Read this several times and I take this seriously, and I’m responding as someone who’s spent a lifetime inside government long enough to recognize when process starts outrunning conscience. I’m not weighing footnotes here. I’m weighing consequences.
What hits home for me isn’t any single incident. It’s the accumulation. The speed with which harm keeps arriving, and the slowness with which remedies arrive after lives have already been rearranged beyond repair. Babies taken. Families split. Citizens grabbed. Courts issuing language while damage becomes permanent.
I think you’re right about something that matters more than tactics. There is a point where restraint stops being prudence and starts being permission. History rarely announces that moment in advance. You only recognize it later, when you realize the line was crossed while people were still debating tone, precedent, and timing!
Here’s where I part company, and I’ll say it once. I don’t think every hesitation is moral failure, and I don’t think every act of defiance is wise simply because it’s defiant. I still believe judgment matters. But I no longer believe that our current posture deserves the benefit of the doubt. The careful path keeps losing, as you say, and the costs are being paid by people who never get to balance institutional risk against their children’s safety.
What troubles me most is how familiar this feels. I’ve seen this pattern before. Not the uniforms or the language, but the reflex. Power acts quickly downward and cautiously upward. Accountability becomes procedural. Harm is treated as regrettable but acceptable. And the people making these calculations are insulated from the consequences they’re asking others to endure.
You ask where the line is? That’s a good question. Not what precedent we might set by acting, but what precedent we’ve already set by not acting. At some point delay becomes a decision, and silence becomes participation.
I’m not calling for chaos. I’m not interested in turning prosecution into a chant. But I am done accepting the argument that we should wait for institutions that have already shown us who they protect. I won’t accept moral outsourcing to courts that have decided what they’re willing to authorize and what they’re willing to ignore.
Normal politics cannot absorb what you’re describing without becoming part of it. When profiling is blessed, when orders are ignored without consequence, when force expands and restraint keeps shrinking, something foundational has already given way.
So I don’t read this as a call to panic. I read it as a warning that the room for half measures is closing whether we admit it or not. Law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact. There isn’t a third option that I can see.
That choice is already being made in practice. The only remaining question is whether we’re willing to name it while there’s still time to act, because refusing to decide is still a decision, and history keeps very good records of those.
Great post and glad I stumbled across it during my bleary-eyed before coffee scan of the daily universe. By the way, if I haven’t mentioned already, I really appreciate the sourcing. Thanks!
Dino, you're seeing the pattern that most people miss - "Power acts quickly downward and cautiously upward. Accountability becomes procedural."
That's the structural problem. Not the specific officials, not this particular administration, but the architecture itself that creates this asymmetry.
You're wrestling with the right tension: "delay becomes a decision" vs "not every defiance is wise simply because it's defiant." But here's what I've learned - that tension exists because we're choosing between two bad options within broken architecture.
The choice isn't just "cautious institutional process" vs "aggressive prosecution." There's a third path: rebuild the architecture so we're not dependent on prosecutorial heroes OR institutional patience while people suffer.
Why does executive enforcement have unlimited discretion in the first place? Why is there no professional oversight body with real enforcement authority? Why do we have governance architecture that makes "wait for courts that have already shown us who they protect" the best option available?
You said "Law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact. There isn't a third option that I can see."
There is. Professional governance architecture. Constitutional-level constraints on enforcement power. Institutional mechanisms that don't depend on anyone being brave.
Prosecute now? Yes, bail the water. But we also need to patch the hole. Otherwise we're having this exact conversation again in 4 years, just with different victims.
Jason, wow! Now that’s a response! I wish more posters would take the time.
So, yes, I think you’re right, and I’m saying that as someone who’s watched this pattern repeat long enough to recognize it when it shows up with a different vocabulary.
The asymmetry you’re naming isn’t incidental. Power acting quickly downward and cautiously upward is structural. It’s not about this administration or those officials. It’s about an architecture that produces the same outcomes regardless of who occupies the offices. When accountability becomes procedural rather than corrective, harm becomes manageable instead of unacceptable.
I agree with you that a system that depends on prosecutorial heroes or extraordinary courage is already broken. Justice that requires someone to be unusually brave is justice that will fail most of the time. Oversight that only works when someone risks their career isn’t oversight at all. So yes, professional governance architecture matters. Constraints that assume ordinary human behavior rather than moral exceptionalism are the only kind that endure.
Where I want to be careful is in how we place that solution in time.
Rebuilding architecture is necessary, but it’s not available to carry the moral weight of the present moment. It’s a future stabilizer, not a present substitute. Structural reform can’t be asked to do the work of stopping harm that’s already underway. When people are already inside the machinery, architecture isn’t an idea. It’s the thing they’re being processed through.
That’s why I resist treating it as a clean third path. Not because it isn’t real, but because it can quietly become a way of postponing confrontation while redesign is debated. I’ve seen that movie before. It feels responsible. It sounds serious. And it often buys time for the very forces it’s meant to restrain.
Bail the water and patch the hole, certainly. I agree with you on that. I just don’t want us to forget that while we’re arguing about blueprints, people are still in the hold.
When I say law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact, I’m speaking about the present tense. About what happens when enforcement is already moving and the only question left is whether anyone is willing to interrupt it. Architecture explains how we got here. It doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for how the system is used right now.
I don’t think we’re actually in conflict. I hear you arguing that we need to stop accepting a design that forces us into bad choices. I’m saying we can’t let long term repair become a moral anesthetic in the short term.
Structural reform has to come. Oversight has to be ordinary. Restraint has to be automatic. Accountability has to be boring enough to survive whoever comes next.
Until then, we’re still responsible for how this system operates today, who it protects, and who it sacrifices. There isn’t a clean escape from that burden. I think we’re obligated to carry both, action now and repair later, even when it’s uncomfortable and even when it refuses to resolve neatly. I appreciate your words.
Dino, you're right to push back on this. "Structural reform as moral anesthetic" is a real danger. I've seen it too - people using "but we need systemic change" as an excuse to avoid doing the hard thing right now.
But here's what I'm NOT saying: don't bail water, just talk about patching holes. That would be immoral while people are drowning.
What I AM saying is: we have a lot of people bailing water. Armitage, you, many others - doing the urgent work of stopping immediate harm. We need more. Keep doing it. That work is necessary.
What we hardly have any of: people working on the patch. There are some academics talking abstractly about individual mechanisms, but almost no one pulling it all together into a cohesive, actionable plan for fixing the hole.
And here's the thing - patching the hole is ALSO urgent work. Not "later after we handle this crisis," but NOW, in parallel, because this crisis will keep recurring until we fix the architecture.
You said "I don't think we're actually in conflict." You're right. This is division of labor.
