IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK…ADDENDUM TO PREVIOUS POST ON “COMMUNISTS” AND “RADICAL LEFTISTS”

Dr. Common Good

This is an addendum – to be read in conjunction with the previous post. A news item this morning about Defense Secretary Hegseth and his policy of requiring journalists to have “escorts” when they are in the Pentagon was a stark reminder that it is the Trump administration which acts like the supposed “communists” he and his mindless minions rail about. Think about that. Escorting journalists is exactly what happened in the former Soviet Union. And here is just a partial list of other Trump administration actions that mimic the authoritarian practices of countries that are often labeled as “communist” (though the labels mafioso or fascist are actually more appropriate):

• Using the government to punish the expression of opinions, news and even comedy unfavorable to Trump in the broadcast media (by the threat of withholding licenses, withholding regulatory approval, etc.).

• Gaining control of the broadcast media and the information it disseminates through the purchase of media organizations by Trump cronies.

• Ideological censorship — forcing the National Park Service and the Smithsonian Institution to take down or modify park exhibits that contain information or express views that conflict with the ideology approved by the administration, even when doing so is misleading or false. Suppressing reports and information from multiple federal agencies that do not support the administration’s ideological line. Threatening to withhold research funds, and imposing topical restrictions on research, even to the point of dictating the kind of language to be used, along with the potential implementation of a “political commissar” to act as the ideological gatekeeper for the disbursement of research funds.

• Labeling legitimate protests against the administration as dangerous, radical and the work of “enemies,” thus legitimizing the harsh suppression of such protests and the arrest or even murder of individual protestors.

• Supporting the perpetration of sham elections that are distorted through extreme gerrymandering and the amassing of huge amounts of donor money that is funneled to preferred candidates willing to tow the Trump line.

• The flagrant use of federal resources and the federal Department of Justice to target enemies (e.g., James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, Mark Kelly and other members of Congress) in a manner that is so obvious and blatant that, even when unsuccessful, serves to intimidate.

• Glorification of the president as “Dear Leader” – this is straight out of the North Korean playbook, with significant shades of Mussolini. Trump, like no other president, has sought to rename public buildings after himself, build gaudy monuments to himself, remake the White House as a Trump monument (and not the people’s White House), institute passports and coins with his likeness, name national parks for himself – on and on ad nauseum.

What do you call this?

THE “COMMUNIST” AND “RADICAL LEFTIST” BOGEYMEN – YET ANOTHER CYNICAL PLOY

Dr. Common Good

Every once in a while, or, more accurately, when he has no other means of criticizing an adverse Supreme Court or Federal Court decision, or when a progressive Democrat speaks out against one or more of his egregious lies or breaches of the democratic process, or when a vocal critic is elected (even if it is a Republican), Trump and his “ugliness pal” Stephen Miller invoke the “communist” or “radical leftist” bogeymen. It’s one of their vituperative faves. So, I think we need to straighten this out, because it is yet another fabricated and manipulative ploy, from the Trumpian cesspool of lies.

The first thing to straighten out is this. Trump has no idea what a communist is, or what communism is. And Stephen Miller is either equally ignorant or even more cynical. They use the term because they think it will work as a smear, not because it means anything in modern-day America.

Now for a very brief primer on communism, which, of course means that a lot of detail and nuance will be missed. But let’s do this anyway because it is important to understand the context and meaning of terms that the Trumpians just throw out there as diversionary flak. Communism, as a political ideology, is rooted in the work of social philosopher Karl Marx, with important input from his collaborator Friedrich Engels, most prominently in The Communist Manifesto (1848) and in Das Kapital (or Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, published in three volumes between 1867 and 1894). These works of economic and social critique and political advocacy, influenced by the historical philosophy of George W. F. Hegel, were a reaction to the harsh conditions imposed on people working in the factories of England’s burgeoning industrial revolution. [Note: While the analysis and prescriptions for change came from the combined work of Marx and Engels, I will use the common term Marxism as the general descriptor.] Marxist analysis framed human history in terms of social classes, and the conflict between classes as a driver of historical change. It placed industrial capitalism in historical context, calling it the next stage of social organization and economic production after feudalism – the Medieval European system of landholding lords and the peasants or serfs who lived on that land and were obliged to be loyal, to work the land, and give the lord a share of what they grew. Under capitalism, society is divided between two major classes, the bourgeoisie who own the means of production (factories, machines, financial resources), and the proletariat or working class, who work for them.  As a class, the bourgeoise were seen as holding economic and political power, using that to extract maximum profit and benefit from the proletariat, a condition Marx viewed as oppressive and inhuman.

The contradictions built into this system of exploitation and the unceasing drive for profit were seen as laying the groundwork for the (inevitable) next stage of social organization and economic production – communism. Under communism, the means of production would be owned by the proletariat. There would be no exploiting owner class. There would be no need for profit, as the means of production and all that was produced would be distributed to people according to need. It was proposed as a “classless” society, with no private property, semi-communal in nature, hence the term “communist.” There are of course a lot of other elements to the Marxist analysis of capitalism, including the idea of profit itself as “surplus value” extracted from labor, the idea that, because of systemic exploitation, workers were alienated or disconnected from the fruits of their labor, and the existence of subclass categories. The important key to Marxist political advocacy is this — the movement from exploitative capitalism to more humanist communism could only be accomplished when the proletariat realized its own power (gained “class consciousness”) and overthrew the bourgeoise. So, Marxism in this form was clearly a utopian, revolutionary philosophy, connected to its historical moment and place.

