over the past two decades, empowering and entrenching the imperial presidency. All of this seriously impedes the Democrats’ ability to constrain Trump, let alone pass meaningful legislation.

And that’s assuming the Democrats can get on the same page. Right now, there’s no cohesive party platform or sense of unity beyond the goal of defeating the GOP. Because the Democratic Party base isn’t organized, many congressional Democrats will be quite eager to cut deals with their GOP counterparts, potentially handing Trump some legislative victories along the way. Moreover, the Democrats will not have the votes required to override a filibuster or to remove Trump from office through impeachment proceedings.

But they will have the power to stop Trump from appointing another justice to the Supreme Court. As Politicoreported earlier this month, “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has confirmed that he is considering retirement, leaving open the possibility that he could leave after next year’s term and hand another nomination to President Donald Trump.” As a result, elected Democrats would have a critical responsibility to prevent Trump from further solidifying a right-wing SCOTUS. This may also represent the best we can hope for from a Democratic Congress.

Any other aspirations for the incoming crop of newly elected Democrats rest on the naive hope that significant numbers of elected Republicans in the House and Senate will break ranks with the GOP, confront Trump, and hand the Democrats significant political victories. As it currently stands, there’s little evidence to support this theory. The past eleven years have shown that only a small percentage of elected Republicans have been willing to reject the worst excesses of Trumpism.

The existing Democratic Party leadership in the House and Senate, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, represent the very worst of the party. Their ability to retain leadership roles if or when the Democrats take power will provide an initial test. Haley Stevens’ willingness to hand Trump a victory to prevent a progressive candidate from winning a Senate seat could also represent a harbinger of things to come. Americans will quickly learn whether the Democratic Party’s primary goal is to stop Trump and fight for ordinary people, or hinder progressive populists from carving out more influence within the party.

In the end, the degree to which the Democrats will be inclined to fight Trump and MAGA will be determined by the extent to which the Democratic Party base and the broader public organize and mobilize if or when the Dems take power. If Americans remain at home, docile and unorganized, the very worst version of the Democratic Party will emerge. If people organize and mobilize, cause disruptions, pressure their elected officials and corporate CEOs, hit the streets, protest, march, and engage in civil disobedience, there’s a chance the Democrats will put up a serious fight against Trump. Without those efforts, we’re in serious trouble.

Subscribe now

Share

“Only children are this obtuse. Here’s how I see things. You blow up a school in Iran. 200 school kids die. . . and you’re more angry about the price of gas? What is that? They’re not mad about anything else. They’re not mad about wars where men and women and children are dying. My ground beef is too high! What is that?” -D.L. Hughley

Every once in a while, I come across a statement that captures something I’ve been thinking about. To my surprise, comedian and actor D.L. Hughley concisely articulated a question I’ve had since the beginning of Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal and immoral war against Iran: namely, is American opposition to the war based on a fundamental rejection of the war itself, or due to rising energy and food prices?

Let’s start with the basics. In my view, if you’re opposed to illegal, unjust, and immoral wars, then you oppose those wars regardless of who’s in power. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, man or woman, gay or straight. None of that bullshit makes a difference. And we oppose those horrific wars because war itself is a monstrosity. Mechanized violence is evil in the purest sense of the word.

During the height of the Iraq War, Americans protested, marched, and spoke out against the war because it was immoral, illegal, and based on lies. Anti-war activists and those opposed to the war warned of civilian deaths and U.S. military casualties. Children would die as a result of Bush’s barbaric war. Military servicemen and women would come home mangled and wrapped in body bags.

Americans were concerned about human life, not gas prices, which were actually higher during that period: $3.13 USD a gallon by 2005. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a national average of $5.40 per gallon in 2026 dollars. Today, the national average for gas is $4.30.

So, what happened?

There’s no easy explanation, of course. However, it seems clear to me that Americans’ moral compass has been waning for quite some time. Americans have become numb to grotesque images, a grotesque political and economic system, and a grotesque culture. Some of the most viral videos online feature bloody fights, shootouts, car crashes, and various other deadly calamities.

American tax dollars have funded the genocide of Palestinian people, and the absolute destruction of Gaza, and all of this has been live-streamed and captured for the world to see.

Yet, Americans haven’t made much of a fuss about Israel’s genocide. In fact, the only Americans who spoke out, stood up, and did anything about it were university students, unsurprisingly. But their encampments were destroyed.

While it’s true that Americans have turned against U.S. support for Israel in historic fashion, it’s also true that much of that rhetoric has focused on the amount of money U.S. taxpayers are shelling out to facilitate Israel’s bloodlust. Politicians, unsurprisingly, have also focused their carefully crafted rhetorical opposition to Israel’s genocide in similar terms.

Today, there’s little talk of dead Iranian civilians. No one seems to care about human life, let alone the ecological impact of such wars. Since the war began in February, I’ve asked myself a simple question: would the war in Iran even crack the top ten issues for American voters if the war had no impact on gas prices? I think we know the answer.

“But Vince, you can’t expect Americans to care about dead Iranians!” I guess not.

Okay, but what about dead U.S. military personnel? Journalists, politicians, and citizens who oppose the war rarely discuss them, too. But I can tell you this: the families, friends, and communities of those dead service members aren’t thinking about gas prices. They wake up each morning with a hole in their hearts that can never be filled. Do Americans care? Nope.

You see, there’s no social contract in the modern U.S. Not between the rich and poor, not between the government and its people, and not among people themselves. In 2026, it’s every man, woman, and child for themselves. Collective sacrifice? An outdated concept. Solidarity? Don’t be silly.

We have, in so many ways, become a dehumanized, callous nation.

This loss of humanity is also on display as ICE deports hundreds of thousands of immigrants, or about 1,200 people per day since Trump was re-elected in 2024. Non-immigrant Americans have been shot dead in broad daylight. The people of Minneapolis momentarily mobilized. Thank God. Some sign of life. But the rest of the country hasn’t done much.

People have resorted to the most impotent acts, such as posting anti-ICE memes on Facebook, pithy commentary on X, or short-form videos on Instagram. Otherwise, not a peep. Then again, why should anyone expect much more from an alienated, atomized, and hyper-individualized culture? We shouldn’t.

These days, political commentators, politicians, and journalists openly discuss the potential for nuclear war. Will Putin use nukes if the EU becomes more engaged in the war in Ukraine? Will Netanyahu use a tactical nuke if Israel feels boxed in or starts to lose ground? Will Trump launch a nuclear strike against Iran if he thinks it would shore up domestic political support or avoid international embarrassment?

“My God, what would happen to the global economy if they did?” That’s the sort of critical response we can expect in today’s world. Not a condemnation of nuclear weapons themselves. No concern for vaporized bodies. Just a question of what happens to the economy.

Perhaps part of the problem is that Americans haven’t experienced a war on our territory since 1865, when somewhere between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans lost their lives during the Civil War. That war scarred generations of Americans. It’s a war whose consequences we’re still living with — politically and culturally. But those memories are long gone.

In World War II, roughly 400,000 Americans died, but that war wasn’t fought on U.S. territory. It was fought in faraway lands. Americans in New York City didn’t experience the bombing campaigns our allies in London did. The rubble. The air raid sirens. The screams. The aftermath. Americans returned home, patted themselves on the back, and wrote novels and made Hollywood films about American bravery.

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people during World War II. China lost between 15 and 20 million of its people. Germany lost 7 million. Japan lost 5 million. And the Poles lost 6 million. Those nations and their citizens have a deeper understanding of the realities of war.

Americans have lived rather sheltered lives since the beginning of the 20th century compared to the rest of the world. That detachment, geographical, psychological, and emotional, has created a society of people who have no concept of mechanized violence.

And the country Americans have occupied since that time, the United States of America, has been transformed into a morally bankrupt carnival of grotesque wealth accumulation, frivolous entertainment, sports gambling, violent pornography, and daily exploitation. Anything and anyone for a buck. The ultimate me culture. Americans believe the whole world revolves around their individual needs and the needs of their families. Everyone else? An afterthought, if that.

In such a culture, it’s no surprise people couldn’t care less about dead school children. After all, there are more important things to do, like binge-watching Netflix series, playing Fantasy Football, or ordering garbage products on Amazon.

All of this portends a grim forecast for the American Empire. If this is where Americans are coming from today, if this is how far we’ve fallen over the past two decades, it’s difficult to imagine where we’ll be two decades from now if the current trajectory continues.

Subscribe now

Share

“To believe that the intolerable crime is to burn a few cars and rob some shops, whereas to kill a young man is trivial, is typically in keeping with what Marx regarded as the principal alienation of capitalism: the primacy of things over existence, of commodities over life and machines over workers.” -Alain Badiou, Polemics (2006)

In the summer of 2020, tens of millions of Americans hit the streets following the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police Department. Immediately, corporate news media sought to frame those protests, some of which became uprisings and riots, in a way that they themselves could understand and that was palatable to the general American public.

The narrative, according to the media, went something like this: a rogue police officer killed an unarmed and incapacitated black man; the public responded with anger; and all of this was to be understood as a backlash against bad policing. But that was only a small part of the story.

Americans had been locked in their houses and apartments for two and a half months before the Floyd uprisings. People were angry with the entire situation: the extreme alienation created by the lockdowns, the economic fallout as a result of those lockdowns, the state’s inability to adequately respond to a public health crisis, four years of Donald Trump, dwindling economic opportunities, qualified immunity, and a host of other grievances.

For those of us who’d participated in previous large-scale protests, uprisings, and riots, such as those in Ferguson, Missouri, following the murder of Michael Brown Jr. in August 2014, there’s an implicit understanding that such events in our modern context simultaneously represent both a spontaneous and righteous lashing out against an unjust and increasingly unresponsive system, but also the impotence of the modern left.

Currently, these dynamics are on display in France, where large-scale riots have shut down entire cities and thrown the Macron government into a state of emergency. But the masses of people who’ve lived through the Great Recession of 2008, the Pandemic, and now the rapidly intensifying and cascading crises unfolding throughout the world as a result of the wars in Iran and Ukraine, shouldn’t expect much from protests, riots, and uprisings.

The mouvement des gilets jaunes, or Yellow Vest protests, began in 2018. Their resistance lasted two years. The French state, however, was never compelled to meet their demands. The Macron government remained in power. Today, the same is true. Indeed, the French state is either incapable or unwilling to meet the demands of protesters. So far, Macron and Co. haven’t budged an inch.

It seems the French state has learned the same lesson that U.S. elites have learned following the Great Recession: namely, the state and capital can ignore peaceful protests and absorb the damage inflicted by riots and uprisings, knowing the rioters and protesters will eventually go back to their daily lives. And once that happens, it’s business as usual for those in power.

The ongoing challenge facing angry citizens in the West remains our inability to develop long-lasting, growing, and powerful institutions, organizations, and associations capable of sustained political resistance. In other words, what happens the day after the riots?

Here, the political task becomes much more difficult. Political organizing is an arduous pursuit. It requires day-to-day efforts, social bonds, vision, strategic thinking, trial and error, reflection, and discipline and commitment. Momentary outbursts of anger, while better than sitting idly by as the state and capital make our collective and individual lives a living hell, won’t change the system. In some contexts, uprisings and riots simply reinforce the existing system.

In the U.S., for instance, the Floyd uprisings not only didn’t amount to systemic changes in policing, but had the opposite effect: police departments across the U.S. are receiving more funding than ever before. Police killings remain at the same levels as they did before the protests of 2020/2021. Black Lives Matter (BLM), to the degree it ever was a functioning political apparatus, is no longer a relevant political force in the U.S. In short, nothing changed.

Even worse, because BLM and its supporters were incapable of creating durable political organizations that were supported by significant portions of the population, the riots were used as political fodder for the right. Meanwhile, both liberal and leftist political organizations abandoned demands such as defunding or abolishing the police. Today, even the leading left-wing politicians in the U.S. openly reject and mock those slogans.

In fact, the entire national discourse in the U.S. has shifted to the right on a range of issues: immigration, climate change, and public safety, to name a few. Public opinion polls indicate that Americans prefer law and order. This should come as no surprise. After all, Richard Nixon was elected twice amid some of the most iconic and consequential social movements in American history: the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the student movement.

The same pattern may play out in France, as Marine Le Pen currently leads in the polls. That, too, could change. We’ll see. The oscillation between center-left candidates and right-wing candidates is a trend playing out in countries across the globe. From Brazil and the U.S. to France, Germany, and beyond, neither end of the ideological spectrum has been capable of cementing and sustaining its electoral victories.

Perhaps a political movement will emerge that develops into a hegemonic force capable of challenging existing power structures by creating the conditions for continuous and effective political struggle. Such a movement would require the individuals involved to commit themselves to ongoing political organizing efforts, which isn’t as thrilling as setting government buildings ablaze or stealing purses from Louis Vuitton.

That said, it’s easy to criticize protesting high school and university students. Armchair political analysts, elected officials, and journalists will inevitably say things like, “There’s no place for violence!” Or, “Protesters should refrain from looting and condemn those who do!” But such statements are cheap and meaningless unless coupled with viable alternatives. Simply telling the youth to “protest peacefully” or “show up to the polls” won’t cut it. They know better.

In the end, however, it’s up to them whether or not they commit to the unglamorous and tedious task of creating durable political organizations, institutions, and associations capable of seriously challenging and providing alternatives to the militarized state and capitalism. French students now have an opportunity to prove that they’re more sophisticated and serious than previous failed protest movements. Let’s hope they are.

Subscribe now

Share

“When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have then given views to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities.” -David Hume (1751)

It’s quite something to watch my fellow Americans lecture foreign governments and offer unsolicited prescriptions for the ever-expanding, deepening geopolitical crises unfolding across the globe, many of which, of course, are the direct result of decades of failed, strategically misguided U.S. foreign policy decisions. And all of this at a time when the U.S. Empire is led by a deranged narcissist and wannabe fascist who, no less than six years ago, attempted to overturn unfavorable election results by initiating a failed coup.

Clearly, living in the empire infects everyone’s brains, even those who purport to oppose its most vile actions. Democrats and Republicans alike assume that the U.S. should be the most powerful nation in the world. That assumption goes unquestioned not only by U.S. elites, but also by most of its citizens. High schools, universities, corporate media outlets, Hollywood films, NGOs, novels, TV shows, and history books provide the ideological ammunition for such assumptions.

As a result, American Exceptionalism remains the primary ideological impediment preventing the U.S. from addressing the long-standing and deeply systemic problems created by Uncle Sam’s imperial hubris. Americans still believe, despite all existing evidence, that the U.S. is a special nation in the history of world affairs. A beacon of light for liberty and democracy. The “city upon a hill,” as Puritan leader John Winthrop said in his 1630 sermon, A Model of Christian Charity.