Some people should prosecute, resist, interrupt the machinery while it's grinding people up. I've spent years doing that - reading the headlines, getting angry, overcome with despair, watching the same movie over and over. And in true Hollywood fashion, this latest sequel is even worse than the previous one.
Right now the ratio is off and we are severely short-handed. We have thousands, tens of thousands bailing water. We have almost none working on patching the holes. We need millions doing both.
That's what The Statecraft Blueprint is for - not to replace the urgent resistance work, but to complement it. I'm trying to speak to and engage people who I think are like me: people who got tired of bailing water and checked out. People who need hope that there are other options. Hope that democracy shouldn't require heroic effort.
"Action now and repair later" - I'd reframe it as "action now AND architecture now." Both urgent. Both necessary. Different skill sets, different approaches, same commitment to stopping the harm.
You're doing the first. I'm doing the second. Neither is sufficient alone.
For anyone reading this who's been bailing water for years and feeling burned out - this is for you.
If you're tired of the cycle, if you're exhausted by the outrage-action-disappointment-repeat pattern, if you keep thinking "there has to be a better way" - there is.
You don't have to keep bailing. That's important work, but it doesn't have to be YOUR work if you're depleted.
There's different work available: building the governance architecture that patches the hole. Professional oversight mechanisms. Constitutional constraints on enforcement power. The institutional design that makes these crises stop recurring. I know those phrases sound intimidating and technical. Even if you don't understand them, we just need your voice saying "we want a functional government."
It's not as immediately dramatic as prosecution. It's cathedral work - slower, steadier, aimed at fixing the pattern instead of fighting the symptoms.
But it's work that needs doing, and it might be exactly what you need if you're exhausted by the fight.
If you're ready to trade the adrenaline of the battle for the satisfaction of building something that lasts, come follow along. We're designing the patch.
That was one of the most thoughtful and constructive exchanges I've seen. It could be used as an example for students, to show that in an intelligent debate, both come out ahead. This is how politicians used to debate. Christ, what a long way down we've travelled.
Thank you for this. It means a lot. When we focus on the actual problem instead of sorting everyone into teams, we can actually have productive disagreement about solutions. That's how we used to do this. That's how we can do it again.
Or, at least, that's _my_ hope, which keeps me coming back here. 🙏🙏🙏
Jason, I think that’s a fair and generous clarification, and I appreciate the way you framed it.
I agree with you that patching the hole isn’t optional and that it can’t be deferred until some calmer future that never quite arrives. If the work stays limited to emergency response, the exhaustion becomes part of the system itself. People burn out, step back, and the cycle resets.
I also think you’re right to name division of labor instead of conflict. Different people are suited to different kinds of work at different moments, and a healthy democracy should never require everyone to live permanently in crisis mode. Some of us are interrupting harm as it happens. Some of us need to be thinking seriously about how to make that interruption less necessary in the first place.
Where I feel aligned with you is on this. Both kinds of work only matter if they stay connected to human cost and human consequence. Architecture that forgets the people already in the machinery becomes abstraction. Resistance that never feeds into repair becomes exhaustion. Keeping those in conversation is the hard part, and it’s the part you’re clearly trying to take on.
I respect that effort, and I respect the invitation you’re extending to people who are burned out and looking for another way to contribute without abandoning responsibility. That kind of on ramp matters.
Thanks for the exchange. This felt like the right kind of discussion to have, the kind that actually leaves something standing when it’s done.
Thank Dino! I really appreciate it! The other hurdle is, bailing water (prosecutions, etc.) gives emotional satisfaction *now*, which means it’s easier to create engagement. Patching holes is cathedral work, it’s slow, methodical, and analytical (which is my kind of work), but very hard to create engagement. That’s the nut I’m trying to crack right now.
I have explored the available options to be sure. However, thus far, it’s been my experience AI writes with the consummate skill of a corporate apparatchik: official without an ounce of soul.
I have used Grammerly. It has its place, especially when negotiating tough clause construction; however, it also can strip away the personality in your writing.
The best use for AI is as a research assistant. The search function is so superior to a standard search engine it doesn’t warrant comparison. Still playing the research assistant, it can serve as a foil or a mirror to discuss a thesis.
In my considered opinion, AI is far from reaching its own Peter Principal.
I’m looking forward to sample the next interaction of AI called Artifical Super Intelligence. Purportedly, it will be an order of magnitude beyond what a human is capable of.
I could go on but its a broader subject than can be addressed here.
It’s a curious thing. It can flawlessly punctuate and translate. Yet after some tweaking, it fails to capture the human essence. It also falls into repetition. I spent long years teaching myself how to write with a modicum of skill; I will not waste my remaining years instructing an LLM in articulating a human like expression.
Speaking of repetition, have you noticed how most newspaper articles repeat themselves in only slightly altered form in subsequent paragraphs? If I bother to read a complete article, I notice this phenomenon in almost every paper. I'm not familiar with all the mechanisms of LLMs, but this seems to follow what you mentioned above. I find it off-putting, and once again, question why I read MSM anymore at all.
Thank you for your discussion here. It makes me hopeful to see some truly thoughtful and intelligent discourse.
I’ve noticed it too, and you’re not seeing things. I believe alot of reporting now’s written for skimming rather than staying, so the same idea gets restated in slightly different language to catch readers who might drop in anywhere and leave just as fast. What looks like emphasis is often padding shaped by platform pressure, speed, and fear of losing attention. Facts still matter, but they’re rarely allowed to build toward meaning, and that makes reading feel tissue paper thin and irritatingly repetitive. I get why that leads to questioning why you read mainstream outlets at all. That’s why conversatikns like this matter to me. When people take time to think and respond to each other, it restores something essential, a sense that depth and care are still possible, and still worth choosing when we find them.
That answers my question. You use AI for research but the writing is yours. Good work! Theoretically, one can prompt AI to write in a specified style, or even analyze a sample for stylistic replication.
I am sending this column to the National Governors Association and my Congresspeople. But it comes down to enforcement. Once prosecuted, who will physically put these wretched people in jail?
I think this question will get analyzed and decided by the legal system soon and Illinois looks like the thin edge of the wedge. That state has passed laws protecting migrants from the worst excesses of ICE and DOJ has sued them. Get your popcorn ready folks, this is going to get interesting quite quickly.
Chris! Your ideas and documentation of them, are stellar. I have sent some of them along, but surely hope *you* are sending these, *every time*, to those who could actually make a difference.
I had to pause and check the numbers, because anger doesn’t give us permission to be sloppy. Lol.
No, ICE isn’t getting an extra $130 billion in 2026 alone. That figure collapses several years, agencies, and funding streams into one number. Accuracy still matters, especially when the stakes are this high, though.
