“Political violence is violence for political reasons. More precisely and to avoid circularity, the difference between political violence and ordinary violence is that the former is motivated by resistance to, or promotion of, the imposition of some collective choices on others. … Imagine a very different system: a society with no collective choices. To make the model watertight, also assume that there is no demand for political choices: everybody is tolerant of what others do within some traditional and very general rules, such as ‘thou shall not kill nor steal.’ All individuals want laissez-faire and accept its consequences. Even if you don’t think that such a state of the world can exist or remain stable, the thought experiment helps distinguish political violence from other sorts of violence.” (06/19/25)
“The lies told to ignite the war with Iraq have been resurrected to ignite a war with Iran. The assessments of intelligence agencies and international bodies are dismissed, replaced by hallucinations.” (06/19/25)
“One comment I get very often when I speak to people involved in conversations around DEI is, ‘so, did America actually get less racist because of all this?’ It’s not a side question — it’s the question. After corporate America dumped tens of billions of dollars into programming, conferences, speaker sessions, and workforce briefings ostensibly designed to deepen our national conversation on race (to say nothing of similar efforts in higher ed and beyond), was the actual result that people were less divided along racial lines? The reality is, we’re talking a lot more about race now — and it’s by no means clear that the result has bettered our discourse.” (06/19/25)
“When it comes to criticizing President Donald Trump — and refusing to give credit for virtually anything — it’s full speed ahead for Democrat politicians. On the economy, Axios just reported: ‘The stock market had been recently scraping new highs … The unemployment rate was 4.2%, and inflation was well-contained near the Fed’s 2% target.’ Gas prices are down, as is the retail price of eggs. Inflation, despite the tariffs, is at a four-year low. Wages are up. That southern border has become a nonissue for much of the media. The New York Post recently wrote, ‘Border Patrol agents didn’t release a single migrant into the US last month …'” (06/19/25)
“In these turbulent times, I’m often reminded of an anecdote popular in liberal circles. In liberated postwar Paris, French intellectuals would gather on the Rive Gauche — the south side of the Seine near the Grands Boulevards — to debate France’s future over apricot cocktails. Many — likely the majority — were on the Left: Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and others. Raymond Aron was an exception, and his participation was mostly by chance, stemming from his long-standing friendship with Sartre from their university days. A liberal alongside the era’s showpiece Marxist — this was not bound to go smoothly. They clashed more and more frequently. During one argument—Sartre, presumably after several cocktails, suddenly shouted at Aron: ‘Mon petit camarade, pourquoi as-tu peur de déconner?’ Roughly translated, that means: ‘My little comrade, why are you so afraid of talking nonsense?'” (06/19/25)
“Since joining the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has voted with the majority to expand gun rights, curtail affirmative action, kill Chevron deference, and eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, all causes that have long been near and dear to the hearts of American conservatives. Yet despite her role in bringing about these landmark conservative victories, a notable faction of the American right is now bizarrely denouncing Barrett as a closet liberal, a ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion hire,’ or worse. What gives? For the record, I have also found fault with some of Barrett’s legal views in recent years. But the notion that she is some kind of intellectual lightweight is ludicrous. Also preposterous is the notion that she is some kind of Justice David Souter redux.” (06/19/25)
“Voters oppose the big ugly reconciliation bill by a roughly 2:1 margin. … The numbers on Trump’s deportation scheme, when you drill down, are rotten. … Overall, Trump’s approval is down to the high thirties in several polls. … In sum, cruelty is not popular. And Democrats must focus on MAGA’s victims, tying them to the lawmakers responsible for their ordeal, in order to break MAGA’s grip on power in 2026.” (06/19/25)
“He lived over 1,000 years ago, but King Canute’s life still has some important lessons for our own time. After conquering England, Denmark, Norway, and part of Sweden, he forged a vast North Sea empire that made him, by the year 1030, the greatest of all the Viking kings. At that peak of power, he ordered his courtiers to place a throne on the seashore. There, according to a contemporaneous account, he shouted at the rising tide: ‘Thou, too, are subject to my command, as the land on which I am seated is mine and no one has ever resisted my commands with impunity. I command you then not to flow over my land, nor presume to wet the feet and the robe of your Lord.’ But the tide, of course, kept rising and waves soon washed over the legs of his royal person.'” (06/19/25)
“How should Democrats be approaching this chaotic and, at times, violent moment? From lawmakers and candidates all the way down to the staff who fuel their operations, a series of events over the past week have made national Democrats reconsider their strategy. Following the shootings of the state lawmakers in Minnesota, a weekend of nationwide protests, and Democratic lawmakers in handcuffs, Democrats are trying to figure out what meeting the Trump moment really means for an out-of-power coalition that’s already under fire from constituents for ostensibly rolling over. And for a number of lawmakers and strategists, that answer isn’t so simple.” (06/19/25)
“[R]egardless of how far the Israelis are hoping to go in this current fight with Iran, it’s quickly become clear that they need the U.S. to help them carry this operation out. Even if they’re exclusively going to target nuclear infrastructure from now on, the depth of these facilities can only be reached by U.S. bunker-buster munitions. An all-out regime change war would require a lot more — likely direct operations by the US military. So, a widespread effort has begun to convince the American people that it would be good for our government to get more involved in this war. Some are claiming it’s simply a straightforward way to prevent the impending annihilation of Israel without requiring much from us. Others are going as far as to say that, unless stopped, Iran is planning to soon hit targets in the continental United States.” (06/19/25)