However, the myths surrounding so-called American Exceptionalism were never based in reality. The colonization of North America, the American Frontier, was a bloody affair that included bounties for dead Indians, forced removal of indigenous peoples, the introduction of deadly pathogens, land seizures, re-education camps (American Indian Boarding Schools), and generalized warfare. It was a genocidal campaign that eliminated identities, mutilated bodies, and eradicated entire languages, histories, and cultures.

At the time, “Manifest Destiny [the notion that westward expansion and American domination was ordained by God] was used as a pretext for the United States to acquire land in the Oregon Country, Texas, Mexico, and California, even if the U.S. had to pay large amounts for new land, start a war with neighboring countries, or battle Native Americans who had lived on the land for generations.” In the Mexican-American War of 1846, which lasted two years, the U.S. took 55% of Mexico’s territory. After all, God wanted it that way.

The transatlantic slave trade, America’s original sin, is actually its second sin. It remains another conveniently overlooked and downplayed, yet fundamentally crucial and horrific portion of American history. The half million African slaves who survived the Middle Passage on their way to the U.S. arrived shackled and bound, hungry and displaced, weary and scared, then were transported like cattle to various locations throughout the U.S. Furthermore, as historian Ira Berlin notes:

With the advent of the plantation in mainland North America, the nature of slavery and then the slave trade changed. The beginnings of plantation production—tobacco in the Chesapeake in the late seventeenth century and rice in the Lowcountry in the early eighteenth century—increased the level of violence, exploitation, and brutality in these regions. Slaves worked harder, propelling their owners to new, previously unimagined heights of wealth and power.

For many Americans, this cursory overview of some of the worst elements of American history is redundant, unhelpful, and crude. Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, seek to improve upon and reframe American history. In the liberal view, for instance, Americans should acknowledge the bloody history of the U.S., but they shouldn’t dwell on it. Nor should we overlook the democratic reforms that civilized the U.S.: women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the expansion of civil liberties and labor rights, environmental regulations, gay rights, and so forth.

Of course, such arguments become increasingly difficult in the Age of Trump. Reforms won by previous generations of Americans are rolled back with little resistance or opposition. Today, Americans are gunned down in the streets by masked ICE agents, who rip families from their homes and terrorize immigrant communities. Civil liberties are curtailed. The welfare state and healthcare programs are dismantled. Illegal wars are launched. Genocide is funded and facilitated. Democratic norms and institutions are undermined. Universities and environmental regulations are gutted. Journalists and activists are attacked. Political opponents are targeted.

Billionaires, corporations, and banks extract unprecedented levels of natural resources and human labor to amass obscene levels of wealth and power, creating the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, to name the most visible symbol of grotesque American excess. And what a perfect American story for our modern age: an immigrant from South Africa who migrated to the U.S., started several companies, made tons of money, then used that money to purchase Twitter and back the most anti-immigrant president in modern history.

In the meantime, the corporate executives of AI companies provide daily warnings that the technology they’ve developed could potentially end human civilization as we know it. They say such things without a hint of irony, displeasure, or visible concern. Casual warnings about the complete upending of society, politics, culture, and the economy are now considered trite. Apocalyptic musings, too, have become normalized. Our political horizons, diminished.

But in a culture that worships personal wealth, the accumulation of material goods, and superficial affection, nothing about our current predicament should come as a great surprise. And yet, plenty of Americans remain shocked at Trump’s ascension to political power. Liberals, for instance, still overwhelmingly believe that Trump’s 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton was not only due to Russian election interference, but that Trump and Russian officials “colluded.” They simply cannot accept that Donald J. Trump is a homegrown and uniquely American monster.

The inability or unwillingness to come to terms with this unfortunate political reality has affected liberals’ ability to clearly examine U.S. foreign policy, domestic political challenges, and the failures of the Democratic Party. Today, it’s liberal Democrats, not MAGA Republicans, who believe the U.S. should play a uniquely positive role in global affairs. Undoubtedly, Trump and Co. have jettisoned the notion that the U.S. makes foreign policy decisions based on a vague and contradictory set of moral and ethical values. Their guiding principle is raw power politics, however misguided, contradictory, and incoherent their approach may be.

In such a context, it’s become increasingly difficult for American elites to make the argument that the U.S. is the world’s indispensable nation. On the contrary, people around the world are coming to terms with the fact that the U.S. operates like every other great power throughout history. In some ways, this is beneficial for the long-term survival of the U.S. Americans can no longer hide behind the superficial humanitarian facade that leaders like Barack Obama once provided. The brutal nature of the American Empire has been laid bare for the world to see.

Simultaneously, the world is also watching the U.S. rapidly decline domestically. The dysfunctional nature of American domestic politics is also laid bare, as the U.S. electoral system is shaped and guided by the wealthiest Americans, who, following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, have flooded campaigns with record levels of campaign contributions. Corporations and banks dictate and shape the policies of both major political parties in the U.S., where more citizens are incarcerated than in any other nation on the planet.

Environmental regulations and protections are rolled back. Extreme wealth inequality, now at record levels, goes unaddressed by the vast majority of elected officials, who also benefit from the current arrangement between capital and the state. Tech oligarchs surround the president and dictate our nation’s economic agenda, with seven companies accounting for 35% of the entire S&P 500 index. Cartoonish figures are elected to national office. And domestic political debates are still colored by absurd culture war issues.

After several decades of anti-union legislation, organized labor has experienced no significant upsurge in membership or activity. Unlike France, American university students remain dormant. Electoral participation isn’t much better, with roughly 50-70% of Americans staying home during midterm elections, and 30-50% of Americans staying home during presidential elections. Lack of electoral participation is also due to widespread mistrust in the electoral process itself. For instance, a recent poll shows that “less than half of likely voters believe every ballot will be accurately counted in November’s midterm elections.”

And yet, American elites and citizens unironically continue to engage in conversations and debates about how other nations conduct themselves: “Russia should do this; China should do that; and this is what should happen in the Middle East.” Meanwhile, the U.S. has become a dystopian nightmare of wealth inequality that the robber barons of the Gilded Age could only dream of. Under a state of constant surveillance, economic precarity, and an undemocratic political system, 72% of Americans nevertheless insist that they’re free.

Lecturing the world about democracy, human rights, cultural customs, and international law is quite presumptuous of a population that lives in a crumbling empire of screen-addicted, SSRI-addled, politically disengaged, socially alienated, and atomized citizens who have virtually no democratic input concerning the policies of the most powerful empire in world history. An empire that’s currently headed by a failed businessman and former reality TV star.

As the old saying goes, Americans should get their house in order before they critique the actions or dictate the policies of foreign nations. Perhaps then, people would listen. Right now, no one gives a damn what Americans have to say about anything. And rightly so. We haven’t earned that privilege.

Subscribe now

Share

“I could have killed ‘em all. I could’ve killed you. In town you’re the law, out here it’s me. Don’t push it! Don’t push it or I’ll give you a war you won’t believe.” -John Rambo, Rambo: First Blood

I’m routinely astonished by the naivety of my fellow Americans. No one, for instance, should be shocked by Pete Hegseth’s announcement that the U.S. government will livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter by firing squad. Hegseth’s statement is the culmination of decades of cultural militarization, right-wing grievances, and the hardening of American society.

Perhaps I grew up in a unique context, but nothing since Trump walked down that escalator in 2015 has surprised me. Trump’s rise to power, his cultural salience, and willingness to say and do things considered uncouth in liberal circles shouldn’t shock any of us. After all, Trump is a byproduct of American pop culture.

Trump’s TV program, The Apprentice, was viewed by roughly 20 million Americans on a weekly basis in 2004. That year, over 40 million Americans watched the show’s finale. The show aired for thirteen years (2004-2017). The liberals at NBC didn’t mind Trump’s well-known abusive and degrading behavior as long as the advertising dollars kept rolling in. Trump frequently attended and participated in televised WWE wrestling events watched by millions of Americans, and hosted professional mixed martial arts (MMA) matches at his casinos. These days, he attends college football games and UFC events, where he’s given standing ovations.

Trump was never a marginal figure in American society, nor were his ideas (birtherism) on the fringes. Anyone suggesting otherwise is dishonest or oblivious. In many ways, Trump is the most American president that has ever existed. Trump represents the dominant modern culture. He is the ultimate post-9/11 president. Ultimately, as recent history suggests, reactionary conservatism is the default political option for many Americans.

As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt surrounded by combat veterans from the Vietnam War, union steelworkers, ironworkers, pipefitters, police officers, construction workers, and firefighters, it wasn’t uncommon to hear the men in my neighborhood say things like, “We should turn [Country X] into a fucking parking lot!” Or, “They should execute that motherfucker live on Pay Per View!”

My childhood neighbors flew POW-MIA flags. They listened to Rush Limbaugh. They frequented gun shows and shooting ranges. They moved out of the city and into ethnically homogeneous suburban enclaves, where they erected fences, installed security systems, and armed themselves to the teeth. They slapped bumper stickers on their cars that said, “Remember Pearl Harbor - Buy American Made Cars.” They wore T-shirts with “Kill ‘Em All & Let God Sort ‘Em Out” plastered across the front. They joined the NRA.

The more time moves along, the clearer it becomes that my liberal, progressive, and leftist friends really do live in social and cultural bubbles. They are wholly unaware of the underlying cultural norms that color the attitudes and worldviews of those who’ve voted for and continue to support Trump. MAGA remains a frightening mystery to them. I, on the other hand, grew up, went to school, worked, and served with the people who would become MAGA. I know them intimately. Their rhetoric and actions are familiar.

Many of the men I served with in the United States Marine Corps became Trump supporters. The same men who posed for pictures with decapitated Iraqi police officers. The same men who indiscriminately shot at Iraqi civilians. The same men who brutalized and tortured detainees. The same men who then returned home and overdosed or blew their brains out as a result of their actions overseas. A new generation of combat veterans. And Uncle Sam keeps creating more of us.

Twenty-five years of nonstop war has hardened a significant portion of American society. Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans in particular, who are disproportionately represented in the ranks of right-wing militias, ICE, and various MAGA-adjacent organizations. Their families, friends, and coworkers also have been influenced by the attitudes and cultural norms of their sons and daughters who fought in distant lands, and an increasingly militarized and morally bankrupt society.

Roughly 280 million adults live in the United States. Currently, Trump’s approval rating hovers around 30%, which means 81 million Americans still support him. Those 81 million people are having more children, own more weapons, and are disproportionately represented in the military and law enforcement than their liberal-left counterparts. Those 81 million MAGA Americans won’t disappear once Trump leaves the White House. Equally important, the media networks, think tanks, political action committees, donors, elected Republicans, and various other organizations and institutions that have enabled, propelled, normalized, empowered, and protected Trump will also remain with us long after Trump’s tenure.

Most importantly, however, the militarized culture that’s been fomenting in the United States since 9/11 will continue to metastasize unless serious and concrete steps are taken to alter course. Such alternatives, however, seem increasingly unlikely to develop quickly enough to avoid the inevitable: namely, chaotic, unorganized, and fragmented political violence.

At this point, Americans should consider themselves lucky that their fellow citizens remain largely atomized and unorganized. If people had their shit together in this country, if they weren’t distracted and mesmerized by streaming services, social media, and short-form videos, they might come to realize just how badly we’re getting fucked by those in power. And if Americans ever come to terms with that, well, good luck controlling their collective response.

In a nation of 400 million weapons, widely available and easily accessible, it’s not difficult to imagine just how out of control the situation could become in the United States following the next major economic shock, large-scale terrorist attack, destabilizing foreign war, or significant climate-related catastrophe. And let’s not forget the potential for future pandemics.

“Round ‘em up and throw ‘em in jail.” “Hang ‘em.” “Cut off their heads.” “Chop off their hands.” “Castrate ‘em.” “Torture ‘em.” “Gang rape ‘em.” All things I’ve heard American men casually utter during various conversations about immigrants, violent criminals, celebrities, bankers, petty thieves, politicians, and sexual assault offenders, to name a few potential targets of their savagery.

A good portion of the Vietnam veterans that I mentioned above believed, to their dying breath, that the reason the United States lost the war in Vietnam was that their hands were tied. The Rules of Engagement (ROE) prohibited U.S. military personnel from carrying out their missions. Never mind the 4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians who were indiscriminately slaughtered as a result of Uncle Sam’s criminal war in Southeast Asia. We didn’t kill enough.

Many of the Marines whom I served with in Iraq felt the same after our combat deployments. They blamed the liberal press, even though most of the reporting from Iraq was controlled, molded, and approved by the Pentagon. They blamed liberal politicians and antiwar protesters, even though most of them were feckless and powerless. My fellow Marines also blamed the virtually nonexistent restrictions imposed on us by the ROE.

During my second deployment to Iraq, our unit operated in Al Qa’im, a town on the Syrian-Iraqi border otherwise known as the ‘Wild West,’ a free-range kill zone. ROE didn’t apply. Marines took it upon themselves to mutilate dead bodies, take pictures with corpses, torture detainees, and laugh and joke when we passed Iraqi police officers who’d been decapitated and hogtied on the side of the road by insurgents who punished them for collaborating with U.S. forces. Unsurprisingly, more Marines from our unit have died by suicide since coming home than perished in the combat zone.

In the end, Hegseth, a combat veteran himself, much like Trump, is a perfect reflection of the post-9/11 culture and politics cultivated by every element of American society. From the Democrats who doubled down on Bush’s GWOT to the Hollywood film industry that’s produced films glorifying U.S. military snipers and special forces operators, and the veteran podcasters featuring former service members who’ve monetized their war stories, Americans have been inundated with militarized propaganda.

Now, that propaganda has infiltrated the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans. The 81 million Americans who still support Trump aren’t going anywhere. They will become increasingly radicalized as the institutions that have shaped and governed American life in the post-WWII era continue to crumble under the weight of their own inadequacies and contradictions. Simply retreating to the comfort of safe and familiar social circles, cultural affects, and liberal tendencies won’t prevent Americans from normalizing and accepting increasingly violent rhetoric, ideas, and actions.

In my view, it’s better to come to terms with the unfortunate trends crystallizing in American society and culture than bury our heads in the sand and hope they go away. If anything, we should expect these trends to become ever more present as time progresses. There’s no evidence to suggest they won’t. As the old saying goes: it’s better to be a warrior in the garden than a gardener in a war.

Subscribe now

Share

This essay was originally published at ZNet.

Yesterday marked one month since the opening of the Obama Presidential Center, where celebrities, former presidents, first ladies, and various other elites gathered to extol the glorious legacy of President Barack Obama. Liberals patted themselves on the back. Empty platitudes about democracy, freedom, and liberty echoed over the loudspeakers between performances by Pearl Jam and Bruce Springsteen.