But here’s what doesn’t change when you correct the math.
Immigration enforcement funding is rising sharply and deliberately. ICE’s budget is set to grow, and the wider enforcement system is being flooded with money, personnel, detention capacity, and expanded authority at the same time courts are signaling restraint is optional and accountability is flexible. That combination is not accidental.
I’m not offering this as commentary from the sidelines. I spent two decades inside United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. I watched how money becomes policy long before it becomes headlines. Budgets don’t just support programs. They tell agencies what they’re expected to do, how fast they’re expected to do it, and how much risk they’re allowed to take with other people’s lives.
So if the headline number was wrong, the direction is unmistakable.
More agents. More reach. More pressure to act quickly. Less room for judgment. Less room for restraint. And a system that has already shown us how it behaves when speed outruns oversight.
I don’t need the biggest possible number to understand what’s happening. I only need to watch where the money is going and listen to how authority is being framed. You don’t build this kind of capacity unless you intend to use it.
Precision isn’t a retreat from moral clarity. It’s how you make sure the warning can’t be dismissed.
And even with the numbers corrected, the warning stands. This isn’t routine growth. It’s preparation for scale.
I’ve seen what that looks like when it begins quietly, wrapped in neutral language and justified as efficiency. It doesn’t stay quiet for long. It shows up in how people are treated when no one thinks anyone important is watching.
That’s why I’m paying attention now.
Because by the time the consequences are undeniable, the machinery is already in motion, and the people caught in it don’t get the luxury of arguing over spreadsheets.
Are the consequences undeniable already? I think so, and I suspect that Republicans who are leaving office think so too, including MTG but I hear there will be more in early 2026. While I welcome empty Republican seats, I am both sad and angry that if they see any light, they won't share it and fight for what's true and what's needed.
I don’t think it’s controversial anymore to say that some people inside the Republican Party understand exactly where this is going.
If some Republicans are choosing to leave office because they can already see what’s unfolding, then the consequences aren’t abstract. They’re close enough to prompt exit.
But leaving quietly isn’t courage. It’s withdrawal.
Walking away may spare an individual’s conscience, but it doesn’t relieve the public of the burden. It transfers it. The harm doesn’t disappear. It lands on people with less power and fewer protections.
I don’t celebrate empty seats, even when I believe the people leaving have done real damage. I feel conflicted about them. Because if you see the danger clearly enough to leave, then you see it clearly enough to warn others while your voice still carries weight. Silence at that point isn’t neutrality. It’s a decision.
I’m not pretending to know everyone’s motives. Some are exhausted. Some are afraid. Some are calculating. And I don’t put Marjorie Taylor Greene in the same category as quieter departures driven by fear or fatigue. Context matters.
But the larger question doesn’t go away.
What do we owe the public when we realize the system we’re part of is doing damage. Is it enough to step aside and protect ourselves, or does knowing impose an obligation to speak, to dissent, to leave a record that says this wasn’t unseen or unopposed.
History is harder on silence than it is on failed courage. Leaving may reduce harm in a narrow sense, but it also clears the field for people who are perfectly comfortable with what’s coming.
That’s why this moment feels less like relief and more like responsibility. If you can see the danger and still say nothing, the cost doesn’t vanish. It’s paid by people who never had the option to walk away.
I have almost no power or presence, I’m terrified, and don’t care why people are silent. They shouldn’t be. It’s a moral issue (not to mention one that’s likely to bite everyone who’s checked out in the ass).
It is a moral issue for some. (for all of us who still think critically.) but it's also a symptom of a broader blindness. And yes you are correct it will bite them (and us) in the ass.
Maybe you’re talking about the snow globe effect, where everyone inside is blinded by the blizzard of whiteness all around them, and can’t acknowledge there’s a world outside that bubble. It’s like a softer form of deeply embedded racism, without conscious hostility, in which white people see themselves as main characters while everyone else is an extra. That doesn’t make it okay.
What worries me is that these seats being evacuated by Republicans might just be replaced by even loonier representatives. That is the consequence of good people resigning from their positions in the administration. We’ll be left with a true kakistocracy.
Currently, the likelihood that anyone in the USA will be assaulted and thrown into a concentration camp with no reliable legal way out is much greater in the USA than virtually any other country on earth. America is a de facto fascist tyranny with some remaining propaganda suggesting we are still the leaders of the free world when we are actually the opposite. Unbridled capitalism has divided and conquered us into tolerating a system that is grossly unfair and unjust. Until the foundation of our governing system starts with "we're all in this together" rather than "everything that makes someone else better off makes you worse off" we are screwed.
This is a very important post that should be reinforced by others between now and the 2026 election. Candidates must be vetted by citizens who care. Responses, or hesitations, to the questions that are asked will tell the story.
To be blunt, a country where former Proud Boys are paid to join a paramilitary force, and kidnap brown people on sight, is no longer a democracy. It can go back to becoming one, but only if tens of millions can be roused out of their lethal apathy.
I've been thinking about Chris' ongoing insistence that we pressure state officials who have the power to prosecute to DO THEIR JOBS and go after lawless ICE agents or any other official in the regime who can be shown to be breaking state laws. I agree this is a vital strategy but I've also noticed that it's not happening even though it should be happening. The question is why?
Is it only because there's not enough public pressure as Chris often says? Couldn't it also be that state officials, our governors, AGs, prosecutors, etc, fear for their own safety if they embark on such a path? Aren't they imagining what could happen if arrests and legal proceedings ramp up in one state but not others? Aren't they vulnerable to corrupt FBI agents arresting them or US military coming in to put a stop to it all? I mean, would the governor then call in the state National Guard to protect such state judicial proceedings? What kind of conflict might ensue then - state National Guard in conflict with armed ICE police/FBI? I can't imagine governors, AGs, and their kin aren't considering all this which has made them hesitate and not do what Chris and the rest of us hope they would start doing.
Anyone else been thinking of this? I'm sure Chris you have... am I missing something? Does it have to be a simultaneous multi-state movement to succeed? Is it happening somewhere already that I don't know about? Why or why not?
Excellent question, and yes, I've thought about this a lot.
It's a mix of the factors you identified and more. Fear of disrupting norms keeps many of these officials in line, but it's deeper than that. These are people who succeeded in life because of their ability to understand the rules and play by them. Most of them are lawyers, and that's the heart of being a lawyer. The system rewarded them for that orientation. It shaped them into who they are. And now we're asking them to play a completely different game, one where rules have to be broken, where the old playbook doesn't just fail but actively helps the other side. That's outside of everything that made them successful.
