What a shame and disservice to the men and women being sworn into the military at yesterday’s football game in Washington, DC.
In what should have been a proud and patriotic moment for these young men and women, the fans could not hold back their boos and distaste for the draft-dodging coward and enemy of American democracy swearing them in.
I want to think if I were in attendance I would have applauded in celebration of the men and women on the field rather than boo the putz in the press box who has embarrassed our country in front of the rest of the world – but honestly, I don’t know if I would have been able to hold back my anger at the man responsible for the rampant divisiveness ripping at the fabric of our country.
The adverse reaction that a stadium full of American citizens had to President Trump’s public appearance would be a wake-up call to any other politician. But Trump is so thickly coated in narcissism that nothing outside of the inflated opinion he has of himself matters, as the big, fat, ugly shadow he casts continues to eclipse the hope and optimism that used to shine brightly from America.
What to do with a shoe box full of lyrics, looking for a place to live?
I’ve always wanted to set some of my work to music, but because I have no musical skills, nothing ever came of it.
I’ve been seeing a lot of AI-generated content on social media lately, so this morning I created an account on Suno.com, picked a genre, pasted a poem I wrote years ago (Baby Teeth and Bullets), and clicked Generate.
I wasn’t sure what to expect as I watched the progress wheel on the Suno website spin round and round.
In about 1 minute, Suno set my poem to music in accordance with a genre and other characteristics I selected.
I was amazed at how quickly Suno created the song and, even though I feel a little conflicted (guilty?) about using AI to create art, I was giddy at the result.
Checkout Baby Teeth and Bullets the song and let me know what you think about it and about the ethics of using AI to generate art.
Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
What is Democratic Socialism?
Democratic socialism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially owned or regulated economy. It emphasizes both political democracy and economic fairness, aiming to reduce inequality through collective decision-making and public control over key sectors.
How does Democratic Socialism differ from “Traditional” Socialism?
Democratic socialism differs from traditional socialism primarily in its commitment to political democracy and its approach to economic reform. While both advocate for social ownership and reducing inequality, democratic socialism insists on maintaining democratic institutions and civil liberties.
Key Differences Between Democratic Socialism and Socialism
Feature
Democratic Socialism
Traditional Socialism
Political System
Emphasizes democracy, free elections, and civil liberties
May support centralized or authoritarian governance
Economic Ownership
Advocates social ownership of key industries, not all
Seeks complete public ownership of the means of production
Implementation Method
Uses gradual reforms through democratic processes
Often involves revolutionary change or centralized planning
Individual Freedoms
Strong focus on protecting rights and liberties
May subordinate individual rights to collective goals
Examples
Nordic countries (in practice), Bernie Sanders (in rhetoric)
Historical models like USSR, Maoist China
🧠 Philosophical Distinctions
Democratic socialism is a subset of socialism that integrates democratic governance with socialist economics. It aims to balance individual freedom with collective welfare.
Socialism, broadly defined, focuses on economic equality and communal ownership, but doesn’t always specify how political power should be structured.
🔍 Why the Confusion?
In the U.S., the term “socialism” has often been used pejoratively, leading to misunderstandings. Democratic socialism is sometimes conflated with authoritarian socialism or communism, despite its emphasis on democracy and civil rights.
Core Principles of Democratic Socialism
Political democracy: Free elections, civil liberties, and rule of law are essential. Democratic socialists reject authoritarianism in all forms.
Economic democracy: Major industries and services—like healthcare, education, and energy—should be publicly owned or heavily regulated to serve the public good rather than private profit.
Social justice: Policies aim to reduce inequality, protect workers’ rights, and ensure universal access to basic needs like housing, healthcare, and education.
Environmental sustainability: Many democratic socialists advocate for green policies and sustainable development as part of their platform.