All of this begs the question: what, exactly, is Obama’s legacy? Under President Obama, wealth inequality exploded to almost unprecedented levels, the Global War on Terror expanded, and civil liberties were further attacked and dismantled. Whistleblowers were jailed. Environmental concerns took a backseat to expanding imperial ambitions in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond. As a result, the Democratic Party lost more seats under Obama’s eight years in office than in any prior period.

Of course, liberal elites and those who listen to them would like to gloss over, forget about, or actively excuse Obama’s many failures as Commander in Chief. Constructing palatable and simplistic narratives about Obama’s tenure in the White House has become a key task of liberal journalists, commentators, and Democratic Party elites. It goes something like this: Obama was an ethical leader who wanted to do great things, but was hampered by the Republican Party. In the end, he was a good man and, for some, a great president.

To be fair, Obama indeed faced backlash from reactionary elements in the GOP, but liberals tend to forget that Obama came to power in 2009 with the Democrats in control of both the House and Senate, and on a wave of unprecedented electoral success (Obama was the first Democrat to win Indiana since LBJ in 1964) that catapulted him to power. Obama had the political capital and legitimacy to enact a series of substantial progressive reforms, but chose not to do so. Likewise, his supporters let him off the hook and excused his worst policies.

This, of course, opened the door for the Tea Party, a movement that took power in the House in 2011. Since then, politics in the U.S. has become increasingly reactionary and pitiful, despite some limited and geographically isolated progressive electoral victories. Culturally, the same dynamic has played out as Americans shift further and further to the right on various social issues. Since Obama exited the White House, the bleeding has continued.

Trump and Co., if nothing else, understand how to effectively wield political power, something liberals and progressives have never been interested in or willing to do. They are ideologically and materially predisposed to maintaining the status quo, with slight alterations at the edges of society. And something the left has never had the chance to do because it’s never been organized, coherent, or serious enough to gain power in the United States.

All of this, without question, will come to a head in November, when Americans show up to the polls for the Midterm Elections. The overarching assumption is that the Democratic Party will at least take power in the House, perhaps the Senate as well. We’ll see. I remain unconvinced, but completely open to every electoral possibility. A series of external factors, including Trump’s urge to maintain power at any cost, could significantly alter the perceived wisdom that the Democrats will return to power. That said, for the sake of time and space, let’s assume the Democrats will at least win the House.

What, precisely, is the Democratic Party’s platform in 2026? No one can answer that question with a straight face and a concise answer because one doesn’t exist. Various platitudes about “restoring democratic norms” and “respecting the Constitution” abound, but no details or specific policy recommendations. Oh, I forgot to add “affordability” to the list. Yet again, no particular legislation is proposed, just buzz words that resonate, according to opinion polls.

Liberal commentators and Democratic Party insiders, such as James Carville, predict that the post-midterm victorious Democratic Party will launch a full-scale legal battle against the Trump Administration, holding the sycophants to account and forcing Donald Trump to resign from the White House. Yes, Carville genuinely believes that’s a possibility. Then again, no one ever accused Carville of obtaining stellar predictive qualities.

But are impeachment inquiries what the American people are demanding from the Democrats in 2026? Not really. There currently exists no popular movement urging the impeachment of Trump. And even if the Democrats win the House and go through the arduous process of filing articles of impeachment, they will never obtain the 67 votes required in the Senate to convict President Trump and remove him from office. And so, where does this leave the American people?

As the U.S. Empire rapidly declines in the wake of 25 years of neverending wars, Big Tech oligarchs sink their fangs into every element of the federal government, buying off state, county, and municipal government agencies and politicians, and becoming an indispensable segment of the global economy, the Democratic Party offers no alternative vision for the future and doubles down on anti-Trump fervor in the hope of solidifying their electoral chances for success. In the short term, this approach may prove successful in an electoral sense.

However, winning elections and maintaining power are two very different things. Maintaining power and wielding that power to radically alter the American healthcare system, economy, and geopolitical arrangements and priorities are also two fundamentally different tasks. And that assumes the Democratic Party’s base actively seeks to radically change those political arrangements and institutions. Little evidence suggests that’s the case.

In the absence of vibrant, growing, militant, creative, and disciplined social movements, no one should expect much from the 2026 Midterms beyond the Democrats potentially hampering some of Trump’s more outlandish policies, which, to be fair, would benefit those most at risk. Yet, even here, no one can articulate precisely which policies the Democrats will seek to challenge, overturn, or disrupt. They will give speeches and hold hearings, no doubt. But pageantry isn’t strategy.

Unfortunately, liberal delusions still maintain that Trump was an aberration, a bad apple who followed the brilliant Presidency of Barack Obama. This narrative, too, was on full display following the opening of the Obama Presidential Center. Liberal Americans took to social media to proclaim their love for the Obamas and celebrate the hollow presentation of bipartisanship during the grand opening ceremony. The corporate media, always willing to whitewash history, sang a similar tune. Fundamental lessons about the conditions that gave rise to Trump are virtually nonexistent.

Here, we have cultural rot at the top and cultural rot at the bottom of society. All too often, Americans parrot the views and ideologies emanating from the Elite Class. The digital algorithms reinforce this phenomenon. Digital Culture creates a feedback loop: Trump, right-wing commentators, and activists spew outlandish nonsense about Obama, then liberals and Democrats respond (and react) in defense of the former president. Principles, nuance, and values are nonexistent. At this point, it’s a predictable and absurd phenomenon.

Instead of reexamining Obama’s eight years in power, liberals, much like their MAGA counterparts, would rather double down on their absurd defense of Obama’s neoliberalism, hawkish foreign policy, reactionary immigration policies, and abandonment of poor and working-class Americans. This, without question, is the worst dynamic of Trump’s reascension to the White House: he makes horrific characters such as Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Barack Obama seem more palatable.

Disappointment is virtually guaranteed at this point. If or when the Democrats take power in 2026 and 2028, in the absence of millions of people organizing and mobilizing, Americans will once again endure the structural limitations of electoral politics and the Democratic Party. In other words, we’re doomed to repeat history, albeit this time with greater consequences, if Americans don’t start learning valuable and fundamental lessons in the near future. Those lessons, useless on their own, only become valuable if they inform and motivate mobilization, organization, and the pursuit of strategic objectives.

Those lessons, to be clear, won’t be learned on social media platforms, YouTube, or podcasts. Those lessons must be institutionalized. And that can only happen through developing political institutions that people buy into, participate in, and help build. Like many Americans, I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the Democratic Party is the institutional vehicle for such a task, even if it’s the only viable electoral alternative to the GOP. Again, voting in the absence of growing social movements, militant unions, vibrant student organizations, and committed faith-based organizations won’t accomplish much at the federal level.

As always, there is only one solution: organizing. Yet, people don’t seem particularly interested or committed to engaging in political work. Americans are flush with information, constantly posting, sharing, liking, commenting, and so on. But they remain quite disorganized and unwilling to dedicate or sacrifice the time and effort necessary to force even modest reforms, let alone a radical restructuring of the economy and political system. Culturally and socially, Americans remain locked in a collective digital haze. Trump’s opinion polls have reached historical lows, but his loss of popular support hasn’t equated to a massive upsurge of political engagement.

In the end, our collective hope for the future should be tethered to reality. And the reality is that most people are checked out, uninterested, alienated, socially and culturally fragmented, and, as a result, disempowered. And yet, no one is coming to save us. No superheroes. No saviors. And no miracles. Either we fight back with the understanding that our expectations should be directly tied to our willingness to organize, or we will endure another cycle of low expectations and dismal results, creating a perfect opportunity for the right to rise to power once again.

Subscribe now

Share

^{Illustration by Patcharin Inner}

Each day, I reluctantly but inevitably log into my social media accounts to post essays, share important news articles, and generally check out the overall vibe of the country. More often than not, what I see online dovetails with my day-to-day social experiences with the public. The conversations, topics, and ways in which people discuss political, social, and cultural issues are always similar to what’s trending online.

For instance, I’ve discussed Israel with non-politicized Americans more in the past three months than I have over the past two decades. That’s not a coincidence, and it’s, unfortunately, not the result of organizing efforts. In other words, it’s not as if the people I’m having these discussions with have attended antiwar rallies or Palestinian solidarity events. They simply consume information via YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok.

Fortunately, an increasing number of commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between, are beginning to understand the fundamentally destructive (for both nations) relationship between the U.S. and Israel. That’s a good thing, no doubt. For the first time in 25 years, or since Gallup has been polling the issue, Americans sympathize more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis. Quite the development when you think about it.

And yet, Gaza has been destroyed, and the Israelis are carrying out an ongoing genocide. Palestinians are starving. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children are sleeping in makeshift tents that are prone to flooding during rainstorms. And the situation doesn’t look like it will improve anytime soon. The Israelis continue to act with impunity, which is only possible with the explicit political and military support provided by the U.S. Our tax dollars are paying for this insanity.

But what are we doing about it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m guilty as charged. I haven’t organized any events over the past several years, nor have I initiated any allies, outreach campaigns, or canvassing efforts. I haven’t even made a phone call on behalf of a political campaign, electoral or otherwise. I’ve only attended rallies and shown up to the polls. After almost 20 years of activism and community organizing, I needed a break. It was needed and productive, but enough is enough.

Anyway, let me get back on track. What are we doing? What could we do? And what would it take? Those are the sort of questions I ask myself when it comes to political issues. Israel is ethnically cleansing portions of Palestine and Lebanon with U.S. political, economic, and military support. Currently, we’re not doing much about it. There are, to be fair, Palestinian solidarity groups, student organizations, and unions that are applying pressure in their own ways. But their efforts are isolated.

If we could engage even a fraction of the tens of millions of Americans who sympathize with the Palestinians, we would have millions of Americans involved. At the same time, this would require Americans to prioritize the issue of Palestine at a time when the economy, housing, healthcare, immigration, and threats to democratic institutions take priority in the minds of most people. And even with regard to those issues, the vast majority of Americans remain politically disengaged.

Elections, on the one hand, allow for a discussion of virtually every issue. That’s one of the reasons why they resonate with people, whereas it’s very difficult to explain the utility of building social movements. Elections produce clear winners and losers. Votes are cast and tallied. It’s a statistical process, from the precinct, municipal, county, and state boundaries to the final vote count: graphs, pie charts, and illustrated maps explain the process, rules, and results. Elections are quantifiable.

Here, it’s tempting for people to only engage with electoral politics because they can feel that they’re addressing all of their concerns and issues. Of course, this is not the case in the real world, where politicians get bogged down with crises, often self-inflicted, or buried in the minutiae of legislative procedures. Most of the time, we’re lucky if the very best of the best politicians can make significant progress on one specific issue, let alone multiple issues. The system simply doesn’t allow it.

Many social movement activists and theorists would argue that we shouldn’t address one issue at a time, but develop and organize around a vision and framework that challenges the system itself. For me, that’s a tempting approach, but often unarticulated in detail. What does it actually look like to challenge the system? People often answer with a tactic. “A general strike!” Okay, but that doesn’t answer the question of what sort of mechanisms and organizations we’re replacing the system with.

Sometimes, addressing a singular issue is the only viable approach. For instance, a multinational corporate technology company seeks to build a data center in your community. You decide to organize with your neighbors, coworkers, and friends and fight back. While it’s true that engaging in such a campaign allows for educational opportunities, including an examination of power structures, local political networks, and the economic system, there remains one goal: to stop the data center.

Let’s assume the data center fight is successful. You stop it. Then what? Hopefully, people leave such campaigns having built organizations and organizational capacity, expanded their political social networks, and learned valuable skills. Ideally, that single-issue campaign morphs into other campaigns and projects. At least that should be the goal. Plus, we should always leave a campaign stronger than when we entered it. That’s the true test of any campaign’s effectiveness.

These are the sort of questions and issues that matter. These are the sort of things we have the power to control. We can’t dictate what Trump says or does tomorrow. We can’t change what Bush or Obama did in the past. We can’t command Congress, and we can’t direct the Supreme Court. We have no ability to control the media or multinational corporations. All we can do is control the things we can control. And in the political world, that means whether we decide to act or not act.

It’s really that simple. The only thing that matters is what we do, not what we say, or what we write, or what we think, or how we feel. None of that matters in the political world. Oh, you’re upset and sad about what Israel is doing in Gaza? Your emotions have no bearing on the situation. Netanyahu couldn’t care less about your feelings. Oh, you’ve expressed your displeasure on Facebook? The government couldn’t give a shit less. Doing so has no bearing on the decisions of those in power.

The only thing that matters is whether or not we decide to fight. Participating in civic life, social movements, workplace organizing, campus organizing, and expanding political horizons is all that matters in the political world. No one cares about your half-baked theories unless they’re directly connected to existing political projects and efforts. No one cares about your moral superiority. Virtue won’t save the children of Gaza. Only committed political organizing and mobilizing will.

What Trump posted on X, Truth Social, or said to the media today doesn’t matter. What we do to stop Trump from further degrading our country does. The construction of a ballroom or featuring a mixed martial arts fight at the White House doesn’t matter. What we do to stop Trump’s ICE policies does. Posting memes and expressing our anger online doesn’t matter. Mobilizing the many millions of people who agree that we can do better as a country, or who remain on the fence, does.

As the old saying goes, money walks, and bullshit talks. In the end, we have the power and ability to understand our collective predicament and respond accordingly. Human beings created the institutions, laws, technology, and economic systems that dictate and dominate our lives. And that means human beings can reconstruct, dismantle, and create new forms of government, economic relations, and cultural norms. There is no natural law that exists dictating otherwise.

In this increasingly frantic and disorienting digital landscape, we must always remember our priorities. Human beings, animals, and ecosystems matter. Computers and robots do not. Our families, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and romantic partners matter. Unknown, faceless, digital profiles do not. Books, art, and culture matter. Celebrities, influencers, and elites do not. Let’s constantly remind ourselves of the things that matter and things that don’t.

Share

This article originally appeared at ZNetwork

One of the more troubling and counterproductive phenomena taking place in today’s digital landscape is the rise of the online pundit. On the right, we have figures such as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. On the left, Hasan Piker and Jimmy Dore. And countless others. Yet none of these figures represents an organized segment of citizens, nor have they themselves engaged in political organizing efforts.

For the most part, these individuals rant and rave about political issues, cultural topics, and national figures, but they also spend a significant amount of time talking about one another. An online commentator makes a statement, and other online pundits respond. And their followers do the same. It’s a never-ending cycle of banter, unproductive debate, and navel-gazing.

