What would a second Trump presidency look like? We dive deep into the detailed plans that have emerged on the Right for what they want to do immediately upon getting back to power. Almost two years ago, “Project 2025” was launched under the leadership of the Heritage Foundation. Different factions on the Right are preparing separate plans, but “Project 2025” stands out because it unites much of the conservative machine behind the goal of installing a much more effective, more ruthless rightwing regime. We look at the people behind these plans and what animates them – specifically Kevin Roberts, the president of Heritage, who embodies the siege mentality, self-victimization, and grievance-driven lust for revenge that is fueling the Right. And we dissect the plans and proposals “Project 2025” has to offer, department by department: The goal is to vastly expand presidential power and transform American government into a revenge machine, purge tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them all with loyalists. Already, “Project 2025” is engaged in an unprecedented headhunting operation to ensure ideological conformity. We discuss the tension between the goals of weaponizing the government while dismantling the “deep state” at the same time, and how it is indicative of a larger conflict on the Right between a “traditionalist” and a more rightwing-libertarian wing. Finally, we reflect on why a second Trump term would be much more dangerous, as it could rely on a fully Trumpified GOP in Congress, on a supermajority on the Supreme Court, and on the prospect of escalating violence as the ubiquitous threat against anyone daring to defy Trumpism.      Show notes: Project 25 https://www.project2025.org/   Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative promise https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf   Inside the Heritage Foundation’s Plans for ‘Institutionalizing Trumpism, NYT, January 21, 2024 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/21/magazine/heritage-foundation-kevin-roberts.html   Don Moynihan, Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State’, NYT, November 27, 2024 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/27/opinion/trump-deep-state-schedule-f.html   Don Moynihan, The risks of Schedule F for administrative capacity and government accountability, December 12, 2024 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-risks-of-schedule-f-for-administrative-capacity-and-government-accountability/   Sam Adler-Bell, The Shadow War to Determine the Next Trump Administration, January 10, 2024 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/opinion/shadow-war-trump-transition.html   Chris Geidner, On Trump's "deep state" attack plans and where they would lead in a second term, November 27, 2024 https://www.lawdork.com/p/trump-deep-state-attack-v-admin-state-attacks

Claudine Gay, Harvard’s first Black president, resigned on January 2 – the endpoint of a brutally dishonest rightwing campaign that could not have succeeded without the mainstream media eagerly joining the crusade to get her fired. We discuss why this disastrous affair matters: It was the latest iteration of the eternal reactionary grievance against higher education, which conservatives have always seen as a place of subversive liberal indoctrination and dangerous social engineering; part of an attempt to recapture the institutions of American life that “the Left” has supposedly hijacked; and a crucial battle in a much broader struggle to extinguish whatever progress towards diversity and integration has been made. Harvard matters because this sets the precedent for other places, other universities, other institutions. The campaign was orchestrated by far-right activists like Christopher Rufo, promoted and financed by a rightwing billionaire donor class, and pushed by MAGA Republicans like Elise Stefanik. But wait, even if bad actors were behind it, did Claudine Gay not still plagiarize? We discuss that too and assess the substance of the plagiarism allegations against her. Friends, there is no there there. Then why did the mainstream media propagate, launder, and legitimize such a dangerous campaign and ardently accept the role Rufo needed it – publicly told it! – to play? They didn’t just “fall for it,” they deliberately joined this crusade – a decision indicative of the media favoring “neutrality”-theater journalism over accuracy, of an increasingly reactionary, anti-“woke” stance on the center, and of America’s elites rapidly accommodating extremism. We are in for a rough ride.   Show notes: Alvin Tillery, “Putting the Racist Crusade against Harvard’s Dr. Claudine Gay in Context” https://medium.com/@atillery2/putting-the-racist-crusade-against-harvards-dr-claudine-gay-in-context-26535c307f96   Don Moynihan, “The campaign that removed the President of Harvard was about DEI, not plagiarism,” https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/the-campaign-to-remove-the-president   Moira Donegan, “Claudine Gay’s resignation had nothing to do with plagiarism” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/04/claudine-gay-harvard-resignation   Claudine Gay, “What Just Happened at Harvard Is Bigger Than Me” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/opinion/claudine-gay-harvard-president.html