🏛️ How It Differs from Other Systems
System
Ownership Model
Political System
Economic Focus
Democratic Socialism
Public/social ownership of key sectors
Democratic (multi-party)
Equity, welfare, and public good
Social Democracy
Capitalist economy with strong welfare state
Democratic
Redistribution through taxation
Communism
Full state ownership of all property
Often authoritarian
Classless, stateless society
Capitalism
Private ownership of most industries
Democratic or authoritarian
Profit-driven, market-based
Sources: Wikipedia, Britannica, Democratic Socialists of America
🧠 Key Takeaways
Democratic socialism is not communism—it supports democracy and civil liberties.
It seeks to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibility.
It’s gaining traction in the U.S. through figures like Bernie Sanders and organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America.
What Countries have implemented Democratic Socialism most effectively? How can one measure the success of Democratic Socialism?
Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are widely considered the most effective examples of democratic socialism. Success is typically measured through metrics like economic equality, universal access to services, democratic stability, and overall well-being.
🌍 Countries with Effective Democratic Socialism
These nations blend market economies with strong welfare states and democratic institutions:
Sweden: Known for universal healthcare, tuition-free education, and strong labor protections.
Norway: Combines oil wealth with public ownership and generous social programs.
Denmark: Offers robust unemployment benefits, free education, and high civic trust.
Finland: Ranked as the world’s happiest country, with strong public services and low corruption.
Iceland and Netherlands also integrate democratic socialist principles, though with more market liberalism.
These countries maintain multi-party democracies, free markets, and civil liberties, while ensuring universal access to healthcare, education, and housing.
📏 How to Measure Success in Democratic Socialism
Success isn’t judged solely by GDP—it’s about how well a society meets collective needs.
Key metrics include:
🧮 Economic and Social Indicators
Income equality: Measured by the Gini coefficient—Nordic countries consistently rank among the most equal.
Universal access: Availability of healthcare, education, housing, and childcare regardless of income.
Labor rights: Strong unions, collective bargaining, and worker protections.
Social mobility: Opportunities for upward movement across generations.
😊 Quality of Life Metrics
Happiness and well-being: Finland, Denmark, and Sweden top global happiness rankings.
Life expectancy and health outcomes: Universal healthcare contributes to better public health.
Education outcomes: Free and high-quality education systems promote equity and innovation.
🗳️ Democratic Health
Political participation: High voter turnout and trust in institutions.
Freedom of press and speech: Strong protections for civil liberties.
Low corruption: Transparent governance and accountability.
My Take
Language resonates, and misinformation denigrates.
Americans have a Pavlovian response to the word “socialism.” If Socialism is in the name, most Americans want nothing to do with it. When they hear it, they blanch and recoil reflexively, never taking the time to differentiate Socialism from democratic Socialism.
Many citizens view Socialism as anti-American, even if it has the word “democratic” attached to it.
For years, politicians in both parties have successfully leveraged America’s innate fear and disgust of Socialism to denigrate and lie about Democratic Socialism. For example, as Arty stated, it falsely equates it to traditional Socialism or even communism.
But voters in New York City are on the verge of shaking things up in American politics by electing a Democratic Socialist to lead the most strategic, culturally and financially influential city on Earth.
Zohran Mamdani is a young, charismatic, and savvy candidate, but for most Americans (even New Yorkers), youth, charisma, and political chops have never been enough to clear the hurdle of being a Socialist.
So, why is Mamdani on the verge of becoming New York City’s mayor?
What’s changed?
I’d argue that the most significant change driving America’s willingness to look at Democratic Socialism with a more critical and unbiased eye is the policies of Donald J Trump, which are turbo-charging the rise in economic inequality across the country.
Middle- and lower-income New Yorkers are feeling the impact of unfair economic policies and the very real consequences of those policies — and on this election day, New Yorkers are a microcosm of Americans across the country.
And I believe that in America today, the conceptual and philosophically based fear of Democratic Socialism is less than the very real fear of not being able to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, and education.
Americans are looking for a government that balances economic fairness and personal freedom. Most Americans don’t want to abolish capitalism entirely, but rather tame its excesses, which have exploded over the last several decades and worsened further under Donald Trump.
The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of the population has widened, with income and wealth increasingly concentrated at the top. According to Arty, economic inequality has been trending upward for decades:
Post-WWII to 1970s: This era saw broadly shared economic growth. Incomes across all levels rose at similar rates, and the middle class expanded.