Their mindset runs something like this: "They're tearing the house down, which is dangerous and evil, but that doesn't mean I should start ripping out floorboards to hit them with."
That logic makes sense in normal times. It does not work against authoritarianism.
To extend the metaphor: yes, ripping out floorboards is dangerous. You could get hurt. But you can't leave the house. You need to stop them. And refusing effective action because it feels drastic becomes far more dangerous than giving them another second to do damage, especially when innocent people are already getting hurt inside.
As for the fears you raise about armed federal agents, National Guard confrontations, and personal safety: those are legitimate. But this is precisely why public pressure matters so much, and here's what most people don't realize. It doesn't take millions of people to change a politician's behavior. Or even thousands. A few dozen people, without even coordinating with one another, can do it.
The key is different forms of pressure, all happening at the same time. Every action is a nudge. Boycotts. Contacting donors. Showing up at their events, every single one. Showing up at their offices. Flooding their emails. Sending letters. The goal is to make it so they cannot exist without public anger reaching them constantly. Their staff tries to insulate them, but they're humans who move around in public. They're public officials, and we find them. We make sure they're held accountable. And that accountability, created effectively enough, turns constant spotlights into heat lamps.
We start as a nuisance. Then we become what they're thinking about when they're lying in bed at night. Then we become what they're talking to their partner about. Then we become what they're discussing with colleagues who are feeling the same heat. We're not just pressuring them. We're occupying their minds. We're deciding what conversations they have. They won't give in immediately. That's why it's called persistence. We build pressure until it's undeniable.
This applies at every level. State attorneys general prosecuting federal officials breaking state law, whether that's ICE agents, Trump, GOP leadership, or the Heritage Foundation architects behind them. State representatives passing laws aligned with resistance. City councils and county commissioners obstructing, denying, pursuing investigations and prosecutions at whatever level they have authority to act. Everyone does what they can where they are. The carrot and the stick. Do the right thing even if it makes you uncomfortable, because a civil mob keeps showing up, frequently, with specific demands, through so many channels that you can never escape the pressure. And they won't go away.
This is the only question in 2026 and 2028. Whether you're running for dog catcher or governor, we want to know what you're going to do. And we'll tell you what we need you to do to stop this and fix it.
We need politicians to be more scared of the public than they are of fascists. It's just behavioral psychology.
Would you please give some examples of how this has worked? I believe you are right but I need help visualizing this idea you are promoting so I can get off my phone and do something 😁
I agree, and I do know something about the fight for civil rights, having read books by John Lewis, Howard Zinn, and others. They had to persist for decades against deep institutional resistance.
To be honest, I realize that as a white man I haven't had to work that hard, so being more active in resisting means going out of my comfort zone. Time to make a start of it.
Thanks - I agree about public pressure. But what level of pressure will it take to scare them enough, more than the lawyerly fear of embarking on unprecedented outside-the-box actions? Is it enough for one state to start down this path or would so doing isolate them, making them more vulnerable? Wouldn't a multi-state initiative be the way to implement this? Why isn't there a national action coalition coordinating such multi-state prosecutorial initiative? Just asking questions.
But yes, to everyone reading this: EVERY ACTION matters, at every level. I know I can do better. So can all of us. History is watching our every move.
Building loud and persistent enough public pressure campaigns eventually makes politicians start wondering “what if they stop being civil?” That idea becomes louder the more we can generate civic action and solidarity as a cultural movement.
I feel this too. Every documented harm, every baby taken, every family separated - the outrage is real and justified.
And that anger you're feeling as you read this? It feels like something. Like energy. Like clarity. Like we're finally going to DO something.
But I've learned something hard: that anger is a trap. It feels like power, but it keeps us stuck in the same cycle. We fight this administration, maybe we get some prosecutions, then the next administration comes in and uses the same unconstrained enforcement architecture differently.
Prosecute? Absolutely. When the boat is sinking, you bail water. When people are being harmed, you use every tool available to stop it.
But we're bailing water every 4-8 years. Different administrations, same sinking boat. Deportation raids, kids in cages, unlimited enforcement discretion - the hole never gets patched.
Why does executive enforcement power keep expanding regardless of who's president? Because we have governance architecture that makes this possible - that in many cases incentivizes it.
State AGs should prosecute. Citizens should demand accountability. AND we need to demand structural reform - professional oversight mechanisms, constitutional constraints on enforcement discretion, the kind of institutional architecture that actually patches the hole.
For anyone exhausted by the endless fight, there's a different path. We can build governance architecture that actually constrains power. But first we have to stop getting our emotional needs met by the battle.
You are correct to ask the questions - We have to make a choice which way will we go - give in or stand up. I hope we will stand up and say no to this president, the republicans, these bigots, racists, etc. We cannot stand idly by. We must protest. in the streets, We must strike if necessary, write strong letters ( even if they do no good ) and most important we must VOTE. Our local police must act against ICE if they break local laws - they are not above our state and local laws - our mayors, our governors must take action. We must not let the experiment of this country fade away to dictatorship no matter what.
There is another question for presidential candidates - which Gov. Newsom has already avoided answering - will you accept or reject AIPAC funding and the concomitant strings?
This is so true Christopher!! This is why I worry that if Democrats win in 2026 and 2028 there will be no consequences for this criminal administration. I fear the Dems will not take the reins and put a stop to all the illegal activities of this corrupt administration; for reasons I can’t understand or explain. Something has to be done and as you said only one politician must stand up for what is right!!!
Also buy local or buy direct. If I cannot find what I want from local sellers, I increasingly buy online directly from farmers (especially dry foods like rice and other grains, beans, nuts, and seeds) and small businesses. And in the process I have discovered that some of these small businesses were created for niche markets that are good for the environment - all-natural sponges, brushes made with boars' hairs and/or cotton with metal handles instead of plastic, bamboo and charcoal dental floss with reusable metal dispensers, dishwasher detergent pressed into blocks so you don't get the dust from powder and the packaging is minimal, and more.
Also, if you still use banks, check out what credit unions you might be able to use instead.
If we can form an alternative economy, we won't be giving so much money to billionaires and our communities will be richer.
Chris, Happy Holidays, dude.
Read this several times and I take this seriously, and I’m responding as someone who’s spent a lifetime inside government long enough to recognize when process starts outrunning conscience. I’m not weighing footnotes here. I’m weighing consequences.
What hits home for me isn’t any single incident. It’s the accumulation. The speed with which harm keeps arriving, and the slowness with which remedies arrive after lives have already been rearranged beyond repair. Babies taken. Families split. Citizens grabbed. Courts issuing language while damage becomes permanent.
I think you’re right about something that matters more than tactics. There is a point where restraint stops being prudence and starts being permission. History rarely announces that moment in advance. You only recognize it later, when you realize the line was crossed while people were still debating tone, precedent, and timing!