But that was then, this is now. The predicted revolution did not happen. There have been and continue to be many problems and historical trends blunting the translation of Marxism into an actual plan of action and social system.  Here are just a few of those problems and trends:

• By and large, the working class in Europe did not develop a widespread class consciousness enough to prompt a wholesale revolution. Yes, there were revolutionary groups and armed uprisings, especially in 1848, but these were limited.

• Widespread working-class revolution was also mitigated by a number of other historical trends, including progressive and liberal politics that, based on an increased recognition of the depredations of unfettered capitalism, led to the passage of laws – in England, the U.S., and other countries, to protect workers and restrict the more extreme excesses of industrial labor. These included child labor laws, anti-trust laws, universal access to public education, and limits on work hours. Another very important trend was the growth of labor unions, which were originally viewed as radical and anti-capitalist, but eventually became mainstream, and a key force for improving work conditions and protecting against harmful corporate practices.

• In part because of those protections, and the kinds of benefits increasingly available to workers (e.g., as a result of labor unions and the New Deal in the U.S.), a significant middle class of people emerged who earned enough and benefited from what is now often called the social safety net so that they could live good lives and pass these resources on to their children.

• The increasing fuzziness of the term “working class.” Because of the growth of a middle class, and because the economies of most developed nations evolved beyond just industrial in nature, to include lots of occupations that are “white collar,” service oriented, IT oriented, and so on, it is now difficult to pinpoint an obvious working class. Is that based on income? Something else? People working in trades such as plumbing or electrical typically make more money than many academics who might otherwise be seen as members of the elite class.    

• The diffusion of key Marxist concepts into the broader social sciences. The construct of social class itself, and analysis of class and its role are now mainstays of sociology, political science, economics, and many other fields of study. Class and class conflict are no longer the exclusive domain of Marxism. Plus, general analyses of class and power have been integrated into communications theory, post-modern theory, post-colonial theory and much else.  

• The emergence of social-democratic countries in Europe since WWII, which are now the norm. Think Sweden, or Germany.  Most Northern European countries now have extensive social safety nets, and benefits like free health care and childcare, free or supported university educations, limited work weeks, maternal and family leave, and many others. The income distribution in these countries is far less skewed than it is, for example, in the United States, where some of these protections and benefits exist, but where there continues to be volatile political controversy about them.

What, then, became of Marxism and communism? The historic Marxist or communist revolutions ended up occurring in societies that were not actually industrialized, Russia and China being the prime examples. And they happened in part because of a twist added to traditional Marxist theory by a Russian, Vladimir Lenin. In that ideological twist, the working class was not likely to develop a class consciousness sufficient to engage in revolution by itself. It needed help, in the form of a “vanguard party” that would take the lead in organizing the working class for revolution and then take the lead role in managing the governance of the post-revolutionary state. That ideological change is generally called Marxist-Leninism.   

Enter human nature, the most profound spoiler of utopian Marxism. Once you designate a lead or governing group to run and manage a revolution, you “call forth the beast,” so to speak. Power. Grant power to any group, without a whole lot of accountability, and you quickly devolve into an authoritarian or top-down system, which is exactly what Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China became.

In fact, Dr. Common Good would say that there are no, and never were, any actual communist countries. Yes, some countries incorporated aspects of classic Marxism or Marxist-Leninism, including state ownership of property and control of the economy. Some used and still use quasi-Marxist terminology. But which countries, of those that are currently labeled communist, are actually communist? North Korea? Not a chance. That is clearly a dynastic cult dictatorship. China? No, not really. It is a massive, single party authoritarian state with a thriving capitalist economy. Vietnam? The same – a one-party authoritarian state that manages a booming capitalist economy. Dr. Common Good would even argue that most communist-leaning revolutions really just produced authoritarian states that “re-lexicalized” traditional or variations of traditional power structures. Think Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua. The once-leftist revolutionary and head of the Sandinistas is now a long-running dictator, in the classic caudillo strong-man mold.   

And in the U.S., are there any actual communists, in the Marxist sense? Sure, there are, but very few, and scattered. It is a free country. One can believe in any political or other philosophy, so why shouldn’t there be?

What we do see, and increasingly so, is the aspiration for social democracy, as advocated by the Social Democratic Party, with New Hampshire Senator Bernie Sanders as the godfather, along with progressive Democrats. The differences between communists/Marxists and social or progressive democrats are important and profound. Social democrats are not advocating for armed revolution. Social democrats are not a vanguard party advocating for control of the state and ideological control of the population (that, actually, is truer of Trumpians than social democrats). Social democrats are not calling for the elimination of capitalism. What social democrats seek is a reduction in the power and control now exerted by powerful corporations, and the resulting distortion of policy in favor of corporate interests as opposed to those of the greater population. Social democrats want to see more of the nation’s resources devoted to supporting the well-being of people – better and free health care, free access to education, and protection of the environment. Social democrats want to protect the essential rights of people in a democracy to vote, to exercise free speech, to be treated equally and fairly, to be free from inequality and bigotry, and to be free from any enforced religion or ideology. Think about those aspirations. Are they not as essentially American as one can get? And, given the extreme skewing of the U.S. economy under Trump, his tax breaks to the wealthy, his corrupt pay to play schemes, his vanity wars, and his parasitic scamming of Americans at the expense of health care or other social benefits for most Americans, these views – without the label – are what a lot of Americans would like to see implemented. Not “radical.” Not “communist.” Just human.  