Since the 1970s, Income growth has slowed for most Americans, while the top 1% has captured a disproportionate share of income and wealth gains.
By the 2010s and 2020s: The top 5% of households saw their share of total income rise significantly, while the bottom 60% experienced stagnation or modest gains.
And by comparison, income inequality pales to the extreme wealth inequality in America, where the top 1% of households now hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
But it’s what lurks behind the wealth and income numbers that truly matters and should keep average Americans up at night.
Rising inequality affects:
Social mobility: It’s harder for people to move up the economic ladder.
Political power: Wealth concentration can distort democratic processes.
Economic stability: Inequality can lead to reduced consumer spending and greater financial volatility.
Democratic Socialism isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a philosophical challenge to the idea that markets should dominate society. By prioritizing human needs over profit, it exposes the limitations and inequalities of unfettered capitalism. That’s why it’s seen as a threat—not because it seeks chaos, but because it seeks a different kind of order.
We’re about to see just how fed-up New Yorkers are with our current system of government. Today’s mayoral election may be a harbinger of change and political revolution in America.
My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.
My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.
Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
Query 1: Donald Trump stated that Ronald Reagan “Loved tariffs for our country and its national security.” Does Donald Trump’s statement accurately reflect President’ Reagan’s views on tariffs?
No, Donald Trump’s statement that Ronald Reagan loved tariffs for our country and its national security does not accurately reflect President Reagan’s views on tariffs.
Reagan was a strong advocate for free trade and often spoke against tariffs, viewing them as harmful to economic prosperity.
In fact, in a 1987 national radio address, Reagan explicitly criticized tariffs, stating they “hurt every American” and arguing that protectionist policies like tariffs lead to “shrinking markets, collapsing businesses, and widespread job losses”. He believed that while tariffs might seem patriotic or protective in the short term, they ultimately stifle innovation, provoke retaliatory trade measures, and damage the broader economy.
Query 2: Donald Trump stated that an Ad created by the Government of Ontario of Ronald Regan criticizing tariffs was “fake.” Is Donald Trump telling the truth? Was the ad fake?
No, Donald Trump was not telling the truth.
A recent controversy arose when the Ontario government aired an ad using clips from Reagan’s 1987 speech to highlight his anti-tariff stance. Donald Trump responded by calling the ad “fake” and claimed it misrepresented Reagan’s views. However, fact-checks and the full context of Reagan’s speech confirm that he genuinely opposed tariffs and championed open markets.
While Reagan did occasionally use targeted trade measures for strategic purposes, his overall philosophy was rooted in free and fair trade, not broad protectionism or nationalistic tariff policies.
So, while Trump may frame tariffs as essential for national security, invoking Reagan as a supporter of such policies misrepresents the former president’s well-documented economic views.
My Take
Anyone with a cell phone or computer can do a quick Google search and know definitively that Trump was lying about the Ontario government’s Ad being fake and lying about Ronald Reagan “loving tariffs.”
It took me less than 5 minutes to debunk President Trump’s statements.
The more prescient issue is how fluidly this administration weaponizes lying.
Most politicians (and non-politicians for that matter) lie to get out of a jam. The Trump administration’s repetitive lying is part of a strategy to manipulate public opinion.
This administration is taking a page from the 1930s Nazi party playbook, where writings and speeches consistently emphasized emotional appeal, repetition, and the subordination of truth to political strategy.
More from Arty
According to Arty, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, believed:
Propaganda as Emotional Weaponry: Goebbels believed propaganda should appeal to emotions, not intellect. He once wrote that the goal was to make people “succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it”.
The “Big Lie” Technique: While the phrase “big lie” is often attributed to Hitler, Goebbels is frequently associated with the idea that a lie, if colossal and repeated often enough, becomes accepted as truth. He accused others—like Winston Churchill—of using this method, even as he employed it himself.