Of course, this isn’t a surprising development. Americans are alienated, disempowered, and angry. People spend an inordinate amount of time online, scrolling, liking, commenting, and sharing. They must believe that by doing so, they’re making a difference in the world. Indeed, this form of engagement is impotent as a form of political participation, yet online algorithms reinforce such behavior.

However, it’s easy to critique. Everyone on social media expresses their hot takes. Organizing people, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. And while it’s useful to draw attention to the ongoing and ever-increasing depravity of those in power, doing so isn’t particularly brave or difficult. But again, the algorithms make it attractive. Remember, these digital platforms are designed by people who studied casinos. And the apps are operating accordingly.

Both the people producing online commentary and those consuming it are addicted to the instant feedback, momentary satisfaction, and the overarching sense that someone, somewhere, agrees with them. In the absence of genuine social networks, communal bonds and rituals, and friendships, one can easily see why these developments have unfolded the way they have.

Plus, let’s not forget that most of these online personalities are monetizing their content. In other words, the more time people spend online, watching, listening, and commenting, the more revenue the content creators (and Big Tech) generate. It’s a never-ending cycle of consumption and monetization. And a never-ending cycle of digital schizophrenia.

The more provocative the content, the more likely people will tune in. The more people tune in, the more money. This incentivizes online personalities to chase controversial headlines, sensationalize rather mundane developments, and highlight trending topics that other commentators are already covering. We saw this, for example, with the Epstein Files. Each day, a new story. That story, in turn, was covered by dozens of others, who then commented on how the others commented.

The real problem, in my view, is that this entire digital ecosystem sucks people in and doesn’t provide them with the knowledge or skills necessary to actually participate in political mobilizing or organizing efforts. I have friends, for example, who listen to such commentators and more often than not conclude that every political movement, organization, candidate, and union is corrupt, irredeemable, and useless. No one is radical enough. Everyone is full of shit. And so on, and so on.

Talking about political organizing, on the other hand, isn’t sexy. Sensationalizing organizing meetings, strategy sessions, and canvassing operations is quite difficult. Challenging people’s preconceived notions, ideologies, strongly held beliefs, and moral and intellectual prejudices is difficult to monetize. In the current context of Digital Culture, it’s easier and more profitable to tell your audience exactly what they want to hear, what they already expect.

Organizing can be, under the best circumstances, motivating and exciting, but that’s not always the case. And even in very energetic campaigns and actions, there’s much more time spent doing grunt work than most people realize. Collecting names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Conducting one-on-one conversations. Developing meeting agendas. Navigating interpersonal conflicts. Not the most exciting work. A difficult lifestyle to commodify.

Turns out, political organizing, much like sports, requires a tremendous amount of time, effort, discipline, and commitment. Trials and errors. Wins and losses. Hard lessons. All of this is the exact opposite of what Digital Culture provides and requires. Subscribing to a YouTube channel and watching hours upon hours of content, perhaps even donating, isn’t quite the same thing as spending countless hours knocking on doors and making phone calls, attending meetings, etc.

In the end, politics takes place in the real, material world, not the Digital World. The people who are making a living from producing and disseminating online content have no incentive to encourage their followers to unplug and go outside. Doing so would take money out of their pockets. In this model, everyone is incentivized to spend as much time as possible online. And the amount of time Americans spend online is a direct impediment to organizing efforts.

In a different context, one could see the utility of having a more decentralized, demonitized, and localized online commentariat. For example, one could imagine a series of organized communities developing and producing their own digital content, connected to and aiding existing social movements, electoral efforts, direct actions, rebellions, strikes, and so on. Perhaps some entities are highly localized, while others are regional and national.

The online commentators would be individuals who are active members of organizations, representatives of movements and collectives, coalitions, and so forth. Their ideas, critiques, and theories would emanate from their real-world political experiences. And those thoughts would be examined and debated by people who are actively engaged in political mobilizing and organizing efforts. In this context, commentators would be accountable to organizations and movements.

Right now, the opposite is true: online personalities make statements about politicians, movements, unions, and so on, but have absolutely no experience with or connection to political organizing projects. In short, they have little to no clue what they’re talking about. They don’t understand the profound nuances and difficulties involved in organizing Americans, especially poor and working-class people, who have every reason to remain cynical and disengaged.

Here, a DIY approach is welcomed. A little punk rock culture would benefit the left. We should encourage people who are engaged with political mobilizing and organizing projects to create their own media networks. Some of those networks could be educational in nature. Others could focus on theory or pertinent news. And yet others could highlight ongoing campaigns and actions. Limitless opportunities exist for those interested in creating alternatives to our existing options.

It would be interesting to see what could develop from such an approach. Imagine dozens of media networks popping up throughout the country, in various geographical regions, each detailing their efforts, sharing ideas, debating approaches, strategies, and tactics, and finding ways to work together and share resources. An additional benefit is that such an approach is collective in nature as opposed to the hyper-individualism incentivized by the current model of online engagement.

That said, ecologically speaking, the current model and the alternative proposed above are simply unsustainable. The amount of energy, resources, and geopolitical and economic maneuvering that is required to maintain the existing infrastructure of the worldwide web: fiber-optic cables, data centers, electrical grids, hardware, chips, cellular towers, and satellites, is inherently ecologically destructive, and also creates a series of international relationships that are exploitative and violent.

With this in mind, a return to analog methods could also prove interesting and useful. Already, these methods are making a comeback with younger generations. Utilizing (or creating) local TV stations, print media, and terrestrial radio broadcasts is intriguing for many reasons. Pirate radio stations, for example, are much more difficult for the state to disrupt or shut down than online platforms, where corporate entities and the state often work in tandem to dampen resistance and free speech.

Traditional communication methods, such as print media, are more difficult to control and disrupt than their digital counterparts. They also provide opportunities for people to engage. Artists can design magazines, newsletters, zines, and newspapers. Printing press operators can provide their skills. And these people can teach and share their skills with others, democratizing skillsets, building solidarity, and empowering people to take new and innovative approaches to political activism.

For some, all of this may sound a bit quaint and outdated, but younger people have never had an opportunity to engage with such projects. For them, such approaches are novel and intriguing. Plus, relying on the current digital infrastructure, while perhaps necessary in the short-term, is not ecologically sustainable or politically viable over the long-term.

That said, regardless of the methods and approaches, digital, analog, or otherwise, political commentary should be rooted in political organizations, social movements, institutions, and ongoing projects and actions. The individuals commenting on such dynamics should have experience with such efforts. And most importantly, they should have constituencies who hold them accountable and who are connected to actual, ongoing projects in the real world.

The current digital landscape of online personalities and digital platforms is socially and politically corrosive. It hinders, not bolsters, political engagement and existing efforts. Put differently, the existing digital structure and the culture it cultivates reinforce the capitalist system, destroy the planet, limit creativity, and have virtually nothing to do with actual political mobilizing and organizing. People are capable of developing alternatives. And we should.

Subscribe now

Share

Last night, President Trump attended Game Four of the NBA Finals between his hometown New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs. Before the game, various sports personalities, including Stephen A. Smith, encouraged Trump not to show up. Both fans and commentators noted that Trump’s presence would distract from the game, cause a nightmarish traffic situation, and prevent New Yorkers from gathering in the streets surrounding Madison Square Garden.

Of course, Trump, being Trump, didn’t heed anyone’s advice and showed up anyway. Then, during the national anthem, he was booed. Immediately, people took to social media and shared clips of the event: “Trump got dunked on at the Knicks game!” Others shared photos of Spike Lee wearing a Pope Leo Knicks jersey. One left-wing writer posted, “Top-notch trolling from Spike Lee!”

And so, here we are, a year and a half into one of the most barbaric and dangerous administrations to ever occupy the White House, and the best Americans can come up with (outside of Minnesota and a few marginal electoral victories) is resounding boos and pithy social media posts denouncing President Trump. At this point, it’s embarrassing and depressing. There’s no other way to put it.

Over the weekend, where I live, in West Hollywood, California, tens of thousands of people poured into the neighborhood for the weekend-long Pride Festival. Parades, concerts, art installations, and various other activities were available for people to attend. And people did. They drank, sang, and danced the night away for three nights in a row.

In New York, tens of thousands of Knicks fans have been attending public watch parties in various public areas throughout the city for the past several weeks. The crowds, multiracial, are filled with enthusiasm for their hometown team. Some folks called off work to attend such events. Others left early. Some New Yorkers even camped out before the game to secure prime viewing locations.

Back in Los Angeles, hundreds of young people lined up for hours, some even camping out overnight, to attend the grand opening of Olive Young, South Korea’s largest makeup retailer. As KTLA reports, “For some shoppers waiting outside, however, the experience was about more than skincare. ‘No budget,’ one customer joked when asked how much she planned to spend. ‘Once I get in there, it’s gonna consume us.’”

Quite obviously, parasites have consumed the brains and souls of many Americans. It makes no sense to sugarcoat or gloss over the fundamentally bankrupt dominant popular culture that colors and molds American society. There are, with few exceptions, no redeeming qualities of modern American culture. It should be rejected at every turn. But it’s not.

Trump, for instance, is a byproduct of our vapid culture. He rose to stardom through cable news, Hollywood movies, Howard Stern’s radio program, the New York City media bubble, and eventually, his extremely popular TV show, The Apprentice. The people who regularly consume that garbage programming are just as responsible for normalizing Trump as the New York Times or CNN.

What people listen to, what they watch, where they hang out, with whom, and for what purposes, matter greatly. Somewhere along the line, left-wing activists, writers, and thinkers let people off the hook and started treating Americans like infants who are incapable of processing criticism. No one should defend or celebrate or excuse this fuck off culture of nonstop entertainment and distraction.

Here, we see a great disconnect between what people say and write and the various challenges we face in organizing large numbers of Americans to become politically engaged. On the one hand, we’re told that we’re facing a fascist threat of epic proportions. One that must be opposed and crushed. I agree, of course.

On the other hand, we’re told that Americans are overworked, broke, and suffering from a long list of traumas (a word we should jetison from our collective vocabulary as soon as possible). They couldn’t possibly engage in sustained forms of political protest. They’ve gotta go to work tomorrow. Unless, of course, there’s an NBA playoff game on, or the World Series, or the Super Bowl, or the World Cup, or the Stanley Cup, or a Taylor Swift concert, so on, and so on.

Obviously, things aren’t so bad under Trump. Sure, people are losing their healthcare, immigrants are being rounded up and shipped to overseas detention facilities, civil liberties are being stripped, endless wars abroad, regulations are being slashed, and domestic political opponents are being attacked, but you wouldn’t really know any of that was happening if you took a stroll through the streets of most American cities.

For the most part, people are going on with their lives. Now, that might sound quite jarring to someone who spends their life on social media, sifting through the algorithm of nonstop political posts, or whose social circle is largely comprised of political junkies, activists, and the like. But that’s not reality. People are politicized to the degree that they spend time on social media and rant and rave about Trump’s latest transgressions. But that’s not politicization. It’s a mirage of politicization.

Back in the real world, where things matter, people are focused on the same trivial nonsense they’ve been focused on since I was a teenager. In many ways, things haven’t changed much since that time. Again, social media and YouTube have allowed people to believe they’re making a difference, that they’re influencing the course of events. And somehow this illusion persists, even as things perpetually deteriorate with a wannabe fascist in the White House.

In Los Angeles, for instance, not much organizing is taking place. I’ve lived here for going on four years, and not once has someone knocked on my door or approached me in the street concerning a political campaign or issue. Sure, there’s been a couple of anti-ICE protests, a few No Kings rallies, and the SAG-AFTRA strike in 2023, but that’s about it. Nothing sustained. Nothing spectacular. Nothing to write home about. The LA Mayoral Election? Not even worth mentioning.

The mood of our time is not one of radical political organizing or counterculture. In fact, it’s the MAGA movement, not the left, that’s revolutionary. Both its posture and its aims are revolutionary. Trump and Co. have attacked, smashed, dismantled, and reconstructed various forms of the U.S. state apparatus. Would Bernie and Our Revolution have done the same had they won in 2016 or 2020? Doubtful. That movement never had the balls or killer instinct to operate in such a manner.

In 2026, the liberals are pining for the glory days of Obama. The progressives and democratic socialists seek to resurrect FDR and the New Deal, but new and improved. And the sectarian left still maintains that industrial workers in Michigan and farmers in Iowa would know what to do if only they had read their Lenin and Mao. Unfortunately, the modern left is rather uninteresting, quite conservative, and lacking novel ideas.

Performative resistance to the Trump Administration is no substitute for the unglamorous, difficult, and often tedious task of building long-lasting political organizations and institutions that are genuinely capable of not only stopping Trump’s madness but also radically changing American society. Cosplay radical politics is the scourge of our time. And the internet is tailor-made for it. The less we participate in or encourage such behavior, the better.

Subscribe now

Share

This morning, as I was lounging in the gorgeous California sunshine, flipping through the pages of Tiziana Terranova’s book, After the Internet, I started receiving a barrage of text messages from a few select friends. One friend wrote, “They’re really going after him now!”

“Hey man, have you seen the New York Times article about Platner’s former relationships?” another message read. I quickly responded, “No, I haven’t seen it,” then proceeded to pull out my laptop and Google Platner’s name.

Right away, a slew of Platner-related hit pieces popped up: Slate, The Atlantic, CNN, MS NOW, and various other liberal media outlets took the opportunity presented by the NYT to attack Platner and question his ability to hold elected office, and the political judgment of prominent Democrats (Bernie, AOC) who’ve endorsed and campaigned for Platner.

The New York Times article published earlier today wasn’t a particularly convincing piece. Most of the article relies on claims presented by Lyndsey Fifield, who has previously worked for the Heritage Foundation, American Action Network, and Nikki Haley’s 2024 Presidential campaign. Fifield’s claims of physical aggression, as the article notes, couldn’t be independently corroborated.

However, as investigative journalist Ryan Grim points out, “The NYT said that Lyndsey Fifield has been out of politics and isn’t doing anything with the conservative dark money group Independent Women’s Forum anymore, but [she was] recently quoted at a Republican congressional event in mid-April of 2026, a few weeks ago, with IWF as her ID.”

Furthermore, Grim notes the fact that Fifield “worked for Independent Women’s Forum recently is even wilder since IWF played a critical role in Kavanaugh’s confirmation and in persuading Collins to support it,” which, of course, led to the overturning of Roe v Wade. In short, Fifield is a right-wing operative whose intentions and integrity deserve serious scrutiny.

Additionally, Other ex-girlfriends interviewed in the New York Times piece referred to Platner as a “gentle giant” and said that they “felt really safe with him.” Plantner, interviewed this evening on MS NOW by Chris Hayes, said that Fifield’s accusations were “simply not true.”