Here’s where I part company, and I’ll say it once. I don’t think every hesitation is moral failure, and I don’t think every act of defiance is wise simply because it’s defiant. I still believe judgment matters. But I no longer believe that our current posture deserves the benefit of the doubt. The careful path keeps losing, as you say, and the costs are being paid by people who never get to balance institutional risk against their children’s safety.
What troubles me most is how familiar this feels. I’ve seen this pattern before. Not the uniforms or the language, but the reflex. Power acts quickly downward and cautiously upward. Accountability becomes procedural. Harm is treated as regrettable but acceptable. And the people making these calculations are insulated from the consequences they’re asking others to endure.
You ask where the line is? That’s a good question. Not what precedent we might set by acting, but what precedent we’ve already set by not acting. At some point delay becomes a decision, and silence becomes participation.
I’m not calling for chaos. I’m not interested in turning prosecution into a chant. But I am done accepting the argument that we should wait for institutions that have already shown us who they protect. I won’t accept moral outsourcing to courts that have decided what they’re willing to authorize and what they’re willing to ignore.
Normal politics cannot absorb what you’re describing without becoming part of it. When profiling is blessed, when orders are ignored without consequence, when force expands and restraint keeps shrinking, something foundational has already given way.
So I don’t read this as a call to panic. I read it as a warning that the room for half measures is closing whether we admit it or not. Law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact. There isn’t a third option that I can see.
That choice is already being made in practice. The only remaining question is whether we’re willing to name it while there’s still time to act, because refusing to decide is still a decision, and history keeps very good records of those.
Great post and glad I stumbled across it during my bleary-eyed before coffee scan of the daily universe. By the way, if I haven’t mentioned already, I really appreciate the sourcing. Thanks!
Dino, you're seeing the pattern that most people miss - "Power acts quickly downward and cautiously upward. Accountability becomes procedural."
That's the structural problem. Not the specific officials, not this particular administration, but the architecture itself that creates this asymmetry.
You're wrestling with the right tension: "delay becomes a decision" vs "not every defiance is wise simply because it's defiant." But here's what I've learned - that tension exists because we're choosing between two bad options within broken architecture.
The choice isn't just "cautious institutional process" vs "aggressive prosecution." There's a third path: rebuild the architecture so we're not dependent on prosecutorial heroes OR institutional patience while people suffer.
Why does executive enforcement have unlimited discretion in the first place? Why is there no professional oversight body with real enforcement authority? Why do we have governance architecture that makes "wait for courts that have already shown us who they protect" the best option available?
You said "Law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact. There isn't a third option that I can see."
There is. Professional governance architecture. Constitutional-level constraints on enforcement power. Institutional mechanisms that don't depend on anyone being brave.
Prosecute now? Yes, bail the water. But we also need to patch the hole. Otherwise we're having this exact conversation again in 4 years, just with different victims.
Jason, wow! Now that’s a response! I wish more posters would take the time.
So, yes, I think you’re right, and I’m saying that as someone who’s watched this pattern repeat long enough to recognize it when it shows up with a different vocabulary.
The asymmetry you’re naming isn’t incidental. Power acting quickly downward and cautiously upward is structural. It’s not about this administration or those officials. It’s about an architecture that produces the same outcomes regardless of who occupies the offices. When accountability becomes procedural rather than corrective, harm becomes manageable instead of unacceptable.
I agree with you that a system that depends on prosecutorial heroes or extraordinary courage is already broken. Justice that requires someone to be unusually brave is justice that will fail most of the time. Oversight that only works when someone risks their career isn’t oversight at all. So yes, professional governance architecture matters. Constraints that assume ordinary human behavior rather than moral exceptionalism are the only kind that endure.
Where I want to be careful is in how we place that solution in time.
Rebuilding architecture is necessary, but it’s not available to carry the moral weight of the present moment. It’s a future stabilizer, not a present substitute. Structural reform can’t be asked to do the work of stopping harm that’s already underway. When people are already inside the machinery, architecture isn’t an idea. It’s the thing they’re being processed through.
That’s why I resist treating it as a clean third path. Not because it isn’t real, but because it can quietly become a way of postponing confrontation while redesign is debated. I’ve seen that movie before. It feels responsible. It sounds serious. And it often buys time for the very forces it’s meant to restrain.
Bail the water and patch the hole, certainly. I agree with you on that. I just don’t want us to forget that while we’re arguing about blueprints, people are still in the hold.
When I say law either restrains power or decorates it after the fact, I’m speaking about the present tense. About what happens when enforcement is already moving and the only question left is whether anyone is willing to interrupt it. Architecture explains how we got here. It doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for how the system is used right now.
I don’t think we’re actually in conflict. I hear you arguing that we need to stop accepting a design that forces us into bad choices. I’m saying we can’t let long term repair become a moral anesthetic in the short term.
Structural reform has to come. Oversight has to be ordinary. Restraint has to be automatic. Accountability has to be boring enough to survive whoever comes next.
Until then, we’re still responsible for how this system operates today, who it protects, and who it sacrifices. There isn’t a clean escape from that burden. I think we’re obligated to carry both, action now and repair later, even when it’s uncomfortable and even when it refuses to resolve neatly. I appreciate your words.
Dino, you're right to push back on this. "Structural reform as moral anesthetic" is a real danger. I've seen it too - people using "but we need systemic change" as an excuse to avoid doing the hard thing right now.
But here's what I'm NOT saying: don't bail water, just talk about patching holes. That would be immoral while people are drowning.
What I AM saying is: we have a lot of people bailing water. Armitage, you, many others - doing the urgent work of stopping immediate harm. We need more. Keep doing it. That work is necessary.
What we hardly have any of: people working on the patch. There are some academics talking abstractly about individual mechanisms, but almost no one pulling it all together into a cohesive, actionable plan for fixing the hole.
And here's the thing - patching the hole is ALSO urgent work. Not "later after we handle this crisis," but NOW, in parallel, because this crisis will keep recurring until we fix the architecture.
You said "I don't think we're actually in conflict." You're right. This is division of labor.
Some people should prosecute, resist, interrupt the machinery while it's grinding people up. I've spent years doing that - reading the headlines, getting angry, overcome with despair, watching the same movie over and over. And in true Hollywood fashion, this latest sequel is even worse than the previous one.
Right now the ratio is off and we are severely short-handed. We have thousands, tens of thousands bailing water. We have almost none working on patching the holes. We need millions doing both.
That's what The Statecraft Blueprint is for - not to replace the urgent resistance work, but to complement it. I'm trying to speak to and engage people who I think are like me: people who got tired of bailing water and checked out. People who need hope that there are other options. Hope that democracy shouldn't require heroic effort.