Truth as a Tool, Not a Principle: Goebbels preferred to use partial truths or truths that served his agenda, but he was not above outright lies when necessary. He believed that the effectiveness of propaganda lay in its ability to shape perception, not in its factual accuracy.
Propaganda as Art and Power: In a 1936 commentary, Goebbels described propaganda as “a political power of the highest magnitude,” emphasizing its role in shaping national spirit and identity.
Creating a False Reality: His propaganda efforts aimed to construct an alternate reality in which the Nazi regime appeared righteous and justified, even as it committed atrocities. This manipulation of truth was central to his strategy.
The Trump administration has been widely criticized for employing repeated falsehoods as a political strategy, often aligning with the idea that repetition can foster belief.
Here are several notable examples of falsehoods repeated by Donald Trump and his administration:
1. Election Fraud Claims
Claim: The 2020 election was stolen or rigged.
Reality: These claims were repeatedly debunked by courts, election officials, and independent audits.
Strategy: Trump and allies repeated this claim hundreds of times across rallies, social media, and interviews, leading many supporters to believe it despite a lack of evidence. This lie continues to this day.
2. COVID-19 Misinformation
Claim: COVID-19 would “disappear” or be “under control.”
Reality: These statements contradicted public health data and expert warnings.
Strategy: Trump repeated these claims to downplay the crisis and maintain public confidence, even as cases surged.
3. Tariff Economics
Claim: China was paying the tariffs imposed by the U.S.
Reality: Importers, usually American businesses and consumers, pay tariffs.
Strategy: Trump repeated this economic falsehood to frame the trade war as a win for the U.S., despite its domestic costs.
4. Climate Change Denial
Claim: Climate change is a hoax or exaggerated.
Reality: Scientific consensus affirms climate change as real and human-driven.
Strategy: Trump used repetition to cast doubt on climate science and justify environmental deregulation.
5. George Soros Conspiracies
Claim: Soros funded protests and radical left movements.
Reality: No credible evidence supports these accusations.
Strategy: Trump repeatedly invoked Soros as a villain to energize his base and delegitimize opposition.
A 2023 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly found that repeated falsehoods from Trump’s presidency significantly influenced public misperceptions, especially among partisan audiences. The more often Trump or officials from his administration repeated lies, the more likely people were to believe them, even after the falsehoods had been publicly debunked.
Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
Query 1: Is Vice President JD Vance’s claim that democrats are demanding billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants true?
What the Vice President Said:
Vance stated that Democrats are “threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens”.
He cited two Biden-era programs that he claims provided emergency healthcare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to undocumented immigrants
What the Facts Show
Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving federally funded healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidies.
The Democratic budget proposal aims to:
Extend ACA subsidies for legal residents and citizens.
Reverse Medicaid cuts from the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would affect lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those with Temporary Protected Status.
There is no provision in the Democratic proposal that offers free healthcare to undocumented immigrants.
What Democrats Say:
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated: “Federal law prohibits the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on providing healthcare to undocumented immigrants. Nowhere have Democrats suggested that we are interested in changing federal law”.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Republican claims “utter bull,” emphasizing that the dispute is about healthcare for American citizens, not undocumented immigrants
The claim that Democrats are shutting down the government to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants is FALSE. The dispute centers around extending healthcare subsidies for legal residents and reversing Medicaid cuts—not providing benefits to undocumented immigrants.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of how healthcare access works for different immigrant groups in the U.S., based on federal law and recent policy developments:
U.S. Citizens and Naturalized Citizens
Full access to federally funded healthcare programs like:
Medicaid
Medicare
Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies
Eligibility based on income, age, and other standard criteria.
This includes green card holders, refugees, asylees, and those with humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
Medicaid & CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Prhogram):
Eligible after a 5-year waiting period, unless exempt (e.g., refugees, asylees, veterans).
ACA Marketplace Subsidies:
Eligible immediately if lawfully present.
State Variations:
Some states offer Medicaid/CHIP to lawfully present children and pregnant women regardless of entry date.
🔵 DACA Recipients (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
Not eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, or ACA subsidies under federal law.