It should also be noted that Katie Glueck, one of the authors of the NYT article, was the former co-president of Students for Israel at Northwestern University and helped students at Northwestern win an AIPAC award in 2009.

Glueck, the pro-Israel Zionist, wrote this after Zohran Mamdani’s election victory: “Mr. Mamdani’s stunning result confirmed their worst fears about the direction of the American left, fueling a sense that urgent concerns about the community’s safety are being dismissed in a movement and a city that Jews helped build.” Unsurprisingly, Glueck hasn’t once referred to Israel’s campaign in Gaza as a genocide.

Liberal media institutions, much like their right-wing counterparts, are unscrupulous. They lie, distort, and actively frame the political discourse in their interests. Platner, who has previously identified as a democratic socialist and more recently, a New Deal Democrat, represents a threat, however minor, to those in power. He’s an outspoken critic of the U.S. Empire and Israel. Reason enough to destroy him.

Fortunately, voters in Maine remain unswayed by the national liberal media discourse. Local journalist Andy O’Brien wrote on his Facebook page, “Online life isn’t real life,” referring to a WMTW Channel 8 segment where local journalists asked Maine residents what they thought about the recent scandal concerning Platner. The overwhelming response: Who cares?

It’s quite something to see every major liberal media institution in the U.S. attack a man who has no power. On the contrary, the Clintons are normalized and celebrated. Bill Clinton, for instance, is regularly featured in liberal magazines and gleefully interviewed on cable news outlets. Meanwhile, Slick Willy’s sexual exploits are well known, including his relationship with a 22-year-old intern.

President Clinton also had a close relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, regularly communicating and spending time with the now deceased international sex trafficker. Leaving aside the former President’s personal life, which is slimy, at best, and utterly disgraceful at worst, his actual policies solidified Neoliberalism in the U.S. and destroyed countless people’s lives.

From gutting Welfare and signing NAFTA to repealing key provisions in the Glass-Steagall Act, signing the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act (three strikes rule), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which created the “1033 Program,” giving surplus weapons from the military to police departments, the disaster in Waco, and the list goes on.

Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War as a U.S. Senator, an international war crime that resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 Iraqis, is also routinely featured on liberal talk shows, podcasts, and featured in liberal magazines. Her belligerence is not only tolerated but celebrated by liberal elites.

Nor did the liberal media bat an eye when Secretary of State Clinton, during an interview on CBS News, cackled and smilingly cheered, “We came, we saw, he died!” referring to the brutal execution of Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a knife after his capture by rebels. Liberal hypocrisy and depravity know no bounds.

Platner, unlike many of his Democratic Party predecessors and contemporaries in the U.S. Senate, has not voted to send young men and women to fight and die in unjust wars, deregulate the financial industry, or undermine unions. Since returning home from his military service, he has lived his life as a civilian with no political power. And that’s the issue: power, and who has it, and who doesn’t.

And yet, the liberal media assumes that voters in Maine are dumb enough to not only reject Platner based on erroneous claims, but also listen to the very news outlets that have normalized Trump, undercut Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020, defended the banks and billionaires, disparaged social movement activists, and promoted wars abroad.

Moreover, Americans understand that most people have messy personal lives. Rich, poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans commit minor crimes, cheat on their spouses, abuse substances, and have engaged in numerous activities they would like to forget about. No one is perfect. And in the Digital Age, many of those episodes are documented and archived for eternity.

Before anyone starts casting stones, it’s important to look in the mirror and ask, “What if the most powerful news organizations in the world started looking into my past? What would they find?” If the answer to that question elicits concern, anxiety, or dread, you’re not alone. Virtually everyone has skeletons in their closet. To the degree Platner does, that’s a reflection of his relatability.

And for those arguing that we should hold our elected officials to so-called “higher standards,” I would argue that such a demand is unreasonable, absurd, and not at all ideal. Personally, I want more working-class people, more ordinary folks, running for elected office in this country. Furthermore, I don’t trust anyone who hasn’t dealt with difficulties. That’s how life goes for most people.

We can’t simultaneously encourage ordinary people to engage in the political process, then expect them to have pristine personal histories. Indeed, the current media campaign against Platner serves two purposes. First, to defeat his campaign against Sen. Susan Collins. And second, to discourage and intimidate other working-class people who might consider running for elected office. The message is clear: challenge corporate interests, militarism, and Israel, and we’ll destroy your life.

Most importantly, unlike many of the people currently serving in the U.S. Senate, Platner has not cast a vote ripping away people’s healthcare, cutting taxes for billionaires, or starting illegal wars. He hasn’t palled around with Jeffrey Epstein, allowed Trump to expand his fascist rule, or coddled the tech oligarchs who seek to render the majority of humanity superfluous.

Americans are sick and tired of elite liberals, their cynical hypocrisy, and their ridiculous crocodile tears. The attacks on Platner may resonate with the college-educated, professional class types residing in the suburbs or in gentrified city neighborhoods, but I doubt they will land with rural and working-class Mainers.

One can only hope that’s the case. Otherwise, it’s two more years of a Republican-controlled U.S. Senate. Then again, liberals were more than happy to usher in the Age of Trump as opposed to allowing Bernie Sanders in the White House, so don’t be surprised if the attacks against Platner increase in scope and severity. Just be ready to call it what it is: bullshit.

Subscribe now

Share

Link to the podcast.

Ep 391 of RevolutionZ has as its guest Vincent Emanuele to talk about the movement against data centers, the logic and methods of organizing, and movement culture. Your town’s next big fight might not be a highway or a stadium. It might be a windowless warehouse full of servers that power AI, cloud computing, and the apps you use every day, while quietly consuming electricity and water on a staggering scale. Combat veteran, writer, and organizer Vincent Emanuele  unpacks what data centers actually do, why communities are packing local meetings to stop them, and what this outpouring reveals about power in the tech economy and modes of resistance. 

We challenge the comforting idea that the fix is simply “using AI responsibly.” Vincent argues that without democratic decision-making, the people calling the shots are still tech oligarchs, investors, and politicians chasing profit and geopolitical advantage. That reality shapes how new technology gets deployed toward militarism, surveillance, and attention-harvesting platforms, not toward the public good. We also dig into the deeper human questions: how does AI and digital life  thin out our skills, our relationships, and even our sense of what it means to be human. 

From there, episode 391 move from critique to strategy. Data center fights often start organically and bring together people who don’t share politics, which makes them a rare chance to practice real organizing instead of only mobilizing the choir. We talk about democratizing knowledge so jargon can’t bully communities, identifying trusted “organic leaders,” learning from sports and military debrief culture, and building non-consumerist spaces where people can meet face-to-face and actually grow power. 

Subscribe now

Share

This article was originally published at ZNet.

“A nationalist encourages us to be our worst, and then tells us that we are the best . . . A patriot, by contrast, wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves. A patriot must be concerned with the real world, which is the only place where his country can be loved and sustained. A patriot has universal values, standards by which he judges his nation, always wishing it well—and wishing that it would do better.” - Timothy Snyder

For as long as I’ve been politically active, it’s been a taboo to describe oneself as a patriot in left-wing social circles. Leftists have good reason to question the concept of patriotism in the context of the United States. After all, the U.S. empire is responsible for the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of dozens of countries across the globe: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Korea, and the list goes on. At this point, it’s uncontroversial to claim as much.

Today, Americans overwhelmingly oppose the wars in Iran and Lebanon, and the genocide in Gaza. People across the political spectrum are denouncing U.S. militarism. This is a positive and welcome development. We can thank the anti-war activists who’ve organized against U.S. militarism since 9/11, and the independent media outlets who’ve highlighted and exposed U.S. belligerence abroad for the change in public opinion.

Throughout the years, people have asked if I’m embarrassed about my military service, especially since I’ve spent the majority of the past 20 years protesting, mobilizing, organizing, writing, and speaking out against the U.S. Empire. And I must admit, it’s a difficult question to answer. Indeed, my thoughts on military service and patriotism have undoubtedly changed over the decades and will continue to change, I’m sure.

Twenty years ago, the very sight of an American flag disgusted me. The stars and stripes represented a horrific and criminal war in Iraq. During George W. Bush’s time in office, the empty, faux-patriotic displays were in full effect. The news media parrotted the narrative proposed by the Bush Administration: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists!” While the chickenhawks at home beat the war drums, my friends and I were sent to fight and die in Iraq.

After returning home, I encountered right-wing protesters, military veterans, and rank-and-file Republicans who called me a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer for opposing the War on Terror. The fact that I was a combat veteran with multiple deployments under my belt in some of the most violent regions of Iraq during some of the most brutal periods of the war didn’t make a difference. I was out of line, in their view. Their views and actions reinforced my loathing of Americanism.

In hindsight, my rejection of all forms of American patriotism was reactionary and indicative of a left that hadn’t grappled with the utility of patriotism. Very few leftist intellectuals or activists wrote about or debated the concept, nor had we considered the important role it would play in the U.S. in the coming decades. Lately, however, I’ve been thinking more and more about the concept of patriotism, national pride, and the subjective roots of such concepts. In other words, how do individuals become patriotic? What makes one care about the country in which one lives?

A few days ago marked the 89th anniversary of the Little Steel Strike, infamously known as the Memorial Day Massacre, a horrific case of state repression where the Chicago Police killed ten striking workers and wounded dozens of others. Both my grandfather and great-grandfather attended the strike that day on the Southeast Side of Chicago, the neighborhood where my family landed after migrating from Italy, eventually working on the railroads and in the steel mills that once dotted the landscape on the South Shore of Lake Michigan.

One of our family friends, Mr. Borazon, recalled a police officer sticking the barrel of a gun in his mouth and asking if he was a communist. These stories, and many others, were shared during post-church Sunday dinners, card games, and casual conversations on front porches. Everyone from the Old Neighborhood had a family member who attended the strike, or at least knew of someone who did. And virtually everyone was a union member, primarily with the United Steelworkers.

Several years later, my grandfather would receive two Purple Hearts and many other medals following many months of combat in Anzio, fighting the fascists. He never glorified the war, but he proudly wore his U.S. Army baseball cap and always displayed the American flag outside of his home. The war, for him, wasn’t something to boast about. Those memories were far too tragic and inhumane to discuss openly. Nevertheless, he was proud of his service to the country, and rightly so: WWII veterans were the last generation of Americans to fight a worthwhile war. He was a patriot.

My father, in 1964, volunteered to go to Vietnam with the U.S. Army, but they sent him to West Germany instead. He wasn’t particularly gung-ho for the war effort, but he wanted to serve his country like his father before him, and didn’t want to miss out on the action. If young men were going to war for the country that had given my father and his family so much — union jobs, a modest home, medical benefits, and warm meals — he figured the least he could do was join them, a sentiment (collective sacrifice) shared by many of my fellow veterans.

After coming home, he joined the Ironworkers Union Local #1 out of Chicago. And for the next 32 years, he scaled I-beams in sometimes perilous conditions and helped erect some of the most iconic skyscrapers, bridges, and blast furnaces in the Windy City. No matter how many times we’d walk or drive through downtown, he would always point out the buildings he and his union brothers built. He could look around the city and literally say, “I helped build this town!” He was a proud man, and rightly so. He enjoyed the solidarity and camaraderie that both the military and the union provided.

Most of my extended family, neighbors, and family friends worked in those steel mills until they became victims of Neoliberalism. Some of them went on to work at the Ford manufacturing plant on the Southside, manufacturing the vehicles their friends, family, and neighbors purchased and drove. American-made meant something to them. It was a source of pride and accomplishment. The work was tough, no doubt, but they identified with their working-class lot in life and embodied working-class values: trust, loyalty, solidarity, hard work, and sacrifice.

Eventually, in 2002, I joined the United States Marine Corps. Several years later, my brother joined the United States Coast Guard. He spent his time in Afghanistan and Syria. My first cousin joined the United States Army and lost a portion of his leg in Afghanistan. Military service, I guess you could say, was baked into our family’s DNA, but not blindly. My father, for example, tried to talk me out of joining the USMC. He argued that Iraq was just like Vietnam, another bullshit war based on lies. Yet, I didn’t listen. I was intuitively drawn to the idea of collective sacrifice and, admittedly, the notion that something exciting and dangerous was happening, and I didn’t want to miss it.

These days, when I think about why I care so much about the future of this country, and why the elites, Neoconservative chickenhawks, liberal media personalities, online influencers, war mongerers on both sides of the aisle, and their smug donors make me so damn furious, I’m reminded of the countless sacrifices my family members and I have made for the U.S. We have plenty of skin in the game, as they say. And we have the scars, stories, and haunted memories to back up our righteous anger.

This is our country. I’m not ashamed to admit that I firmly identify with the Americans who feel slighted, ignored, and discarded by those in power. Change a few things in my life story, and perhaps I end up as one of Hillary Clinton’s deplorables: Rust Belt kid, European ancestry, working-class, high school educated. Who knows? What I do know is that I’ve come to terms with my own patriotism, however distasteful some of those on the left may find it. I care about this country and the people who live in it. I’m not going anywhere. I was born here. And I will die here.

I’m not, however, ignorant of U.S. crimes, both at home and abroad. I’ve spent enough time in left-wing political circles, at university campuses, reading books, and engaging in conversations and debates to understand the contradictions, shortcomings, and challenges of the American Project. At the same time, constantly denouncing, rejecting, or degrading the U.S. is not only philosophically self-indulgent and somewhat childish, but it’s also not very strategic. Plenty of nations have brutal histories, but only in the U.S. do left-wing citizens engage in so much self-loathing.

Here, I’ve always been amazed at how differently American leftists view the U.S. compared to people around the world, who often cut the U.S. more slack than left-wing Americans do. Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to speak and work with victims of U.S. militarism: Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, and Palestinians. More often than not, they’ve encouraged me not to beat myself up too much for fighting Uncle Sam’s wars. Whereas some leftists have called me a war criminal. It’s wild to think that the victims of U.S. war crimes have a more nuanced view of American patriotism and the American political project than many left-wing Americans do.

For better or worse, the nation-state isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. During the late-1990s and early 2000s, many people on the left wrote and spoke about the decline of the nation-state and the rise of multinational corporations. Yet, today, the nation-state is more important than ever, and the culture, ideologies, and political movements surrounding the nation-state are on the rise from Russia and Ukraine to Iran, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, India, China, and beyond. Without question, multinational corporations maintain extreme influence and power, but they have not completely subsumed national interests or the politics of nationalism and patriotism.

While the concept of internationalism remains a worthwhile value of left-wing activists, myself included, it’s also clear to me that the concepts of nationalism and patriotism will remain with us for the foreseeable future. So, the question remains: what kind of nationalism, what kind of patriotism? What does patriotism mean for those of us living in the belly of the empire? Can we develop and employ symbols, affects, images, and ideas that can express international solidarity while simultaneously maintaining a sense of domestic patriotism? Many left-wing revolutionaries have grappled with this question, from Africa to South America, Asia to Europe.