"Action now and repair later" - I'd reframe it as "action now AND architecture now." Both urgent. Both necessary. Different skill sets, different approaches, same commitment to stopping the harm.
You're doing the first. I'm doing the second. Neither is sufficient alone.
For anyone reading this who's been bailing water for years and feeling burned out - this is for you.
If you're tired of the cycle, if you're exhausted by the outrage-action-disappointment-repeat pattern, if you keep thinking "there has to be a better way" - there is.
You don't have to keep bailing. That's important work, but it doesn't have to be YOUR work if you're depleted.
There's different work available: building the governance architecture that patches the hole. Professional oversight mechanisms. Constitutional constraints on enforcement power. The institutional design that makes these crises stop recurring. I know those phrases sound intimidating and technical. Even if you don't understand them, we just need your voice saying "we want a functional government."
It's not as immediately dramatic as prosecution. It's cathedral work - slower, steadier, aimed at fixing the pattern instead of fighting the symptoms.
But it's work that needs doing, and it might be exactly what you need if you're exhausted by the fight.
That's what we're building at The Statecraft Blueprint: https://statecraftblueprint.substack.com
If you're ready to trade the adrenaline of the battle for the satisfaction of building something that lasts, come follow along. We're designing the patch.
That was one of the most thoughtful and constructive exchanges I've seen. It could be used as an example for students, to show that in an intelligent debate, both come out ahead. This is how politicians used to debate. Christ, what a long way down we've travelled.
Thank you for this. It means a lot. When we focus on the actual problem instead of sorting everyone into teams, we can actually have productive disagreement about solutions. That's how we used to do this. That's how we can do it again.
Or, at least, that's _my_ hope, which keeps me coming back here. 🙏🙏🙏
Jason, I think that’s a fair and generous clarification, and I appreciate the way you framed it.
I agree with you that patching the hole isn’t optional and that it can’t be deferred until some calmer future that never quite arrives. If the work stays limited to emergency response, the exhaustion becomes part of the system itself. People burn out, step back, and the cycle resets.
I also think you’re right to name division of labor instead of conflict. Different people are suited to different kinds of work at different moments, and a healthy democracy should never require everyone to live permanently in crisis mode. Some of us are interrupting harm as it happens. Some of us need to be thinking seriously about how to make that interruption less necessary in the first place.
Where I feel aligned with you is on this. Both kinds of work only matter if they stay connected to human cost and human consequence. Architecture that forgets the people already in the machinery becomes abstraction. Resistance that never feeds into repair becomes exhaustion. Keeping those in conversation is the hard part, and it’s the part you’re clearly trying to take on.
I respect that effort, and I respect the invitation you’re extending to people who are burned out and looking for another way to contribute without abandoning responsibility. That kind of on ramp matters.
Thanks for the exchange. This felt like the right kind of discussion to have, the kind that actually leaves something standing when it’s done.
Thank Dino! I really appreciate it! The other hurdle is, bailing water (prosecutions, etc.) gives emotional satisfaction *now*, which means it’s easier to create engagement. Patching holes is cathedral work, it’s slow, methodical, and analytical (which is my kind of work), but very hard to create engagement. That’s the nut I’m trying to crack right now.
Well said.
Thanks, everyone. The discussions here are so worth the price of admission.
You're writing is so good, I wonder if it's being assisted by AI. Not that it matters.
I have explored the available options to be sure. However, thus far, it’s been my experience AI writes with the consummate skill of a corporate apparatchik: official without an ounce of soul.
I have used Grammerly. It has its place, especially when negotiating tough clause construction; however, it also can strip away the personality in your writing.
The best use for AI is as a research assistant. The search function is so superior to a standard search engine it doesn’t warrant comparison. Still playing the research assistant, it can serve as a foil or a mirror to discuss a thesis.
In my considered opinion, AI is far from reaching its own Peter Principal.
I’m looking forward to sample the next interaction of AI called Artifical Super Intelligence. Purportedly, it will be an order of magnitude beyond what a human is capable of.
I could go on but its a broader subject than can be addressed here.
It’s a curious thing. It can flawlessly punctuate and translate. Yet after some tweaking, it fails to capture the human essence. It also falls into repetition. I spent long years teaching myself how to write with a modicum of skill; I will not waste my remaining years instructing an LLM in articulating a human like expression.
Speaking of repetition, have you noticed how most newspaper articles repeat themselves in only slightly altered form in subsequent paragraphs? If I bother to read a complete article, I notice this phenomenon in almost every paper. I'm not familiar with all the mechanisms of LLMs, but this seems to follow what you mentioned above. I find it off-putting, and once again, question why I read MSM anymore at all.
Thank you for your discussion here. It makes me hopeful to see some truly thoughtful and intelligent discourse.
I’ve noticed it too, and you’re not seeing things. I believe alot of reporting now’s written for skimming rather than staying, so the same idea gets restated in slightly different language to catch readers who might drop in anywhere and leave just as fast. What looks like emphasis is often padding shaped by platform pressure, speed, and fear of losing attention. Facts still matter, but they’re rarely allowed to build toward meaning, and that makes reading feel tissue paper thin and irritatingly repetitive. I get why that leads to questioning why you read mainstream outlets at all. That’s why conversatikns like this matter to me. When people take time to think and respond to each other, it restores something essential, a sense that depth and care are still possible, and still worth choosing when we find them.
That answers my question. You use AI for research but the writing is yours. Good work! Theoretically, one can prompt AI to write in a specified style, or even analyze a sample for stylistic replication.
I am sending this column to the National Governors Association and my Congresspeople. But it comes down to enforcement. Once prosecuted, who will physically put these wretched people in jail?
Keep it lit, everyone.
I think this question will get analyzed and decided by the legal system soon and Illinois looks like the thin edge of the wedge. That state has passed laws protecting migrants from the worst excesses of ICE and DOJ has sued them. Get your popcorn ready folks, this is going to get interesting quite quickly.
Chris! Your ideas and documentation of them, are stellar. I have sent some of them along, but surely hope *you* are sending these, *every time*, to those who could actually make a difference.
Always, myself and the entire Existentialist Republic team follow every call to action for every article!
We need to build momentum on getting ideas in front of both of the public and elected officials. Thanks for participating in that, Cindy 🌲🌲🌲
Did I just read that there's $130 billion more for ICE in 2026? It's an avalanche of cruelty. Everywhere all at once.
I had to pause and check the numbers, because anger doesn’t give us permission to be sloppy. Lol.
No, ICE isn’t getting an extra $130 billion in 2026 alone. That figure collapses several years, agencies, and funding streams into one number. Accuracy still matters, especially when the stakes are this high, though.