In early November the New York Times released a poll that had Donald Trump clearly ahead in 5 of the 6 battleground states that will decide the 2024 election. It caused an earthquake and outright panic among (small-d) democrats. But just two days later, Democrats emerged victorious from an actual election. What on earth is going on in American politics right now? What are we to make of poll after poll claiming that Trump is on a path back to the White House? Do they tell us anything about what’s actually going on in the electorate? How should Democrats react in this situation?   There is no one else better equipped to discuss these questions – and shatter a few well-entrenched myths about elections and politics in the process – than Michael Podhorzer. He was, until recently, the long-time political director of the AFL-CIO and is now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. And Mike is, without any exaggeration, a legend in progressive policy circles, having been instrumental in building and organizing an infrastructure for data-driven and evidence-based progressive politics. He is also someone who thinks deeply and sincerely about American politics and combines that with decades of experience as a leading progressive strategist and campaigner. The result is a clarity that few other political observers can rival – something he demonstrates regularly in his Weekend Reading Substack newsletter, in which he offers some of the very best political analysis out there.   We talk with Mike about why horse-race polling is “worse than useless” and should be ignored entirely; we dissect the dogma of “popularism” that is extremely influential in Democratic politics – even though (or, perhaps: precisely because) it offers white male identity politics rather than an adequate diagnosis or campaign strategy; and we discuss what’s actually going on in the electorate: Why there is so much frustration in U.S. society; the massive impact of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision; and why the pervasive idea of “education polarization” sanitizes and obscures the fault lines that actually shape U.S. politics.      Show notes: Michael Podhorzer’s Weekend Reading Substack newsletter: https://www.weekendreading.net/ Follow The Show⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Follow Thomas⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Follow Lily⁠⁠ This episode was produced by ⁠⁠Connor Lynch

Let’s survey the political landscape and take stock of where things stand almost halfway through 2023. We started this podcast a little over half a year ago, just a few days before the midterms. The election ended in a better result for Democrats than most people expected. That led to a lot of commentary about how the guardrails were supposedly holding, the system was working. Then in early December, the January 6 Committee referred Trump to the Department of Justice for prosecution. All that convinced a lot of commentators that 2022 had been a good year, that the ship had been turned around, that democracy was winning.   It says a lot about our current predicament that, in June 2023, such a big-picture look at the political landscape still has to start with Donald Trump. What are we to make of the fact that Trump, despite all the recent legal trouble, is still the clear favorite to be the next Republican presidential nominee? We also look at his wannabe-authoritarian challengers, particularly at Ron DeSantis, and why there seems to be little appetite on the rightwing base for his kind of Trumpless Trumpism.   We then look at the escalating assault on equality and the post-1960s civil rights order – on women’s rights; on the lgbtq community and the rights of trans people, in particular; on public education, academic freedom, and freedom of speech. There are signs of an anti-reactionary counter-mobilization – against rightwing book bans, specifically – and we’ll need a lot more of that, as it’s difficult to see how America’s slide into authoritarianism could be stopped without a mass mobilization of pro-democratic civil society forces outside and beyond the established political institutions.   We look at those institutions next – and the Democratic Party’s response, in particular. We specifically discuss why Democrats have been unable and/or unwilling to hold Clarence Thomas accountable for the cartoonish level of corruption in which he has engaged, and why there is still no plausible Democratic answer to the problem that the Supreme Court acts as the spearhead of the reactionary assault on democracy and the modern state.   It's obviously not all the Democrats’ fault. The mainstream media is also not coming to the rescue of democracy. We talk about what to make of the disastrous CNN Trump town hall and the way the “both sides” coverage of the debt ceiling crisis once again displayed all the usual, harmful tropes of the “Dysfunction in Washington” narrative that only serves to obscure the extent of Republican sabotage.   