I believe the left should engage in conversations with our fellow citizens about the sort of values and political ideals we hope to cultivate in this young nation. After all, 2026 marks the 250th birthday of the United States. Americans who don’t want Trumpism and the far-right to define what the United States stands for should present people with different values, ideals, and political ideas. The left shouldn’t be ashamed to employ patriotic symbols and invoke various episodes from American history to motivate, educate, mobilize, or inspire people.

After all, some political force in the U.S. will propose, define, and direct the future of this country. We can’t avoid the topic or regurgitate negative slogans about the U.S. Objectively, it makes sense for left-wing activists and organizers to operate with this understanding. Strategically, it also makes sense: shame and guilt are not political values that galvanize public support, and the overwhelming majority of Americans do not hate this country, nor do most people abroad. They, like I, would like to see a more just, peaceful, and sane America.

In the end, dogmatic ideologues turn people off. From the Marxists to the Neoliberals and Neoconservatives, Americans seeking a more humane and reasonable United States don’t have an appetite for fundamentalists. Simply shouting at people that the U.S. is a violent nation, with a horrific history that should be shunned, isn’t productive or ideal. The same goes for those who uncritically wave the flag and repeat the slogans of those in power. We must redefine American Patriotism and employ it in a way that makes sense in our current precarious context.

Subscribe now

Share

The history of Memorial Day (originally called Decoration Day) can be traced back to 1868, when General John A. Logan declared May 30th a day of remembrance for Civil War veterans. While many states celebrated Memorial Day throughout the late-nineteenth century and early twentieth century, it didn’t become a national holiday until 1971.

That year, the United States remained bogged down in the Vietnam War. The process of Vietnamization was proving spectacularly catastrophic after sixteen years of U.S. military involvement. In April, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) gathered in Washington, D.C., where they discarded their military medals at the steps of the Capitol Building in protest of the war. Four years later, in April 1975, American helicopters frantically evacuated more than 7,000 Americans and South Vietnamese from the U.S. Embassy.

Since then, the United States has been engaged in countless military and covert intelligence missions ranging from coups, assassinations, and torture networks to counterinsurgency operations, bombing campaigns, and full-scale wars. The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. The wars, it seems, never end. And those in power, the oligarchs and the politicians they fund and control, are constantly dreaming of new wars: Ukraine, Taiwan, Yemen, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela, Cuba…

Some enemies are old enemies. Russia, for instance, has been an enemy since 1917, except for a short period during World War II, when over 27 million Soviet troops and Russian civilians died fighting the Nazis on the Eastern Front. After 1989, the Russians took a back seat to the threat of international terrorism. Since 9/11, the U.S. has been at war with everyone, including itself. And, of course, Russia has returned as an enemy of Uncle Sam.

At home, civil liberties have been stripped, journalists and whistleblowers attacked, and social programs gutted. Infrastructure crumbles while weapons contractors rake in billions. Authoritarian rule has become normalized, and in some circles, celebrated. Wealth inequality has exploded to unprecedented levels. Racial and ethnic divisions have been stoked. Trillions of dollars have been spent on wars overseas, while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet.

International norms, to the degree the U.S. has ever adhered to them, have been eschewed. Genocide and preemptive war have become normalized. No more lip service concerning human rights and laws, just all-out war and the threat of annihilation. As a result, the world has never been closer to a potential nuclear conflict, one that has the potential to end human civilization.

Of course, it would be ahistorical to blame the decline of the empire on any one political party, individual, or specific actor in the capitalist economy. The entire system, from the education system to the prison system, the fossil fuel companies, tech oligarchs, weapons manufacturers, media conglomerates, and Wall Street and religious institutions, has benefited from or continues to advance the cause of U.S. militarism. As does our entire culture: T.V. shows, Hollywood movies, and video games.

The human cost of war, however, remains on the periphery of public dialogue. It’s true that, thanks to social media and independent news outlets, Americans can now readily view some of the carnage and destruction caused by Uncle Sam’s belligerence. Yet, those images and stories are quickly lost in the deluge of absurd, salacious, and bombastic headlines that dominate our newsfeeds. Many veterans live in the shadows of the American Empire. Some of us, such as U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner, speak out publicly and engage in civic life. Others retreat to the edges of civilian life, hoping to avoid conversations and debates about the unjust and illegal wars we fought.

For some veterans, including many I served with, suicide is the preferred option. Indeed, more U.S. veterans have killed themselves after returning home than died in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same is true of Vietnam veterans. According to official data from the Veterans Administration, roughly 95,000 Vietnam veterans have committed suicide between 1979 and 2019, whereas 58,220 died in combat operations in Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile, the civilian population in the U.S. hasn’t been asked to sacrifice since World War II. Even now, with Trump and Netanyahu’s criminal war in Iran, rising gas prices are the focus of much of the criticism concerning American and Israeli insanity. There remains no draft, hence most Americans have no skin in the game. Americans aren’t asked to ration, nor are they asked to surrender their free time or material resources to aid the war effort.

Of course, all of this is by design. The elites in this country have learned several valuable lessons from the Vietnam War: first, keep U.S. casualties low (drones, autonomous robots); second, rely on an all-volunteer military (no draft, less resistance); and third, discourage the media from covering the veterans (no returning caskets, imbedded journalists) and foreign victims of U.S. imperial aggression (no images of maimed children or dead babies).

When was the last time a major American media entity featured an Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Palestinian, Libyan, or Lebanese victim of a U.S. bombing campaign on the nightly news? When was the last time you saw a disabled American combat veteran interviewed? Instead, we hear from Israeli and American analysts, pundits, and retired generals who’ve never seen combat and who now work for pro-war thinktanks, universities, or the military-industrial complex.

Unfortunately, the hollowness of Memorial Day is even more pronounced this year, with a draft-dodging chickenhawk occupying the White House, ordering kidnapping operations, threatening Armageddon on entire civilizations, mocking religions, and sharing A.I.-generated images of himself from outer space overlooking a planet decimated by nuclear war. His actions are grotesque, absurd, and bewildering, but Trump simply represents the U.S. Empire’s id.

The culture that produced Trump endures. Reality T.V. show stars are campaigning for elected office throughout the U.S., including in Los Angeles, where Spenser Pratt is running neck-and-neck with incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass. The vapid nature of our dominant culture is as much to blame for the current state of American political and economic decline as any other element of our society.

Culture helps shape our very understanding of the world, and where we fit within it. Celebrating goons, imbeciles, kooks, criminals, pedophiles, and crooks has poisoned this society. Any sense of sacrifice, duty, honor, courage, or commitment to a cause greater than oneself has been discarded in favor of immediate material satisfaction, egotistical pursuits, and banality. But that’s not always the case, nor is it true that everyone has succumbed to such trivialities. Today, for instance, the majority of Americans do not support the war in Iran. And even though they remain unorganized, Americans from across the political spectrum are speaking out against U.S. militarism.

As a veteran of Uncle Sam’s misadventure in Iraq, where over 1,000,000 people died as a result of the invasion and occupation, including 4,431 U.S. military personnel, it remains virtually impossible to adequately describe the overwhelming anger, resentment, and sadness that fill my heart each Memorial Day. The bombs continue to drop, veterans continue to kill themselves (more veterans from our platoon have died since coming home than died in combat), and innocent bodies continue to pile up overseas. Meanwhile, mattress sales, online deals, and Memorial Day barbecues dominate the commercials, online ads, and social media newsfeeds in the U.S.

We can do better as a country. If we hope to survive the 21st Century, we must resist the Masters of War at every turn, in every corner of the nation, at the polling booths, in the streets, universities, and shop floors of the weapons manufacturers. We must reject the dominant culture that glorifies and cultivates U.S. militarism. In doing so, we have an opportunity to stop the never-ending madness and forge international bonds and solidarity that could allow us to live peaceful, creative, and beautiful lives. Everyone deserves that.

Subscribe now

Share

This article originally appeared at ZNetwork.

“The most compelling reason for reforming our system is that the system is in no one’s interest. It is a suicide machine.” -Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

The fight against data centers is heating up across the United States. Americans, frustrated by skyrocketing electricity bills and the growing sense that Artificial Intelligence poses a tremendous threat to humanity and the planet, are packing city and county council meetings and voicing their opposition. This resistance, by most accounts, is largely organic. In other words, the protests against data centers haven’t been coordinated by a central organization, a political party (the efforts and targets have been bipartisan), or a national association of anti-data-center groups. Nor have left-wing or far-right organizations led the fight.

This emerging context provides fertile ground for organizing efforts. Indeed, the battle against data centers brings together a wide range of fundamental issues facing both the U.S. and the rest of the world: the power of tech oligarchs, ecological degradation, the affordability crisis, and the democratic deficit of existing political institutions. A wide variety of Americans, as seen in the videos and pictures of citizens packing government buildings across the country, are engaged in this struggle. And many more who reject the data centers remain at home, unorganized, yet sympathetic to those protesting. The latest trend taking place across the country is college students booing commencement speakers whenever the speaker mentions A.I.

People are fed up. That’s the good news. In fact, recent polls show that 7 out of 10 Americans now oppose the construction of data centers. Here, we can see the positive impact of social media and independent news outlets. Americans are sharing information, critical analyses, and video clips of local communities packing municipal and county buildings and expressing their anger at such projects. However, that’s not enough. The real question is: how can organizers and activists use this opportunity to organize movements and institutions that will outlive the current battle against data centers? How can organizers and activists broaden and deepen the struggle? Big questions, no doubt, yet questions worth asking and addressing. Each context, of course, will determine the answers to those questions.

Subscribe now

Three Important Dynamics

In this piece, I would like to address a few dynamics that apply to virtually any organizing effort: democratizing knowledge, expanding democracy, and building coalitions. The democratization of knowledge is a key component of organizing efforts, especially those engaged in combating an industry that relies on expert knowledge and complicated terminology. Oftentimes, poor and working-class people feel intimidated by technical expertise and fancy language. I’ve seen this play out in local, national, and international struggles. As Michael Hardt points out in his book, Subversive Seventies, anti-nuclear activists in the 1970s and 1980s who faced similar challenges did this quite well. By doing so, the anti-nuclear activists were able to cut through the corporate and government lingo that was employed to justify nuclear weapons testing and the construction of nuclear power plants.

Expanding and democratizing knowledge requires distilling ideas, making sure everyone engaged in the fight understands the main concepts involved, and perhaps most importantly, has the ability to explain and teach that knowledge to others. By creating a situation where everyone involved in the struggle feels comfortable sharing what was previously expert knowledge, ordinary people become empowered, which is always a primary challenge and task of organizing efforts. And that empowerment can spread to other members of the community who feel intimidated by the experts or who don’t see the utility in becoming involved in the struggle.

The fight against data centers also allows citizens to experiment with democratic ideals. Not only does the government’s unwillingness to listen to its citizens’ wishes (70% of whom don’t want more data centers) highlight the democratic deficit inherent in our political system, but it also allows people and organizations to develop democratic norms and practices when deciding on vision, targets, objectives, strategies, and tactics. Additionally, good organizers are perpetually looking for ways to increase their organizational capacity, develop leaders, and expand their existing networks to create robust, diverse, and committed coalitions. The fight against data centers allows us to do all of the above.

The Democratization of Knowledge

When it comes to seemingly complex issues such as emergent technologies, climate change, or the financial sector, many Americans often feel intimidated by government and corporate experts who employ terminology alien to most poor and working-class people. Here, the elites use language and expert knowledge as weapons to confuse unorganized citizens and dampen organized opposition. Right now, this dynamic is playing out in real-time as extremely wealthy companies and investors, along with ideologically reactionary, ignorant, or corrupt politicians (sometimes all three), force-feed data centers down the throats of the American people.

What’s most interesting is that even in communities lacking seasoned activists and organizations, opposition to data centers continues to rise. In other words, this process is unfolding in a rather organic fashion. Rural and suburban communities are mobilizing against the tech oligarchs and unresponsive state officials without, in many cases, the aid of left-wing activists. Here, NIMBYism is very useful. However, the growing opposition to data centers in the U.S. doesn’t negate the need for more disciplined, long-term opposition to Big Tech. After all, most communities in the U.S. remain unorganized, especially in the regions and localities where data centers are being constructed.

Currently, the democratization of knowledge is taking place, but largely online: people sharing videos, memes, and thoughts on social media platforms, YouTube, Discord, and so on. While this is a positive development, it’s also, in some ways, a result of the enormous amount of time people spend in the digital world. Ideally, this process of democratizing knowledge would take place in face-to-face interactions, among collective bodies of citizens who are members of organizations, associations, assemblies, or committees. Popular education is an important element of any organizing effort. When groups of people engage in popular education, they learn from their peers, share stories and information, and develop a shared understanding of existing political, economic, and ecological challenges and how to respond.

In the fast-paced world of digital information, where yesterday’s headline becomes tomorrow’s back page, Americans remain fragmented, confused, and alienated. Yes, social media and independent news outlets and analysts can highlight injustices, cultivate anger, and identify bad actors, but those entities are incapable of generating the sort of social bonds necessary for people to develop genuine solidarity, build organizational capacity, a shared vision for the future, and the strategies and tactics necessary to achieve that vision of an alternative society. In short, the democratization of anger, resentment, and outrage is no substitute for the democratization of knowledge and deep organizing.

In order to achieve the latter, citizens acting collectively must democratically develop a popular education curriculum. For example, a loosely affiliated group of citizens forms to combat a data center project. Excellent. The next step is to develop assemblies, committees, affinity groups, and organizations (and organizational capacity). That’s not necessarily a naturalprocess. People must do so through intentional efforts. Once those entities are formed, people must then decide which pieces of information, which resources, analyses, ideas, and data should be used to help their fellow citizens better understand the situation. Through this process, organizers should look to identify organic leaders (trusted members of the community who have the ability to get people engaged who aren’t currently engaged).

Through this process, the people engaged in the protest movement against data centers can collectively develop an understanding of the forces driving the construction of the data centers, the ecological, economic, and social threats they pose, and the multitude of ways citizens can fight back. By doing so, people become empowered, committed, and capable of not only expanding and continuing the fight against data centers but also future political battles. Moreover, this allows the local community to connect with sympathetic university professors and students who might be willing and able to break down expert knowledge and language. That knowledge and language, once broken down, will need to be disseminated. That requires designing, printing, and passing out educational materials to the local population. Those tasks provide an opportunity to connect with local shop owners, web designers, artists, and folks who might only be willing to pass out flyers. Everything involved with the organizing process provides opportunities for engagement.