And how about those “radical leftists”? Over the past century or so, there have been a few organized groups who referred to themselves that way – think of some early 20^th century labor activists, the Symbionese Liberation Army in the 1970s, and a few others in more recent years. Really, though, these are few and far between. While there have been many groups and parties across the spectrum of liberal and leftist politics – as befitting a plural democracy — there has never been a significant, organized radical left in the U.S. It is just a convenient chimera. Just like the term “communist,” the Trump distortion machine calls anyone who opposes Trump’s corrupt, undemocratic efforts to enrich himself and control opposition a “radical left lunatic.” He even uses this term for Federal court justices who rule against him.   

When you hear the fraudulent use of these terms, Dr. Common Good asks you, like in the famous Who song, for one thing: “DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN”! The specter of communists and radical leftists infiltrating American society and politics is an ignorant, and/or cynical ploy. It is a meaningless deception.

THE IRAN “TREATY” – DON’T LET THE PRESIDENT OR HIS MINIONS LIE ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE IT IS EMBARRASSING AND A DISASTER

Dr. Common Good

Finding words to describe the ignorance, corruption, destructiveness and utter venality of the Trump regime is always a challenge, because we do not come to these events prepared to witness the scale of the damage he creates on a daily basis. We simply lack adequate descriptive tools. What was once the bottom of the barrel, for which we had enough harsh words, is not even close. Trump and his thug-gang just continue to dig deeper into the nether-lands of depravity, in open view.

So now we come to the purported “Iran deal,” which is not a deal at all, but just a flimsy agreement to talk about a deal, and, in reality, a play toy which the Iranians can use to extract other concessions and continue to show Trump (and, by extension, the U.S.) as the fool. Let’s take a look at this “deal” and compare it to the actual and successful deal that was negotiated in 2015 by the Obama administration (referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) after careful and painstaking negotiations, undertaken by people who were actually knowledgeable and professional. You will see that what Trump has managed to eke out does not even come close to the JCPOA, which, by the way, was concluded without war, without killing schoolchildren and thousands of Iranian civilians, without killing and wounding American servicepersons, without wasting billions of taxpayer dollars (estimated as at least $25 billion), without needlessly depleting our stockpile of arms, and without prompting an economic crisis. Remember, the Straits of Hormuz had never been closed before Trump’s appallingly stupid war of choice, but now that Pandora’s Box has been opened — by Trump, and only by Trump. And remember, when Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, he immediately tore up the JCPOA, calling it “horrible.” Why? For no sane reason, other than to satisfy his juvenile, petulant ego and reverse any achievements made by his predecessor Obama. It was only then that Iran began to enrich its uranium towards weapons-grade levels. In other words, Trump created the crisis that he has dramatically failed to fix (aided and abetted by Israel’s Netanyahu, who had his own longstanding reasons for going to war with Iran).   

Trump’s “Deal”

After all the bombs, killing, and bluster, Trump’s “treaty” includes the following:

• A temporary memorandum of understanding (MOU) good for 60 days, and only between the U.S. and Iran.

• Iran will re-open the Strait of Hormuz (for 60 days), in exchange for sanctions relief and an end to the U.S. blockade. Yet Iran still claims and is exercising various other controls over the Strait that it did not have before the war, and in reality, the Strait may never be open and free as it was prior to Trump’s attacks.  

• In the MOU, Iran makes a vague commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons, but there is no enforcement mechanism. 

• There is no resolution in the MOU about Iran’s uranium stockpile, just an agreement to discuss it in future negotiations.

• There is nothing in the MOU about Iran’s missile capability. In fact, astonishingly, Trump even said, at the recent G7 summit: “I mean, they have to have some (missiles) because other people have some, and they’ve got to have some.” Whaaat? I invite you to compare that to his previous bombast.  

And to get that, the Trump administration has agreed to:

• Lift oil restrictions, allowing Iran to reap enormous economic benefits. Specifically, per the agreement, “the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.”

• Sanctions relief, which he and his administration once denounced. The U.S., according to the agreement, will “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions.”

• Release billions of dollars in frozen funds. Per the agreement, the U.S. “undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU.” According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran has tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets around the world, including an estimated $20 billion to $50 billion in China.” The timing of the asset releases is unclear. But, given Trump’s sharp criticism of the JCPOA for giving money to Iran, this could not be more ironic, or hypocritical – even more so because Trump’s rationale for unfreezing the assets is “We have taken their money, it’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it” (statement made at the G7 conference). Well, if that isn’t just downright Obama-like.

• Help create a $300 billion reconstruction fund for reconstruction in Iran with regional partners.

The Obama Administration Treaty (JCPOA)

After 20 months of diplomatic negotiations that included nuclear and other experts, the JCPOA included the following:

• A finalized and signed agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal was negotiated between Iran, the U.S., China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the European Union. 

• Iran agreed to reduce its nuclear centrifuges by two-thirds, committed not to build new enrichment facilities for 15 years, significantly reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium, disabled a major heavy-water reactor and agreed to regular and comprehensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure compliance.

• A much stronger nuclear commitment than in the current deal: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

To get that, the Obama Administration agreed to:

• Unfreeze $1.7 billion in Iranian funds previously held by the U.S. That was not a quid pro quo for the deal, per se, but settlement of a dispute concerning $400 million that Iran (when ruled by the Shah) had previously paid the U.S. for military equipment that was never delivered, because the U.S. would not deliver it after the Shah was overthrown during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The total of $1.7 billion included the original $400 million and an additional $1.3 billion in interest. 

• Lift economic sanctions imposed by the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations.

• Free Iran’s central bank to operate in the global economy and lift restrictions on Iranian oil exports. 

In 2019, Trump boasted that “I would have made a deal not from desperation. I would have doubled and tripled up the sanctions, and I would have made a much better deal.” Looking at the two agreements, which one is actually the better deal, by far? And which one is really a deal made out of desperation?