We then turn our attention to the problem of political violence. Across the political spectrum, the percentage of people describing political violence as potentially acceptable has significantly increased. But in practice, the rise in actual violence has almost entirely come from the Right. And, crucially, the reactions to the killing of Jordan Neely on the NYC subway were a reminder that all strands of the Right – Republican elected officials, the media machine, the reactionary intellectual sphere, the conservative base – are now openly and aggressively embracing rightwing vigilante violence. Finally, we reflect on where that all leaves us. As we are heading into summer, normalcy bias is destined to take over even more than it always does. One of the key challenges since the start of the Trump era has been how to communicate effectively to the American public that something other than “politics as usual” is going on, that the threat of democratic erosion is real. The crucial question remains: How do we pierce that sense of “normalcy”? How do we create moments of meaningful disruption? Follow The Show⁠ ⁠Follow Thomas⁠ ⁠Follow Lily⁠ This episode was produced by ⁠Connor Lynch

We need to be a lot more critical towards the pervasive polarization narrative, towards “polarization” as the central diagnosis of our time. “Polarization” obscures not only what the key challenge is – the anti-democratic radicalization of the Right – but also transports a misleading idea of America’s recent past and how we got to where we are now. We start by outlining the central arguments and claims of the polarization narrative. We then offer an empirical, normative, and historical critique. On the empirical level, it is true that the gap between “Left” and “Right” is very wide in many areas, by international standards. But where that’s the case, it has often been almost entirely a function of conservatives moving sharply to the Right. Most importantly, the “polarization” narrative completely obscures the fact that on the central issue that is at the core of the political conflict, the two parties, and Left and Right more generally, are very much not the same – that issue is democracy. One party is dominated by a white reactionary minority that is rapidly radicalizing against democracy and will no longer accept the principle of majoritarian rule; the other thinks democracy and constitutional government should be upheld. That’s not “polarization.” On the normative level, the “polarization” paradigm privileges unity, stability, and social cohesion over social justice and equal participation. It doesn’t adequately grapple with the fact that the former stifles the latter, that calls for racial and social justice will be inherently de-stabilizing to a system that is built on traditional hierarchies of race, gender, and religion – that they are indeed polarizing, but from a (small-d) democratic perspective, are necessary and good. As a historical paradigm, “polarization” tends to mythologize past eras of “consensus” and supposed unity. But in U.S. history, political “consensus” was usually based on a cross-partisan agreement to leave a discriminatory social order intact and deny marginalized groups equal representation and civil rights. In many ways, “polarization” is the price U.S. society has had to pay for real progress towards multiracial pluralistic democracy. Why do scholars, politicians, journalists, and pundits cling to the idea of “polarization”? The answer lies in the fact that the empirical, normative, and historical inadequacy is not a bug, but a feature of the polarization narrative – it is precisely the fact that it obscures rather than illuminates the actual problem that makes it attractive. The “polarization” concept is useful if you want to lament major problems in American politics, but either don’t see or simply can’t bring yourself to address the fact that the major threat to American democracy is a radicalizing Right, is the threat of rightwing authoritarian minority rule. In this way, the concept even provides a rhetoric of rapprochement since it does not require agreement as to what is actually ailing America, only that “polarization” is to the detriment of all. The “polarization” narrative never breeds contention, it makes everybody nod in approval; it engenders unanimity. That’s the genius of the polarization narrative: It provides the language for a lament that blames nobody and everybody, and satisfies the longing for unity – which it constantly fuels in turn! – by offering a consensual interpretation; consensus re-established through the back door.   Further reading: Daniel Kreiss / Shannon C. McGregor, ‘A Review and Provocation: On Polarization and Platforms,’ New Media & Society, April 11, 2023 Liliana Mason, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Chicago 2018 Thomas Zimmer, ‘Reflections on the Challenges of Writing a (Pre-) History of the “Polarized” Present,’ Modern American History, 2 (2019): 403-8