Expanding the Concept of Democracy & Undermining State Authority

Another fundamental problem in the fight against data centers is the lack of democratic decision-making mechanisms. While it’s true that 70% of Americans are now opposed to the building of new data centers, more than 4,000 have already been built in the U.S. The issue of data centers provides another example of the disconnect between those in power, on the one hand, and the majority of Americans, on the other hand. Of course, there’s nothing new about this dynamic: from healthcare to U.S. foreign policy, and countless other issues, those in power refuse to enact policies that the overwhelming majority of Americans want.

With regard to the underlying assumption that the state acts in the interests of its collective citizens, Americans are more than aware of the absurdity of such a claim. In fact, in the U.S., activists face the opposite challenge: namely, cynicism. Many Americans remain disengaged from politics precisely because they fully understand that their elected officials and the bureaucrats who run the state apparatus very rarely enact policies aimed at benefiting the collective good. Cynicism and nihilism, not rosy assumptions about the priorities of the state, pose challenges for Americans attempting to organize their fellow citizens. Perhaps in previous decades the opposite was true, but things have radically changed over the course of the past several decades, particularly since 9/11, which marked a rapid decline in public trust, and rightly so.

Moving along, previously disengaged Americans who are opposed to data center projects could make the connection between the construction of data centers and the limitations of representative government. In other words, if the majority of citizens oppose new data centers, yet government institutions continue to approve them, what does this tell us about the nature of our so-called democratic institutions? Further, it’s clear why social movements are necessary: elections take place every two to four years. Are citizens supposed to wait for the next election in the hope that casting a vote for a politician will protect their communities from the construction of new data centers? Of course not. Moreover, simply voting for better candidates does absolutely nothing to expand the concept of democracy.

If people are told that showing up to a voting booth and casting a vote every two or four years is the epitome of democratic participation, sustained political engagement will continue to decrease. Social movements, as opposed to electoral activism, provide opportunities for citizens to invent, expand, and refine various approaches to political engagement. In short, social movements allow for more dynamic creativity and experimentation than electoral politics. In the absence of existing political structures, activists in the U.S. enjoy a wide-open environment of potential alternatives. The traditional union movement, with a few exceptions, remains locked in what labor activists and scholars call business unionism. In most cases, unions provide no vision, remain isolated from non-labor struggles, and offer little assistance. NGOs are a dead-end. And existing left-wing organizations, to the degree such organizations exist, have yet to articulate a vision or organize a movement that captures the attention and support of substantial majorities of Americans.

Previous social movements and revolutionary organizations have experimented with numerous modes of engagement: community assemblies, federations of workers, committees of workers operating both within and outside of traditional union structures, affinity groups, loosely affiliated organizations, direct action cadres, decentralized entities, horizontal cells, and the list goes on. In each example, activists have experimented with prefigurative politics: developing organizations and institutions that reflect the democratic values and structures people seek to implement on a larger scale. In other cases, organizers and activists have used rather common and loosely constructed models for their resistance efforts. All of this will depend on the context in which the struggle takes place.

Encouraging people to engage in participatory democratic methods empowers poor and working-class people to not only fight back against the construction of data centers, but hopefully to imagine and create alternative democratic structures and ways of doing politics. Those alternative structures and practices have the potential to motivate and inspire people. Of course, some people will argue that there’s no skirting around the issue of state power. One way or another, they would argue, individuals will continue to be in positions of power within the state. They will cast votes and make decisions within the existing parliamentary and legal structures. And those decisions will impact all of us. To be fair, over the short term, I agree. However, I believe that people are capable of doing two things at once. We can both participate, to a greater or lesser degree, within the existing system (electoral politics) while also operating outside of the system (social movements). Ideally, the two approaches would work together, learn together, and benefit from each other.

Opportunities to Forge New and Lasting Coalitions

The ongoing fight against data centers also provides an opportunity to build multiracial coalitions that bring together urban, suburban, and rural citizens, including disillusioned MAGA voters and non-politicized citizens who’ve never engaged in a protest movement. Since every element of society is impacted by data centers, opposing them allows virtually everyone to engage on relatively even terrain. That said, most of the regions and towns where data centers have been constructed, and where future data center construction is proposed, lack existing organizational infrastructure and experience in direct actions, civil disobedience, sabotage, and various other methods of resistance. Outside actors, participating in solidarity with local communities, could greatly benefit opposition efforts. Students, militant trade unionists, radical environmentalists, and seasoned activists who have experience halting or stopping destructive development projects could provide an arsenal of tools, methods, and approaches to local communities.

Simultaneously, those entities (urban radicals) could learn from local suburban and rural communities, build long-lasting bonds, and together, potentially develop new, creative approaches and models for rejecting data centers. In some circumstances, existing organizations can enter the fold and bolster their membership (if done so in an organic and non-abrasive manner). In other words, if an organization exists and that organization wants to increase its membership and keep people engaged in political struggles, it must do so in a way that people don’t find off-putting or undemocratic. Perhaps more importantly, in my view, the fight against data centers must result in the creation of new organizations, associations, and coalitions that continue to organize and fight long after defeating the construction of new data centers.

In my experience, rarely does an issue resonate so deeply with such a broad swath of the American population. Young people, old people, students, blue-collar workers, conservationists, democratic socialists, libertarians, traditional conservatives, middle-class suburbanites, liberals, and a decent portion of the MAGA movement all oppose the construction of new data centers. If local communities, regional and national organizations take a thoughtful, strategic, and nuanced approach to the fight, everyone could walk away from the multitude of struggles against data centers empowered and ready to engage in future struggles. This is a very important opportunity at a time when so many segments of our society are fragmented (urban vs. rural, old vs. young, white vs. black, women vs. men). Breaking down those barriers and creating new forms of solidarity is a worthwhile and necessary task.

Every Struggle Is An Opportunity

Whatever lessons are learned through the fight against data centers, both good and bad, should be examined, documented, and applied (or not applied) to future struggles. Hopefully, new organizations and coalitions will arise. More specifically, the fight against data centers allows us opportunities to democratize knowledge, a key component to any successful political campaign, movement, or resistance effort. Poor and working-class people, who are often intimidated by corporate experts and government bureaucrats, have the ability to understand the issues we collectively face. Anti-nuclear activists in the 1970s and 1980s provide a real-world example of how activists and communities disseminated technical knowledge.

Activists and organizers in the U.S. face a very different set of challenges when it comes to undermining the state apparatus than activists from previous generations. Today, most Americans vehemently distrust the state at historic levels. Of course, unforeseen events (national emergency, terrorist attacks) could shift opinions, but a significant decline in trust among citizens for a number of major institutions, including the press, government agencies, corporations, educational, and cultural institutions, has only accelerated in recent years. As a result, it’s quite easy to make the case that the government isn’t looking out for the collective well-being of ordinary Americans.

On the other hand, this dynamic brings about other obstacles. While it’s not difficult to undermine state authority, it is a difficult task to empower people to create new structures and modes of political participation. Our collective challenge has always been and continues to be developing organizations and institutions that ordinary Americans can not only trust but also collective associations that empower poor and working-class people with the knowledge, tools, commitment, skills, and discipline necessary to create new and innovative ways to fight back against the undemocratic state and the corporate entities that often dictate government policies.

Ordinary people, without question, have the capacity to alter our current destructive trajectory and develop viable alternatives. Our collective future is not predetermined. There’s nothing natural about so-called technological progress. If we treat every battle, every campaign, struggle, action, and protest as an opportunity to learn from our mistakes and improve upon our successes, expand our objectives and visions, we will quickly build movements and organizations capable of addressing the seemingly never-ending challenges we collectively face on a national and international scale. My hope is that the battle against data centers will transform into a larger struggle against A.I. advancements, the suffocating proliferation of digital technology, and the cult of so-called progress. One can certainly hope.

“These empires that we fight for, they are little more than sand castles. Only the tides are forever.” -Inspector Kido, The Man In The High Castle

“It is the desperate moment when we discover that this empire, which had seemed to us the sum of all wonders, is an endless, formless ruin, that corruption’s gangrene has spread too far to be healed by our scepter, that the triumph over enemy sovereigns has made us the heirs of their long undoing.” - Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities

Traveling across the Syrian Desert in Western Iraq, the sun sandblasts everything in sight. The light air smothers one’s senses, filling the lungs with invisible lava. During the summer months, heatwaves in Al Anbar Province routinely reach 52 degrees Celsius. Heading west from Baghdad, through the strategically vital city of Ramadi, along the snaking Euphrates River, one will eventually find a small town, Al Qa’im.

Al Qaim was founded in the early 20th century, under Ottoman rule, with a small police station and, eventually, a caravanserai for smugglers, merchants, and travelers. Located on the southern banks of the Euphrates River, and just a few miles east of the Syrian border, Al Qaim has long been known as a lawless border town. For centuries, fighters and traders passed freely across the porous border in search of riches, escaping wars, and dodging famine.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. military forces occupied the Al Qaim Train Station, which eventually became Camp Gannon. In late 2003, the Army’s 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment conducted counterinsurgency operations in the town, collecting weapons and detaining resistance fighters. By March 2004, when the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines (3/7) took over, the insurgency was growing across the country and becoming increasingly effective.

Seven months later, when my unit, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, replaced 3/7, the town was noticeably hardened, militarized, and deeply committed to fighting and defeating U.S. occupying forces. Many of the Marines in my unit took it upon themselves to commit a wide variety of war crimes and atrocities. As the intensity of U.S. military force increased, so did the brutality of the insurgency. Our unit’s official motto, ‘No Better Friend; No Worse Enemy,’ became comedic fodder for those of us patrolling the desert day and night.

Iraqi police officers and various other locals who cooperated with U.S. forces were tortured, murdered, and their corpses displayed publicly to remind the locals of who was actually in charge and what the consequences were for those who collaborated with the Americans. During routine patrols, we came across beheaded locals, dismembered religious leaders, and murdered police officers. Often, we would find them hog-tied, positioned on their bellies, spinal cord exposed, severed head balanced on their back, collagulated blood gathering on their skin or clothes.

Sometimes, Marines would purposely drive over the decapitated bodies, laughing and taking pictures while doing so. Perhaps it provided some of my fellow Marines with a sense of power, or maybe they were simply coping with the horrors of war in the ways in which young men do: namely, through demented humor and dehumanization — both of the Iraqi people, and ourselves.

Eventually, the Iraqi resistance and foreign insurgents became wise: knowing our convoys would stop upon encountering a beheaded person, they boobytrapped the human carcasses. That way, if anyone touched a head or attempted to move the body, an improvised explosive device (IED) or landmine would detonate. Often, letters and signs were left with the bodies: ‘American Pigs Must Die,’ or ‘Traitors and Infidels,’ according to our interpreter (when we had one).

Over time, we ceased stopping our vehicles to check on the beheaded. It just wasn’t worth it. By early 2005, Marines were worn out, and morale was low. Patience was constantly waning in the light of unsuccessful counterinsurgency operations, multiple deployments, and the moral dilemma of fighting a war based on lies and conducted with absolute ignorance.

Marine commanders knew absolutely nothing about Iraqi history, politics, or culture. Elected officials didn’t know the difference between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, let alone the multitude of tribes within each sect, and spread across entire regions of Iraq, Syria, and so on. George W. Bush barely read anything beyond the sports section, let alone the Epic of Gilgamesh.

In April 2005, when our unit was replaced by the 2nd Marine Division, Al Qaim was once again largely controlled by the local resistance, comprised of regional Sunnis and a multitude of foreign fighters who crossed the Syrian-Iraqi border, traveling southeast along the Euphrates for a chance to maim and kill U.S. forces. And who could blame them? Decades of U.S. imperialism have given countless millions of people throughout the Arab-Muslim world plenty of justification.

After quelling much of the Iraqi resistance in Al Qaim through the summer of 2005, by September, a sign at the entrance of the town read ‘Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Qaim.’ According to a report from the Washington Post, “the bullet-riddled body of a young woman dressed in her nightclothes lay in a street of Qaim. A sign left on her corpse declared, ‘A prostitute who was punished.’” Public executions in the public square became the norm.

Around the same time, a Maxim Magazine headline read, ‘Iraq’s Wild, Wild West: Murder, Mayhem, and Metallica in a Badass Border Town.’ Unlike the 17th century, the driving force and myth of ‘Manifest Destiny’ could not motivate or save the American Empire. Toward the end of our deployment, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) constructed a multimillion-dollar mess hall equipped with soft-serve ice cream machines, flat-screen TVs (permanently set to Fox News), steak dinners, and pallets of Gatorade.

By 2014, ISIS took over Al Qaim, and eventually the train station that U.S. forces had commandeered many years prior. At the time, I was watching videos online and reading reports of ISIS fighters making their way through Al Anbar. I remember thinking, “My God, I would love to be a fly on the wall of that chow hall after ISIS fighters enter it for the first time.” I can only imagine what those hardened Sunni fighters must have thought when they encountered endless supplies of food, water, and desserts.

I’m reminded of Captain Willard’s reflection in Frances Ford Coppola’s brilliant 1979 film, Apocalypse Now: “I’m here a week now. Waiting for a mission. Getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker. And every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger.” The Americans, for all of their bluster, never intended to stay in Iraq, nor did anyone in the United States have any interest in “fighting to the very last soul.”

U.S. Marines anxiously awaited letters from tearful and sometimes cheating spouses back home. They wanted their all-you-can-eat buffet lunches, cheap drugs, Tijuana prostitutes, and ESPN. The U.S. isn’t a ‘warrior nation,’ as the world is quickly learning in the wake of Netanyahu and Trump’s catastrophic war against Iran. Contrary to Trump’s gibberish, Uncle Sam is the ultimate Paper Tiger. And all of the military technology and prowess in the world will never defeat the will of those occupied by the U.S. Empire. The will to fight, not technology or wealth, often determines the course of history.

Indeed, the only thing the U.S. Empire achieves with its persistent meddling, covert operations, bombing campaigns, coups, and political disinformation is more chaos, death, and destruction. Bullet-riddled children, decapitated men, and dismembered women provide the fuel required to feed the engine of insurgency and resistance. For every non-combatant killed, dozens of fighters are created. The same was true in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and now, Iran.

Americans know next to nothing about the people or the nations — their customs, languages, cultures, religions, economies, ethnicities — the U.S. routinely missiles, occupies, and destroys. For a short time, those on the receiving end of America’s quest for ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ occupy headlines in every major newspaper, on every nightly news segment. Today, however, no one talks about Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, or their people who live in squalor and misery as a result of America’s imperial hubris.