It’s pretty obvious. So don’t let Trump, Hegseth, Vance, Rubio or anyone else lie to you. Opening the Strait of Hormuz is not a win. It was never closed until Trump attacked. Trump’s deal does not really do anything about Iran’s enriched uranium, or change its regime, which he initially touted as goals. In fact, it has clearly consolidated and strengthened Iran’s regime, and it does not eliminate Iran’s missile capability. More broadly, it has shown the world that the U.S. can be manipulated by threats to close the Straits, even in the face of all the military might deployed. And significantly with respect to the future global role of the U.S., it has divided our valuable allies, most of whom saw this as a completely unnecessary war of choice. The damage to our alliances was only exacerbated by Trump’s odious, ugly, petty and baseless attacks on these same allies.

The Obama Administration’s JCPOA, on the other hand, achieved the goal of limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons, backed by a six-nation deal, and backed by a rigorous international inspection protocol. This was done with, not against, our allies and other key countries. It was a monumental achievement.

Dr. Common Good does not typically re-post content, but this was such a succinct summary of the Trump disaster that it deserves a re-post.

[Reposting from The Hill, 6/8/26]

Move Over, MAGA — It’s Time to Take America Back 

by William S. Becker, opinion contributor  

Sixty years ago, after several women were attacked while walking alone after dark, Americans launched the “Take Back the Night” movement, drawing attention to the fact that rapists and thieves had stolen women’s right to feel safe in the simple act of walking home.    

Today, we need a broader “Take Back America” movement because thieves have stolen our ideals, standards, symbols and words. 

The far right cloaked itself in the American flag and made it a symbol of hatred, intolerance, racism and insurrection. We need to take it back. 

Seditionists and militant groups also rewrote the very concept of patriotism, despite trying to overthrow the Constitution and wanting America to become a far different country than the one described in the Declaration of Independence. We need to take back the title of “patriot.” 

Thugs wearing masks and badges have stolen the tranquility of life in American cities and neighborhoods. God bless the people of Minneapolis for showing us how to take it back. 

The MAGA movement and Donald Trump have stolen one of the nation’s two great political parties. Honorable and loyal Republicans need to take it back. 

Trump has stolen and defaced America’s reputation in the world. We are no longer proof that a free people can be trusted to govern themselves. We need to take back democracy and restore the nation’s mission as a global beacon of hope. 

Trump has stolen the prestige and honor of the presidency.  Past presidents have been far from perfect, but we expected them to obey the law, remain faithful to the Constitution, and have high standards for the moral use of power. Trump serves himself rather than the country. He is conducting the most blatant, outrageous, and corrupt presidency in the nation’s history. 

The White House is, and has always been, the people’s house. Trump has stolen it, remodeled it, paved over its garden, and gilded it like a sheik’s palace. We need to take it back. 

Trump is presently trying to steal the most basic and necessary right in a democracy — the right to vote and trust that it is counted. Republicans in several states are helping him by passing voter-restriction laws and manipulating election districts to favor their party. We need to take back the integrity of the vote. 

Trump sold out the government to corporations and special interests that “pay to play.”  We need to take it back. 

Conservatives are stealing our history. They are removing or rewriting the history of slavery and racism in textbooks and exhibits, arguing that these topics result in “white guilt.” This is like Germany redacting the Holocaust. To paraphrase Santayana, the only way to avoid repeating past travesties is to study them. We need to take back our history, own it and learn from it. 

Conservatives have even stolen the concept of manhood.  

Trump, who depicts himself as a superhero, has become the titular leader of America’s “manosphere.” One of his key advisers, Stephen Miller, counsels that the use of force and the drive for absolute power are “the iron laws of the world.” But they are the laws of the jungle, not human civilization. They are the laws of totalitarianism, not democracy.   

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a parody of male virility, advocating “maximum lethality, not tepid legality” in the military. That standard produced American atrocities such as the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, the No Gun Ri Massacre during the Korean War, and the Haditha Massacre of Iraqi civilians in 2005. 

Trump has ordered military attacks in at least 10 countries, more than any other president in the modern era. He’s signaled the desire to do more in Greenland, Cuba, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Oman. He has “threatened, left open the possibility of attacking, or actually attacked … roughly one out of every 13 countries in the world.” We need to take back America’s role as a stabilizing force in the world. 

Hypermasculinity has even crept into religion. Many evangelical Christians reportedly feel that Jesus is too liberal. In 2021, the editor of Christianity Today, Russell Moore, told of parishioners who believed that “turn the other cheek” was a weak liberal talking point. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis,” Moore said. 

We need to take back the expectations of manhood. Real men find balance between the classic qualities of their gender — strength, bravery, assertiveness, and so on — and soft power like empathy, openness, intuition, nurturing and collaboration. 

We have allowed thieves, vandals, ideologues and power brokers to steal our country. It’s time to take it all back. 

__________________________________________________

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and a contributor to Democracy in a Hotter Time, named by the journal Nature as one of 2023’s five best science books. He previously served as a senior official in the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a nonpartisan climate policy think tank unaffiliated with the White House.

TRUMP WANTS CREDIT FOR WHAT? A DISASTROUS WAR AND ANOTHER CON JOB?

Dr. Common Good

I will give Trump credit for one thing – a consistent and wildly demented ability to repeat, over and over, a glaring web of lies and phantasmagorical assertions about anything. Such is the case with respect to the utterly unnecessary “Iran war,” which (as detailed in previous posts) Trump initiated out of some puerile power fantasy, egged on by the cynical Netanyahu, taken up by the juvenile crusader Hegseth “in the name of God,” and untethered to any tangible reality. A tragic, dangerous cartoon, rolling before us like a surrealist film loop.