But here’s what doesn’t change when you correct the math.
Immigration enforcement funding is rising sharply and deliberately. ICE’s budget is set to grow, and the wider enforcement system is being flooded with money, personnel, detention capacity, and expanded authority at the same time courts are signaling restraint is optional and accountability is flexible. That combination is not accidental.
I’m not offering this as commentary from the sidelines. I spent two decades inside United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. I watched how money becomes policy long before it becomes headlines. Budgets don’t just support programs. They tell agencies what they’re expected to do, how fast they’re expected to do it, and how much risk they’re allowed to take with other people’s lives.
So if the headline number was wrong, the direction is unmistakable.
More agents. More reach. More pressure to act quickly. Less room for judgment. Less room for restraint. And a system that has already shown us how it behaves when speed outruns oversight.
I don’t need the biggest possible number to understand what’s happening. I only need to watch where the money is going and listen to how authority is being framed. You don’t build this kind of capacity unless you intend to use it.
Precision isn’t a retreat from moral clarity. It’s how you make sure the warning can’t be dismissed.
And even with the numbers corrected, the warning stands. This isn’t routine growth. It’s preparation for scale.
I’ve seen what that looks like when it begins quietly, wrapped in neutral language and justified as efficiency. It doesn’t stay quiet for long. It shows up in how people are treated when no one thinks anyone important is watching.
That’s why I’m paying attention now.
Because by the time the consequences are undeniable, the machinery is already in motion, and the people caught in it don’t get the luxury of arguing over spreadsheets.
Are the consequences undeniable already? I think so, and I suspect that Republicans who are leaving office think so too, including MTG but I hear there will be more in early 2026. While I welcome empty Republican seats, I am both sad and angry that if they see any light, they won't share it and fight for what's true and what's needed.
Margaret, thanks for chatting with me!
I don’t think it’s controversial anymore to say that some people inside the Republican Party understand exactly where this is going.
If some Republicans are choosing to leave office because they can already see what’s unfolding, then the consequences aren’t abstract. They’re close enough to prompt exit.
But leaving quietly isn’t courage. It’s withdrawal.
Walking away may spare an individual’s conscience, but it doesn’t relieve the public of the burden. It transfers it. The harm doesn’t disappear. It lands on people with less power and fewer protections.
I don’t celebrate empty seats, even when I believe the people leaving have done real damage. I feel conflicted about them. Because if you see the danger clearly enough to leave, then you see it clearly enough to warn others while your voice still carries weight. Silence at that point isn’t neutrality. It’s a decision.
I’m not pretending to know everyone’s motives. Some are exhausted. Some are afraid. Some are calculating. And I don’t put Marjorie Taylor Greene in the same category as quieter departures driven by fear or fatigue. Context matters.
But the larger question doesn’t go away.
What do we owe the public when we realize the system we’re part of is doing damage. Is it enough to step aside and protect ourselves, or does knowing impose an obligation to speak, to dissent, to leave a record that says this wasn’t unseen or unopposed.
History is harder on silence than it is on failed courage. Leaving may reduce harm in a narrow sense, but it also clears the field for people who are perfectly comfortable with what’s coming.
That’s why this moment feels less like relief and more like responsibility. If you can see the danger and still say nothing, the cost doesn’t vanish. It’s paid by people who never had the option to walk away.
I have almost no power or presence, I’m terrified, and don’t care why people are silent. They shouldn’t be. It’s a moral issue (not to mention one that’s likely to bite everyone who’s checked out in the ass).
It is a moral issue for some. (for all of us who still think critically.) but it's also a symptom of a broader blindness. And yes you are correct it will bite them (and us) in the ass.
Maybe you’re talking about the snow globe effect, where everyone inside is blinded by the blizzard of whiteness all around them, and can’t acknowledge there’s a world outside that bubble. It’s like a softer form of deeply embedded racism, without conscious hostility, in which white people see themselves as main characters while everyone else is an extra. That doesn’t make it okay.
What worries me is that these seats being evacuated by Republicans might just be replaced by even loonier representatives. That is the consequence of good people resigning from their positions in the administration. We’ll be left with a true kakistocracy.
Thank you. Correct info is important.
Currently, the likelihood that anyone in the USA will be assaulted and thrown into a concentration camp with no reliable legal way out is much greater in the USA than virtually any other country on earth. America is a de facto fascist tyranny with some remaining propaganda suggesting we are still the leaders of the free world when we are actually the opposite. Unbridled capitalism has divided and conquered us into tolerating a system that is grossly unfair and unjust. Until the foundation of our governing system starts with "we're all in this together" rather than "everything that makes someone else better off makes you worse off" we are screwed.
This is a very important post that should be reinforced by others between now and the 2026 election. Candidates must be vetted by citizens who care. Responses, or hesitations, to the questions that are asked will tell the story.
To be blunt, a country where former Proud Boys are paid to join a paramilitary force, and kidnap brown people on sight, is no longer a democracy. It can go back to becoming one, but only if tens of millions can be roused out of their lethal apathy.
I've been thinking about Chris' ongoing insistence that we pressure state officials who have the power to prosecute to DO THEIR JOBS and go after lawless ICE agents or any other official in the regime who can be shown to be breaking state laws. I agree this is a vital strategy but I've also noticed that it's not happening even though it should be happening. The question is why?
Is it only because there's not enough public pressure as Chris often says? Couldn't it also be that state officials, our governors, AGs, prosecutors, etc, fear for their own safety if they embark on such a path? Aren't they imagining what could happen if arrests and legal proceedings ramp up in one state but not others? Aren't they vulnerable to corrupt FBI agents arresting them or US military coming in to put a stop to it all? I mean, would the governor then call in the state National Guard to protect such state judicial proceedings? What kind of conflict might ensue then - state National Guard in conflict with armed ICE police/FBI? I can't imagine governors, AGs, and their kin aren't considering all this which has made them hesitate and not do what Chris and the rest of us hope they would start doing.
Anyone else been thinking of this? I'm sure Chris you have... am I missing something? Does it have to be a simultaneous multi-state movement to succeed? Is it happening somewhere already that I don't know about? Why or why not?
Excellent question, and yes, I've thought about this a lot.
It's a mix of the factors you identified and more. Fear of disrupting norms keeps many of these officials in line, but it's deeper than that. These are people who succeeded in life because of their ability to understand the rules and play by them. Most of them are lawyers, and that's the heart of being a lawyer. The system rewarded them for that orientation. It shaped them into who they are. And now we're asking them to play a completely different game, one where rules have to be broken, where the old playbook doesn't just fail but actively helps the other side. That's outside of everything that made them successful.