Iraqi children, Syrian mothers, Libyan teenagers, and Afghan fathers have the same desires and aspirations as those of us in the West. They, too, want their children, friends, and neighbors to live healthy, educated, and purposeful lives. They, too, want to leave behind a better world for future generations. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of U.S. jingoism, other than the countless bodies left in its wake, is the shattering of solidarity it hopes to engender. Fortunately, Americans are learning, which is why most of them are opposed to the current war in Iran.

The people of Iraq and Iran understand the dire consequences of U.S. military intervention and occupation. Prior to the 2003 invasion, four years before I was born, Uncle Sam started providing Saddam Huesien with chemical weapons to fight the Iranians while simultaneously selling weapons to the Iranians and using the revenue to fund the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua. The Iranians and Iraqis remember their history. They live with the ramifications of U.S. foreign policy every day. If current events are any indication, Americans will increasingly as well.

And so, here we are, yet again. The U.S. and Israel have launched an illegal war of aggression against Iran, sending the entire region into chaos and the global economy into a potentially never-ending cycle of instability and impoverishment. Imagine a nation of 340 million people, on the cusp of its 250th year, assuming it can dominate and dictate the future of a civilization that stretches over 2,500 years.

In the end, one thing is certain: if humanity survives the 21st century, if human civilization can somehow make it another 2,500 years, the Persian people and the people of Mesopotamia will remain. The U.S. Empire, on the other hand, will reside in the footnotes of history if it continues down its bellicose path. The ultimate price of hubris is humiliation, followed by eradication.

Subscribe now

Share

As the impending midterm elections increasingly dominate the political discourse on corporate news outlets, the issues most important to poor and working-class Americans remain left unaddressed. Today, as has been the case for several decades, middle-class managerial types, corporate professionals, college professors, lawyers, small-business owners, and NGO executives dominate the political landscape in the United States. Their needs and concerns take precedence over those of the masses.

Middle-class Americans, while understandably anxious about their economic lot in life, remain rather comfortable compared to poor and working-class Americans. Their understanding of politics, like that of most people, is shaped by their personal experiences and, equally important, their economic circumstances. They have culturally attractive positions, professional jobs, and social status to lose, whereas most poor and working-class people do not. This is why issues such as expanding welfare, Social Security, and disability benefits, as well as minimum wage increases, public housing, and universal healthcare, aren’t routinely discussed or debated among Republican and Democratic Party elites.

This is also true, however, in the left-wing activist world, where retired professionals, online influencers, podcasters, university professors, and various others do, in fact, have much to lose. They also live rather economically stable lives, at least relatively speaking. They don’t wish to rock the boat, at least not too much. Likewise, Baby Boomers are still the predominant political force in American politics. They run the foundations, unions, NGOs, magazines, and websites that people associate with radical politics. And if they don’t directly own or manage those entities, they undoubtedly provide the majority of the funding for such projects. They represent the last generation of Americans who enjoyed the so-called Golden Age of Capitalism (1945-1973) and continue to reap its benefits: homeownership, retirement, stock market assets, and so on.

Without question, the political conversations and debates in U.S. society would radically improve if poor and working-class people were more engaged in social movements, organizations, and elections. Our situation is one of collective desperation. Right now, tens of millions of our fellow Americans are making difficult and demeaning choices about how to spend their limited funds. Clothes for the kids or meat for dinner? Fill up the gas tank or replace those old shoes? Feed the dog or pay the electric bill? Repair the car or pay the landlord? The Americans asking these questions are not leading social movements or political parties. Many of them don’t even bother voting. And why would they?

*****

Here, we confront a challenging contradiction: the middle-class professionals and downwardly mobile urban hipsters with college degrees have had much more exposure to ideas and concepts concerning political organizing, radical political history, methods, and tactics than their unorganized and politically disengaged poor and working-class counterparts. Yet, nothing of substance will be accomplished without massive numbers of the latter becoming organized and active. In other words, the people who have the knowledge required to effectively engage in radical political organizing efforts must find a way to both disseminate radical political information, skills, and ideas and develop organic leaders within communities without turning people off or dominating such efforts. Teachers, not leaders.

Of course, some will dispute this formula and suggest that poor and working-class people don’t require some outside force to get organized. As someone who grew up in the very communities mentioned above, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that struggling, alienated, and disempowered Americans inherently understand how to combat the forces of racism, capitalism, and ecological devastation, to name just a few challenges. As research shows, most Americans are not members of clubs, organizations, or associations. Union membership remains low. And the Democratic Party, for all of its structural and historical faults, no longer provides an avenue for poor and working-class people to engage with the political process, nor would such a situation be ideal.

There’s nothing organic about organizing. I’ve seen many good-hearted Americans waste their precious time, energy, and resources running in circles — sometimes, in the case of local community organizations, simply because they can’t effectively manage meetings, let alone strategy sessions, skills workshops, and so forth. There are, undoubtedly, ways to train and empower people. The key, in my view, is doing so without dominating the conversation. The people who have participated in workplace organizing efforts, single-issue campaigns, and social movements can operate as facilitators and educators, but not leaders. Organic leaders should come from the very communities, job sites, places of worship, and classrooms where the organizing efforts are taking place. Our job is to teach people how to identify those leaders and to train and empower them with the knowledge necessary to further leadership development.

*****

The Americans who grew up and worked with over the years are fed up and disgusted with the entire system, both parties, and the corporate media. They’re cynical and angry, and rightly so. Their utility bills have risen dramatically. The same is true of gasoline, food, and healthcare costs. Their relatives have fought in the Forever Wars (2001-present day). Their neighbors have died from opiate overdoses. They don’t have the time or patience to entertain do-gooder activists selling choreographed political rallies. For committed leftists, such events represent a sign of hope. People working insane hours and with limited leisure time see another protest that won’t amount to much. Plus, the high-pitched voices, upspeak, and overly sensitive types who have largely dominated left-wing political circles over the past couple of decades turn poor and working-class people off.

More specifically, the truly distinguishing characteristic between the two groups (middle-class vs. poor/working-class) is a combination of outrage and anger that’s clearly expressed by those hanging by a thread, compared to those who have something to lose or think they’ll have something to gain in the future if we can only steady the ship. In my view, if political activists spent more time speaking with the former, they would quickly realize that millions of Americans are seething with anger. Trump and MAGA effectively tapped into this, as did Bernie Sanders. Instead of accepting and speaking to that outrage, all too often, left-wing activists (still dominated by NGOs) shy away from those interactions or seek to muffle organic outrage. God forbid we lose our foundation money!

Plus, much of the American underclass simply doesn’t buy the sloganeering offered by liberal and left activists. For example, the ‘Fight For $15’ campaign that fizzled out rather quickly didn’t resonate with the very people the campaign purported to help. Back then, it was well understood that Americans couldn’t live on $15 an hour, so why bother pouring countless hours and effort into a campaign whose goals, if met, wouldn’t mean much in the coming years? Not to mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of people working those gigs can’t wait to find a different, better job. Instead of aiming low in the hope of gathering popular support, activists would be wise to set higher goals that would actually make a fundamental difference in people’s lives. That requires an economic vision beyond better wages, expanded social programs, and more vacation days.

*****

Indeed, one of the reasons why so many ordinary Americans vote for Trump and the GOP is that they genuinely believe Trump and the GOP will follow through with their stated goals, however warped, damaging, and regressive they may be. To be fair, many of those same Americans also believed that Bernie Sanders would implement his platform if elected, but the same Professional Managerial Class that dominates liberal politics stopped him from ever becoming the Democratic nominee for POTUS. A sin none of us should ever forget. As a result, Americans and the rest of the world have paid and continue to pay a heavy price for the cynical and self-serving actions of the liberal elites. On a side note, this process is destined to play out, once again, in the 2028 elections if massive numbers of Americans don’t get their asses in gear and start organizing.

Trump and the MAGA movement spoke directly to millions of understandably frustrated and angry Americans. Yes, disproportionately white Americans, but so what? Are we not interested in organizing 60% of the population? Trump and Co. didn’t mince their words. They didn’t speak in a language carefully crafted by cosmopolitan liberals. They cursed. They yelled. They joked. And they didn’t shy away from speaking openly and honestly about their views and opinions on any number of issues. They happily accepted invitations to popular cultural podcasts. They attended sporting events. And they spoke to anyone and everyone who stuck a microphone in their faces. To many liberal and leftist elites, Trump and Co. come across as particularly crude. For me, however, they sound like half of the white guys I grew up, played sports, and served in the military with.

Good luck finding an elected Democrat who doesn’t sound like they were manufactured in a focus group plant. The same is true of many leftists, who often speak like they’re attending a seminar at a university. Now, to be clear, there’s a time and place for sophisticated conversations and debates. I’m not suggesting a form of anti-intellectualism. Poor and working-class Americans are more than capable of understanding theories surrounding economics, history, and U.S. foreign policy. However, the first step is initially engaging such people. Trump and the MAGA movement have done a much better job tapping into the underlying anger felt by tens of millions of Americans. Somehow, they seem more approachable than liberal elites. A fundamental part of Trump’s appeal, before his insanely destructive policies, was his willingness to speak bluntly. Again, Bernie falls into the same category. Others, such as Graham Platner and Tucker Carlson, as well.

*****

Socially and culturally speaking, the overly sensitive liberal-left aesthetic turns off the very people (poor and working-class Americans) we must engage if we hope to defeat the forces of Wall Street and the military industrial complex, the bankers and corporate CEOs, the corrupt bureaucrats, and retrograde religious fanatics. Political activists will undoubtedly encounter many phrases, terms, and ideas they find inherently offensive if they actually reach out to poor and working-class Americans. In short, they’ll need to grow some thicker skin. Poor and working-class people like to make so-called offensive jokes. Ethnicity, race, gender, and sexuality are often the crux of such humor. It’s not a big deal. Liberals and leftists need to step out of their safe little social and cultural bubbles and loosen up a bit. So far, there’s little evidence they’re willing to do so.

We faced this dynamic head-on while organizing in Michigan City, Indiana, a deindustrialized Rust Belt town that endures all of the ugliness and brutality of the post-industrial regions scattered throughout the empire: drug addiction/overdoses, racial segregation, gun violence, extreme economic inequality, ecological devastation, corrupt local bureaucrats and police officials, and extractive and damaging industries (fossil fuel power plants, prisons, and casinos). In this context, very few self-identified leftists, liberals, or progressives would know how to operate. Democratic Party Machine Politics dominates the landscape in which I grew up (the Southside of Chicago and Northwest Indiana). For the most part, liberals, progressives, and leftists have abandoned organizing efforts in deindustrialized Rust Belt towns and cities and rural areas.

In hindsight, the mistake we made during our organizing efforts in Michigan City was initially allowing far too many self-identified leftists, liberals, and progressives into our organizing spaces. That must be said upfront and honestly. The progressives and leftists, again, who largely come from middle-class suburbs, occupy professional positions or have parents to help them out financially, didn’t socially or culturally jive with the people attending our meetings and events who came from the streets. Many of whom were drug addicts/alcoholics (who pose specific and serious challenges in any organizing effort), former or current gang members, the unemployed, disabled, combat veterans, and disgruntled service sector and blue-collar workers.

We did our best to create solidarity among the various groups. Social events helped tremendously. In the end, however, the material circumstances of the different groups posed a major challenge. On the one hand, we had people who owned homes, occupied professional jobs, and maintained middle-class dreams. On the other hand, we had people who didn’t know how they were going to afford lunch or fill up their gas tanks with enough fuel to make it to work. The two groups of people lived fundamentally different lives. And it didn’t start or end with economics. Cultural differences also posed serious obstacles, as did issues surrounding race, religion, and sexuality.

*****

Reflecting on those past organizing experiences, in the future, we will sacrifice short-term victories for long-term sustained involvement. We will focus our energies on people who, most importantly, have a fighting spirit. Desperate people, after all, view politics in a fundamentally different light than those who engage with politics for moral reasons, or those who attend meetings, rallies, and events to make themselves feel good, or to tell themselves they’re “doing the right thing” or that they’re “on the right side of history.” In the end, if we’re being honest, none of that matters. The only thing that does is building political organizations, institutions, and movements capable of defeating the elites who currently run our political and economic systems.

What actually matters is building community, long-lasting institutions, and relationships capable of withstanding the onslaught of militarized immigration enforcement, corporate degradation, and increasingly radicalized political forces hellbent on maintaining the status quo (Democrats) or turning back the clock (Republicans). The current aims of liberal and left activists, with a few minor exceptions, aren’t resonating with poor and working-class Americans. This poses a challenge, but it also allows a space for experimental organizing. We shouldn’t limit ourselves to operating only within existing institutions. If there’s a chance to gain a meaningful reform, there are plenty of groups available who can lead that fight. Which groups currently exist who are simultaneously fighting for positive and fundamental changes, but who are also building resilient structures capable of dealing with an increasingly volatile economic, political, cultural, and ecological global topography?

Creating physical spaces and political organizations for poor and working-class people to grapple with the most important issues of our time is the first priority. Those organizations and structures will take many different forms. We should encourage experimentation. We should welcome novel proposals. Those of us who’ve been engaged with political movements and organizations should share as much useful knowledge as possible. But only with the aim of arming people with the tools necessary to fight back. We should encourage people to tap into their anger and use it as fuel to effectively fight back. We should foster new ideologies, concepts, approaches, and methods. We need fresh language, symbols, affects, and images — ones that actually inspire and resonate with ordinary people.

This, for me, is the beauty of political engagement. The notion that we should recreate the failed or briefly successful, yet inherently inadequate, political movements of the past is a dead end. No one remembers FDR, nor does anyone have any cultural or historical connection to Marxist organizations and movements of decades past. The urge many leftists have to employ terms such as communism or socialism is a shortcut, some low-hanging fruit. An easy way to distinguish themselves from their liberal or progressive counterparts. It’s understandable, but not very motivating or inspiring, at least in my view. And while I support the efforts of any group that’s out there fighting and organizing and winning victories for working people, I would be lying if I said that I’m personally motivated or touched by images of Marx, Lenin, Che, or Mao.

Most young people, while sympathetic to a very broad understanding of socialism (essentially, something other than the current system), aren’t members of socialist organizations, don’t self-identify as socialists, and have a very difficult time discussing the historical horrors of state socialist governments. Most importantly, attempting to resurrect the past isn’t the way forward. Re-imagining modes of political involvement, the structure of the state, structures outside the state, and how we relate to each other offers more interesting avenues for political engagement. It taps into people’s ability to create, imagine, question, and build. Right now, history haunts us. The sooner we can discard the ghosts of the past, the better. Dreams of recreating the 1930s or 1960s are completely out of the question, and more than anything, illustrate the limits of our collective political horizon.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now