The war, he opined in a recent appearance, was “going swimmingly,” and he urged Americans to congratulate him on a “job well done,” like a little boy asking the teacher for a shiny stick-on star even though he really didn’t complete the assignment. Iran, he gloated, had agreed to everything he wanted.

Ahhh, Donald. Lying again. Trying to create a reality for himself by talking it into existence — as usual, at the expense of everyone and everything else.  

American people of all political stripes, if not already dubious about his claims, need to stop indulging this, or believing any of it. This war, which Trump started without any actual reason other than his own vanity, is a disaster, for Americans, for the people of Iran, for our alliances worldwide, and for our credibility as a worthy nation.

Iran did not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz under any condition or never to close it again. Iran did not agree to turn over its enriched uranium stockpile. And the Trump administration has even considered releasing $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets – by the way, more than ten times the amount of assets that the Obama administration included in its 2015 deal.

At best — and this needs to be underscored — at best, Trump’s disaster and destruction will produce a result that is significantly worse than the landmark, successful deal negotiated by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry over several years, accomplished by careful and intelligent diplomacy, with no war, no casualties and the creation of a system to monitor compliance. Trump’s disaster, on the other hand, has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties, billions of dollars needlessly spent (that could have helped fund health care and housing), a massive disruption in energy prices, a change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz which, until Trump’s war was fully open, a giant hit to the national debt, and another giant hit to our alliance relationships and standing in the world community. 

And yet his twisted attempts to fabricate a grandiose reality persist. Now he is re-directing his maniacal gaze towards Cuba, claiming that he will “take Cuba in some form” after he “does Iran.” At that point, will any Republicans in Congress have the sense to stop this?  

MEANWHILE…IN THE WEST BANK

Dr. Common Good

Bombing Iran, with no rationale or evidence of imminent threat. Assassinating its leader and his family. Kidnapping Venezuela’s president[1]. Kidnapping people from America’s streets, schools and homes and sending them off to detention camps or far-off prisons, even when they have no criminal record or are legal U.S. residents and citizens. Continuing to obstruct the release of promised Epstein files. Gutting environmental regulations while denying climate change. Threatening news and broadcast organizations that air views Trump doesn’t like. Trying in every way to restrict voting and disrupt the upcoming midterm elections. Destroying the U.S. and global economy. Destroying the network of alliances that have been essential to American security and prosperity since World War II. Letting Ukraine and its valiant fight for democracy flap in the wind as Russia continues its brutal attacks.

Trump and company (and in the case of Iran, his pal Netanyahu) continue to pile up the layers of folly, illegality, outrage, stupidity and corruption, so that anything that happened a few weeks ago, however serious, is buried like the proverbial pea for the princess.

Meanwhile, amidst the barrage of Trumpian destruction…

On the West Bank, which has barely been covered in the mainstream media, Israel, without a peep from The Trump administration and under the convenient cover of a war of choice in Iran, has ramped up its illegal theft of Palestinian land and property, its support for (or indifference to) settler violence ___________________________________________

The Oslo Accords of 1993-1995 divided the West Bank into three areas: A, B, and C:

Area A

• Under full Palestinian Authority (PNA) control.
• Contains major Palestinian cities like Ramallah, Nablus, Bethlehem, Jenin, Jericho and others.

Area B

• Under Palestinian Authority administration but joint Palestinian-Israeli security.
• Primarily rural areas with Palestinian communities.

Area C

• Under full Israeli control, comprising about 60% of the West Bank.
• Home to Israeli settlements and military zones, as well as some Palestinian communities.

The Oslo Accords stipulated that most of Area C was to be transferred to Palestinian control by 1997, which did not happen.

_______________________________________________________

against Palestinians, and its nefarious plan to destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state and a free, dignified existence for Palestinians who have every bit as much right to be there as Israelis do. Here are just a few examples from November 1, 2024 to October 31, 2025, documented in the annual report from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR):

• Israeli authorities have intensified settlement activity, including the establishment and expansion of settlements, outposts and associated infrastructure on unlawfully confiscated Palestinian land. During the period of the UNHCHR report, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved 35 settlement projects in the occupied West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. In May of 2025, the Ministry of Defense announced that the Security Cabinet had authorized an unprecedented 22 settlements, which included 9 new settlements, the legalization of 12 outposts and the recognition as an independent settlement of an area previously designated as a neighborhood of an existing settlement.

• As stated in a UNHCHR press release, “[T]he report points to the advancement or approval by Israeli authorities of 36,973 housing units in settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and around 27,200 in the rest of the West Bank. An unprecedented 84 new outposts were also established during the reporting period. The report also notes the expansion of settlement activity into Area B of the occupied West Bank, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority according to the Oslo agreements.”

• According to the report, during the period covered, Israeli authorities demolished or ordered the demolition of 1,773 Palestinian-owned structures in the occupied West Bank, including 97 in Area A, 46 in Area B, 1,390 in Area C and 240 in East Jerusalem. Of those, 1,607 structures were demolished due to a lack of building permits, which are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain, 42 were demolished as part of punitive measures against alleged Palestinian attackers and their families and 124 were demolished on alleged military or security grounds. These demolitions resulted in the displacement of at least 2,490 Palestinians.