Their mindset runs something like this: "They're tearing the house down, which is dangerous and evil, but that doesn't mean I should start ripping out floorboards to hit them with."
That logic makes sense in normal times. It does not work against authoritarianism.
To extend the metaphor: yes, ripping out floorboards is dangerous. You could get hurt. But you can't leave the house. You need to stop them. And refusing effective action because it feels drastic becomes far more dangerous than giving them another second to do damage, especially when innocent people are already getting hurt inside.
As for the fears you raise about armed federal agents, National Guard confrontations, and personal safety: those are legitimate. But this is precisely why public pressure matters so much, and here's what most people don't realize. It doesn't take millions of people to change a politician's behavior. Or even thousands. A few dozen people, without even coordinating with one another, can do it.
The key is different forms of pressure, all happening at the same time. Every action is a nudge. Boycotts. Contacting donors. Showing up at their events, every single one. Showing up at their offices. Flooding their emails. Sending letters. The goal is to make it so they cannot exist without public anger reaching them constantly. Their staff tries to insulate them, but they're humans who move around in public. They're public officials, and we find them. We make sure they're held accountable. And that accountability, created effectively enough, turns constant spotlights into heat lamps.
We start as a nuisance. Then we become what they're thinking about when they're lying in bed at night. Then we become what they're talking to their partner about. Then we become what they're discussing with colleagues who are feeling the same heat. We're not just pressuring them. We're occupying their minds. We're deciding what conversations they have. They won't give in immediately. That's why it's called persistence. We build pressure until it's undeniable.
This applies at every level. State attorneys general prosecuting federal officials breaking state law, whether that's ICE agents, Trump, GOP leadership, or the Heritage Foundation architects behind them. State representatives passing laws aligned with resistance. City councils and county commissioners obstructing, denying, pursuing investigations and prosecutions at whatever level they have authority to act. Everyone does what they can where they are. The carrot and the stick. Do the right thing even if it makes you uncomfortable, because a civil mob keeps showing up, frequently, with specific demands, through so many channels that you can never escape the pressure. And they won't go away.
This is the only question in 2026 and 2028. Whether you're running for dog catcher or governor, we want to know what you're going to do. And we'll tell you what we need you to do to stop this and fix it.
We need politicians to be more scared of the public than they are of fascists. It's just behavioral psychology.
Would you please give some examples of how this has worked? I believe you are right but I need help visualizing this idea you are promoting so I can get off my phone and do something 😁
Martin Luther King Jr was a master of these strategies.
I agree, and I do know something about the fight for civil rights, having read books by John Lewis, Howard Zinn, and others. They had to persist for decades against deep institutional resistance.
To be honest, I realize that as a white man I haven't had to work that hard, so being more active in resisting means going out of my comfort zone. Time to make a start of it.
Which is why they had him assassinated.
Thanks - I agree about public pressure. But what level of pressure will it take to scare them enough, more than the lawyerly fear of embarking on unprecedented outside-the-box actions? Is it enough for one state to start down this path or would so doing isolate them, making them more vulnerable? Wouldn't a multi-state initiative be the way to implement this? Why isn't there a national action coalition coordinating such multi-state prosecutorial initiative? Just asking questions.
But yes, to everyone reading this: EVERY ACTION matters, at every level. I know I can do better. So can all of us. History is watching our every move.
Building loud and persistent enough public pressure campaigns eventually makes politicians start wondering “what if they stop being civil?” That idea becomes louder the more we can generate civic action and solidarity as a cultural movement.
Excellent answer!
I feel this too. Every documented harm, every baby taken, every family separated - the outrage is real and justified.
And that anger you're feeling as you read this? It feels like something. Like energy. Like clarity. Like we're finally going to DO something.
But I've learned something hard: that anger is a trap. It feels like power, but it keeps us stuck in the same cycle. We fight this administration, maybe we get some prosecutions, then the next administration comes in and uses the same unconstrained enforcement architecture differently.
Prosecute? Absolutely. When the boat is sinking, you bail water. When people are being harmed, you use every tool available to stop it.
But we're bailing water every 4-8 years. Different administrations, same sinking boat. Deportation raids, kids in cages, unlimited enforcement discretion - the hole never gets patched.
Why does executive enforcement power keep expanding regardless of who's president? Because we have governance architecture that makes this possible - that in many cases incentivizes it.
State AGs should prosecute. Citizens should demand accountability. AND we need to demand structural reform - professional oversight mechanisms, constitutional constraints on enforcement discretion, the kind of institutional architecture that actually patches the hole.
I wrote about this trap we keep falling into - looking for villains to fight instead of asking why the system keeps producing villains: https://statecraftblueprint.org/p/the-villain-trap
For anyone exhausted by the endless fight, there's a different path. We can build governance architecture that actually constrains power. But first we have to stop getting our emotional needs met by the battle.
I agree with you but am also okay with getting my emotional needs met if that’s what it takes to get myself out of the house ;)
You are correct to ask the questions - We have to make a choice which way will we go - give in or stand up. I hope we will stand up and say no to this president, the republicans, these bigots, racists, etc. We cannot stand idly by. We must protest. in the streets, We must strike if necessary, write strong letters ( even if they do no good ) and most important we must VOTE. Our local police must act against ICE if they break local laws - they are not above our state and local laws - our mayors, our governors must take action. We must not let the experiment of this country fade away to dictatorship no matter what.
YES
This is the clarity
we need!
There is another question for presidential candidates - which Gov. Newsom has already avoided answering - will you accept or reject AIPAC funding and the concomitant strings?
If you are not willing to break the wheel of oppression, you are just another wolf pretending to be my friend. Break the wheel, or get out of the way
This is so true Christopher!! This is why I worry that if Democrats win in 2026 and 2028 there will be no consequences for this criminal administration. I fear the Dems will not take the reins and put a stop to all the illegal activities of this corrupt administration; for reasons I can’t understand or explain. Something has to be done and as you said only one politician must stand up for what is right!!!
Boycotts.
Also buy local or buy direct. If I cannot find what I want from local sellers, I increasingly buy online directly from farmers (especially dry foods like rice and other grains, beans, nuts, and seeds) and small businesses. And in the process I have discovered that some of these small businesses were created for niche markets that are good for the environment - all-natural sponges, brushes made with boars' hairs and/or cotton with metal handles instead of plastic, bamboo and charcoal dental floss with reusable metal dispensers, dishwasher detergent pressed into blocks so you don't get the dust from powder and the packaging is minimal, and more.
Also, if you still use banks, check out what credit unions you might be able to use instead.
If we can form an alternative economy, we won't be giving so much money to billionaires and our communities will be richer.