Gun violence is a political problem, a democracy problem, an exceptionally American problem. We decided to do this episode after the shooting at Covenant School in Nashville. But that was over three weeks ago, and so there have been so many more mass shootings since, so much more death and destruction. In the U.S., it’s always right after and right before a mass shooting, regardless of whether we apply the term to shootings in public space or in the home. And day after day, myriad social interactions and conflicts escalate because guns are ever present.   We start our discussion with a personal reflection on how we react to the news of mass shootings, and how our thinking around this issue is shaped by the fact that we are parents, fearing for the lives of our children. We then reflect on why this issue is so complex: All the pathologies of American political culture, all the dysfunction of the political system, all the radicalization of the Republican Party are on full display; gun violence is not just a random fact of life in the U.S., but the result of an underlying social order that puts the right of some people – of white men, specifically – to defend their place and status against any and all threats, real and perceived, and defend it by violently lashing out, by preemptively using excessive violence, above all else. The U.S. is a country built on and around that social order, in which powerful political and economic forces have decided that the right to use violence, be violent, and access guns to be violent, must not be meaningfully restricted.   We put the U.S. situation in an international context. Among comparable nations, the U.S. has by far the most guns, the most gun violence, the most mass shootings, the highest homicide rate – all of it by a wide margin. Gun violence is also one of the key factors for why life expectancy at birth has been falling in this country - falling significantly behind comparable nations. Here it is, the true face of American exceptionalism.   We then discuss gun violence as a political issue, an issue directly related to and intertwined with the struggle over democracy in this country. That discussion has to start with the radicalization of the Republican Party. We try to explain why Republicans are almost uniformly embracing the gun cult and will only ever double down on the gun-toting militancy conservatives have made a key element of their political identity. The problem is not confined to “red” states: The Right, led by the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court, is determined to impose its vision of gun supremacy on the entire country. The vast majority of the population, however, rejects the gun cult. And yet, this has not translated to legislation or any kind of action that would be commensurate with the problem – a disconnect we also tackle. The escalation of gun violence constitutes an acute threat to the core tenets of any democratic society: Democracy depends on people feeling safe in the public square. If they don’t, because it’s ruled by intimidation and threats of violence, they won’t be able to participate. It’s what rightwing extremists want: Abolish democracy through coercion and harassment.   Finally, we talk about how we got to this point – and where we might go from here. We outline the long history of gun culture and racialized gun ownership and regulations since the eighteenth century. But we also emphasize how the current situation, the pervasive Second Amendment extremism on the Right, is in many ways the result of rather recent developments and a very specific, deliberate rightwing political campaign since the late 1970s. There might be something to be learned from the decades-long rightwing “gun rights” crusade. And we allow ourselves to end on a slightly hopeful note: A younger generation that has had to grow up in the shadow of the gun seems ready to fight back. Follow The Show⁠ ⁠Follow Thomas⁠ ⁠Follow Lily⁠ This episode was produced by ⁠Connor Lynch

We share our thoughts on the murder of Tyre Nichols, on why we need to grapple with structural, systemic racism and how it produces discriminatory outcomes, and why the lack of accountability for police departments is a democratic crisis – We then focus on Ron DeSantis’ authoritarian takeover of the education system in Florida: We discuss why the rejection of the AP African American Studies course is emblematic of an escalating assault on public education, of a reactionary rollback of all attempts to establish a more gender and race inclusive education; we talk about the longer-term context of the Right’s disdain for public education and how these recurring curriculum or “history wars” are really conflicts over who gets to define American national identity and who gets to draw the boundaries of what counts as America and American; and we emphasize how this is not just a Florida story, as Republicans are trying to mandate a white nationalist understanding of the past and the present, and censor any critical dissent, wherever they are in charge – Finally, we make the case *for* teaching the importance of structural, systemic racism, of race and gender as organizing principles of American life: Because it is the only way the get the American story right and develop an adequate understanding of U.S. history and society; but also because a society that mandates a version of history and national identity that privileges white conservative Christian sensibilities and perspectives while ignoring or degrading all others will not be an egalitarian multiracial, pluralistic democracy. Follow The Show Follow Thomas Follow Lily Follow Perry This episode was produced by Connor Lynch