• The expansion of settlements is clearly aimed at blocking the possibility of a Palestinian state. At a signing ceremony in September, 2025 for the expansion of the Ma‘ale Adumim settlement into an area east of Jerusalem (where there are numerous Bedouin communities), Prime Minister Netanyahu declared: “There will be no Palestinian state! This place is ours.” Minister of Defense Israel Katz openly stated that the establishment of more settlements in the occupied West Bank “prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state,” and announced a plan to annex 82 per cent of the occupied West Bank, excluding six major Palestinian cities, which would be left as isolated enclaves.

• Settler violence against Palestinians has significantly increased. As stated in the report, “Settler violence continued in a coordinated, strategic and largely unchallenged manner, with Israeli authorities playing the central role in directing, participating in or enabling this conduct.” A pattern of impunity is “facilitating and encouraging violence against and harassment of Palestinians.”

• The report notes that in October, 2025, around the time of the olive harvest, there were 42 settler attacks leading to the injury of 131 Palestinians, including 14 women and a boy, the highest number recorded in a single month since 2006. “Daily attacks by armed settlers, soldiers and “settler soldiers” – many of whom have been armed, equipped and trained by State authorities – along with the closure of more land to Palestinian landowners and harvesters made the 2025 season the worst in decades.”

What are we to make of this? Trump’s unconstrained, wrecking-ball modus operandi has unleashed a chaotic tempest of consequences, affecting the lives and livelihoods of so many people in the U.S. and around the world that it is hard to track in any meaningful way, and in any case hard for people to process even if they are aware. Yet it remains ever so crucial that these human consequences are documented and made public in every way possible. That is at least one thing we can do.   

---

[1] The illegality of these actions against Venezuela and Iran stands, irrespective of the authoritarian character and repugnant actions of those regimes.  

HOW DO YOU DO IT, KAROLINE?

Dr. Common Good

Dr. Common Good has a question to ask of press secretary Karoline Leavitt: How do you do it? How do you get up, look at yourself in the mirror, and then stand up at the podium and lie like there will never again be an opportunity to lie?

Let’s just take your press conference on Wednesday March 4 as one of many examples. Among other things, you said:

President Trump didn’t start the war, Iran did: No, Iran did not. Trump claimed to be in negotiations with Iran about their nuclear program and, during these negotiations, launched the attack.

One reason for the attack was an imminent threat from ballistic missiles: The president, you said, “had a feeling” that an attack from Iran was imminent. But there was and is no intelligence supporting any claim of imminent threat from Iranian ballistic missiles, or any intelligence that demonstrates that they even have an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that could threaten the US.

Another reason for the attack was to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability: First of all, the Trump administration claimed that their June, 2025 attacks “completely eliminated and obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, and later claimed that the attack had significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. If that is true, then what was the nuclear threat prompting this attack?

You claimed that President Barack “Hussein” Obama sent pallets of cash to the Iranians to finance their terrorist operations and signed “stupid and naïve deals that put Iran on the path of developing nuclear bombs”:  Aside from the intentional and repugnant “red meat” repetition of President Obama’s middle name, this is patently false. The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, spearheaded by President Obama and more properly called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was signed by Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. The deal imposed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to ensure that it could only be used for peaceful purposes, not for nuclear weapons. Those restrictions were guaranteed via inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Only after the IAEA verified compliance with those terms were oil and financial sanctions lifted and Iranian assets unfrozen. Experts, including the Council on Foreign Relations, estimated at the time that the deal would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, and if they tried to build a weapon at that point the sanctions would go back in effect.

But Trump, in his first term, pulled out of the deal and reimposed sanctions, calling it “horrible.” What had been a successful deal then fell apart, and Trump has never been able to come up with anything better, or even close. So, what does he resort to? A military attack that will destabilize the region, cause untold harm, and virtually guarantee that whatever regime comes to power in Iran will never, ever again negotiate anything with the United States. Some deal, Trump.  

“The world knows this president’s preference is always peace and diplomacy first. Look no further than the eight additional global conflicts he has ended in the past year as proof”: I don’t know how Ms. Leavitt spews out such garbage, with an apparent straight face. Sorry to disabuse you of your ridiculous fantasy, Karoline, but what the world actually knows is that Trump is a mindless, ignorant and trigger-happy purveyor of military force to attain whatever goal he fancies, never mind the consequent destruction of long-term alliances and people’s lives, or the breach of international law. Let’s just recap some of his record, in just one year since re-election: Threatening Canada, and Greenland, with military force if his demands are not met. Attacking small boats in the Caribbean and killing their occupants with no proof that they are drug trafficking boats as claimed, and absolutely no proof that they are transporting illegal drugs to the United States. Without any authorization from Congress or legal basis, using the American military to depose a sitting head of government* by force in Venezuela. And now, without any authorization from Congress or legal basis, attacking Iran, and in the process assassinating its leader*. Please, Karoline, spare everyone the silly and unsubstantiated claim of stopping eight conflicts.  

It is obvious to anyone not incapacitated by a hallucinatory Trumpian fantasy that Trump is unstable, stunningly ignorant of world history or any history, not bound by his oath of office to protect and defend the US Constitution, and a dangerous narcissist whose only motivation is to assert power by any means, and to have that power acknowledged with either flattery or rank subservience. And it is a tragedy, for the American people and peoples of the world, that he has a willing team of sycophants like yourself and the puppet Defense Secretary Hegseth, along with a spineless, craven Republican party, to facilitate his destruction of peace and decency.      

_______________________________________________________

*Regardless of whether or not that leader/head of government is viewed negatively.

DONALD TRUMP, STEPHEN MILLER AND THE INSANITY OF THEIR DOG-EAT-DOG WORLD

Dr. Common Good

In a CNN interview on January 5, Jake Tapper reminded Trump chief policy advisor Stephen Miller that the US actually invaded Venezuela and seized its leader. Miller’s response? “Damn straight we did!…Because the point, Jake, is we’re not going to let tinpot communist dictators send rapists into our country, send drugs into our country, send weapons into our country, okay? And we’re not going to let a country fall into the hands of our adversaries.” [Note for the record here the assertion that Venezuela has been sending rapists to the US, or that they are a major exporter of either drugs or guns to the US, is a complete fabrication, without evidence.] He then added that “The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.” Even more grandiose and twisted, Miller said that the post-World War II period of the West “apologizing and groveling and begging” was over. [For the record, most of the world would have no idea what Miller was referring to with respect to American “groveling” and “begging.”]

That was about Venezuela. Regarding military force to take control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, a founding member of NATO in 1949, Miller dismissively declared that “The United States is the power of NATO, for the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests.” “Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States, and so that’s a conversation that we’re going to have as a country. That’s a process we’re going to have as a new community of nations.” Not only that, but “The real question is what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim?” [Note for the record that Greenland was linked to the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway for about a thousand years, officially becoming a Danish colony in 1814, a part of the Danish state in 1953, and an autonomous territory since 1979.] Ah, but Miller says that “Nobody’s gonna fight the United States military over the future of Greenland.” 

To cap off this repulsive, school-bully frothing, Miller just kept going, justifying any American imperialism with a dystopian vision of a new world order in which the United States can freely overthrow national governments and take foreign territory and resources so long as it is in the national interest. “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

Ah, I get it. The age-old “iron laws.” So, it is okay for Putin to roll over Ukraine, and maybe a few other Eastern European and Baltic states. And it is okay for China to roll over Taiwan. Same rules, eh? Is it also okay for any country to just seize the American president and his wife, and maybe other officials – like Stephen Miller – if they have the power to do so? 

Of course, Miller is not alone in his mind-boggling assertion of the right to power and the ignorance about where that leads. In a New York Times interview on Wednesday, January 7, Trump asserted that he “doesn’t need international law” to govern his pursuit of Western Hemisphere dominance. The only check on his power, he said, is “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” Unfortunately, we know about Trump’s “mind” and his “morality.” Neither exist in any recognizable form.

This kind of garbage, and there is no nicer word, is the stuff of people whose untethered hubris and ignorance have merged into the insane. I ask you, Stephen Miller, how ignorant can you be of recent world history? The entire reason we have what you and your fellow traffickers-in-madness derogate as the “liberal world order” is that we have the experience of two brutal world wars — somewhere around 22 million people were killed in WWI and 70-85 million killed in WWII. The horror of these wars, and the realization that such are the real-world consequences of a dog-eat-dog world governed purely by military might, is the reason the United Nations was created in the first place, along with its related system of international law and human rights. Are you not aware of this? Truly, what planet do you hail from? And what does this have to do with “groveling?” Nothing. Nothing at all, unless your vision is so warped by some puerile bully-fantasy that you cannot grasp what a significant collective of human beings attempted to do to prevent future brutality and provide some framework for human progress.  

Dr. Common Good has just one more question, this time for journalists. In your interviews and broadcasts, why are you quibbling about the feasibility of “managing” Venezuela, or what the oil companies think about this, or any other sideshow. These questions are immaterial. The real question is, what right does the Trump administration have to do any of this? And why are we, as American citizens, as global citizens, continuing to nibble at the edges of this appalling human travesty, being committed right in our collective faces by Trump, his storm troopers, and their simpering and/or conniving apologists?  

TRUMP’S BOGUS “WAR” AGAINST VENEZUELA – AMERICA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Dr. Common Good

This morning’s attack on the Venezuelan capital and the abduction of President Maduro and his wife (for trial in the US) is a complete, appalling abrogation of both international law and of US law. Dr. Common Good repudiates this in the strongest of terms. Let me be straight with you. Regardless of what one might otherwise think of Maduro and his authoritarian rule, any American who thinks this attack is either justified or represents some proud assertion of American dominance is either wildly misinformed or does not think of the United States as a democratic country that stands for the rule of law. We have no right to do this, any more than some other country has a right to invade and abduct our president because they don’t like him — sorry, but you cannot do one without accepting the validity of the other. Nor do we have a right to simply claim that we will take a country’s oil or “run” the country.

And how does Trump justify this? Because, he says, Maduro is a drug dealer (a “narco-terrorist”) and thus a threat to the US, and that he has “emptied out his prisons” and sent criminals our way. There is, I repeat, no evidence to back this up, and in previous repetitions of this allegation the Trump administration has provided no evidence either. Evidence aside, for Trump to declare such concern about drug traffickers is pathetic gaslighting. Trump just recently pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, an actual, convicted mass exporter of drugs to the US. How does he justify this, after attacking Venezuela and abducting its president? He says that Hernández “was treated like the Biden administration treated a man named Trump…This was a man who was persecuted very unfairly.” A disgraceful whine from someone who purportedly represents this country.

What the US just did should shame all Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, or anything else. On top of that, Trump’s attack violated the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which holds that countries must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty. Trump’s attack also violated US law, specifically the War Powers Act. As Senator Chris Coons (Delaware) put it, “a military operation to capture and overthrow a president – even an illegitimate one – is an act of war that must be authorized by Congress.” And in willful disregard of Congress’ role, the Trump administration plainly lied in previous Congressional briefings in which they asserted that regime change in Venezuela was not a goal.

Who, then, is stopping Trump and his cronies from this wide-ranging thuggism? Where is Congress? Where is Marco Rubio, Secretary of State? Or more accurately, what happened to Mr. Rubio that he acceded to this travesty? Where, I ask, is the red line?

TRUMP’S ENDLESS PERFORMATIVE WARMONGERING

Dr. Common Good

For a president who campaigned on pulling the US out of entangling foreign wars, Trump has in fact been quite the trigger-happy child, engaging in multiple, serial and episodic acts of aggression. But here is a key point – in general, these military actions (or threats thereof) are not integrated with any particular strategy or ongoing strategic aim. They are just performative outbursts, from a child who has power to “push the button” acting out. And in doing so, Trump continues to destroy the credibility and reliability of the US, even as he imagines that doing these things makes him (and thus the US) appear “tough.” Any global player who really is tough does not take this cosplay seriously. Take just a few examples:

Latest attacks on “ISIS” in Nigeria: On Christmas Day, Trump authorized a missile attack in Sokoto state, Nigeria against what he claimed was ISIS persecution of Christians to a degree “not seen in many years, even Centuries”, according to his rant-filled post. While nobody but the most extreme defends or applauds ISIS, there is little or no evidence that they are particularly targeting Christians. Violence in northern Nigeria is complex and has been occurring for years, drawing from ethnic, territorial and also religious conflicts. As the Nigerian Foreign Affairs Minister posted on X, “simplistic labels don’t solve complex threats.” Not only that, but some missiles hit farming villages where there was no violence, shocking and confusing residents (see CNN reporting on Jabo village, December 26). As usual, Trump brags and crows about the attack, claiming to have killed “ISIS terrorist scum,” even though there is little evidence that the attacks accomplished anything or even that they actually hit any concentration of ISIS members. Why then, did he do this, out of the blue, wasting American forces and putting innocent civilians at risk?

Naked, hypocritical aggression against Venezuela: As I have said before, we have to consider what the Trump administration is doing here apart from the separate issue of Nicolás Maduro as a brutal dictator. Why? Among other reasons, we know that Trump has no problem with brutal dictators, in fact he longs to become one. So let’s just rule out any fictitious moral justifications of that sort his administration may use. The apparent claim justifying his attacks on small boats in the Caribbean, seizing of Venezuelan oil tankers, saber-rattling about a possible invasion, and now an actual missile attack on a Venezuelan dock facility, is that Maduro is a drug trafficker and as such is a threat to the US. This is patently ridiculous and laden with hypocrisy. Venezuela is not a significant exporter of drugs to the US. More importantly, Trump doesn’t really have any problem with drug traffickers. He has pardoned or granted clemency to more than 90 drug criminals across his two terms (see reporting in the Atlantic, December 10), and in this term he pardoned Ross Ulbricht, founder of the online black market for drugs Silk Road, and recently pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted mass exporter of drugs to the US. He has also accused Maduro of “Emptying his prisons into the US,” and of sponsoring the Tren de Aragua gang in the US, neither of which have been backed up by a shred of evidence. Trump’s apparent animosity towards Maduro is based on one issue – Maduro openly dislikes Trump and spurns him. If Trump was really concerned about drug traffickers, maybe he should try to cut off the substantial flow of weapons from the US to Mexican drug cartels, which is one key source of their power.

Trump’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear capability: Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, 2025 were hailed as an unqualified success, purportedly leaving Iran’s nuclear capability “completely and totally obliterated.” While the tactical prowess of the air attack can justifiably be acknowledged, what was really accomplished, if this was part of some long-term strategic aim to degrade Iran’s emergent nuclear capabilities? There is no evidence of any long-term strategy, and it is unclear what permanent damage the attacks actually caused, since the location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown and the Iranians may have been able to move or shut off some of its centrifuges in the targeted nuclear sites, according to intelligence reports by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and other expert sources. And because the attacks occurred while the U.S. was engaged in a negotiation, the damage to U.S. credibility cannot be known. All this must be considered against the effectiveness of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, signed by President Obama and five other countries. Among other things, that deal capped Iranian enrichment below weapons grade for 15 years, significantly cut its enriched uranium stockpile, restricted enrichment capabilities, prevented weapons-grade plutonium production, and allowed around-the-clock access for monitoring purposes by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ah, but Trump pulled out of that deal in 2018, claiming it was a “terrible, one-sided deal” with, as usual, no real evidence. Most likely, he pulled out simply because it was a signature Obama achievement and, emotional child that he is, he could not bear to endorse it.

Trump’s threats of military action against Greenland, or Panama: It is actually hard to even write those words – threats of military action against Greenland? What? Or against Panama? Previous posts by Dr. Common Good have addressed these two particularly ridiculous threats, but they still pop up in his administration’s rhetoric, now again with the appointment of Louisiana governor and Trump ally Jeff Landry as “special envoy” to Greenland, an entirely unprecedented position since Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. Naturally, the Danes were furious. So, we must ask, “what hath Trump wrought” when our own NATO ally Denmark calls the United States a security threat because of his recurring hostile rhetoric towards Greenland? There may be actual U.S. security interests connected to Greenland and Panama, but if that were purely the motive, hostility and aggressive posturing would certainly not be the normal or rational approach to addressing these concerns, especially with long-time U.S. allies. For Trump, again, it is performative, the acting out of his need to “perform power.” What he wants are public displays of capitulation.

____________________________________

If you are searching for a traditional rationale for any of this aggression and waste of American military personnel, resources, and reputation, don’t bother. There isn’t any. Trump is an ignorant man-child with a colossally sensitive ego and a twisted desire to dominate others in highly public fashion. As Jonathan Chait said in The Atlantic back on December 10, “To better understand the president’s foreign policy, one must study the behavior of small children.”