May access state-funded programs in select states.
Undocumented Immigrants
Not eligible for:
Medicaid
Medicare
ACA marketplace coverage or subsidies
Emergency Medicaid:
Covers urgent medical conditions (e.g., ER visits, childbirth) regardless of status.
Community Clinics & Safety-Net Providers:
Often serve undocumented individuals, especially in mixed-status families.
⚪ Mixed-Status Families
Households with members of different immigration statuses (e.g., U.S.-citizen children and undocumented parents).
Citizen children may qualify for Medicaid or CHIP.
Parents may avoid seeking care due to fear, confusion, or legal uncertainty.
🏛️ Recent Policy Changes & Debates
The Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” restricted Medicaid eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants.
Democrats are seeking to restore pre-2025 rules, allowing broader access for refugees, asylees, and parolees.
Query 2: What changes to ACA subsidies are in Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill and how will that affect healthcare costs for American citizens who get their health insurance from the ACA?
The Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes significant changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, and the consequences for Americans relying on ACA marketplace insurance could be severe.
🧾 What Changed in the Bill
No extension of enhanced ACA subsidies: The bill omits renewal of the expanded premium tax credits that were introduced during the pandemic and extended through 2025.
Cuts to Medicaid and ACA eligibility:
Stricter eligibility rules for Medicaid.
ACA subsidies will no longer be available to many lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers.
Codifies Trump-era ACA rules: These rules increase cost-sharing and reduce affordability for middle-income enrollees.
Impact on Healthcare Costs
Premiums could double: Without the enhanced subsidies, average monthly premiums may rise from $888 to $1,904—a 114% increase.
Out-of-pocket costs will spike: Families could face $900 higher deductibles and $313 more in monthly premiums.
Millions may lose coverage:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.2 million people will lose ACA coverage by 2034 due to subsidy expiration.
Another 3.1 million could lose coverage due to ACA marketplace changes in the bill.
Uninsured rate will rise: The U.S. uninsured population could grow by 16 million over the next decade.
🧠 Who’s Most Affected
Working- and middle-class Americans who don’t qualify for Medicaid but rely on ACA plans.
Residents of Republican-controlled states that haven’t expanded Medicaid.
Self-employed individuals and gig workers who buy insurance on the marketplace.
This policy shift is at the heart of the current government shutdown, as Democrats are refusing to pass a funding bill that doesn’t include a renewal of these subsidies
Query 3: Where do the savings from cuts to the ACA in the Big Beautiful Bill go? Who benefits from getting rid of ACA subsidies?
The savings from cuts to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are largely redirected toward tax relief and deficit reduction, with the biggest beneficiaries being high-income earners, corporations, and defense spending priorities. Here’s how it breaks down:
💰 Where the Savings Go
Estimated $1.1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and ACA subsidies over 10 years.
These savings are used to:
Fund tax cuts for individuals and corporations.
Offset increases in defense and border security spending.
Reduce the federal deficit, though critics argue the impact is minimal compared to the human cost.
🏦 Who Benefits Most
Group
How They Benefit
High-income earners
Receive larger tax breaks due to reduced progressive taxation and capital gains reforms.
Corporations
Benefit from lower corporate tax rates and relaxed healthcare mandates for employees.
Defense contractors
Gain from increased military and border security allocations funded by healthcare cuts.
Private insurers
May profit from reduced competition and fewer subsidized plans on ACA marketplaces.
🚫 Who Loses Out
Middle-class and working Americans who rely on ACA subsidies to afford insurance.
Rural hospitals and clinics, which face reduced Medicaid reimbursements and may close.
Lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, who lose access to subsidized coverage.
The bill’s supporters argue it reduces “wasteful spending,” but critics say it shifts costs from the wealthy to vulnerable populations and destabilizes the healthcare system
My Take
JD Vance was lying when he said, “Democrats are threatening to shut down the entire government because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health care benefits to illegal aliens.”
The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was lying when he said, “The Democrats said instead that they wanted to give healthcare to illegal aliens instead of keeping critical services provided for the American citizens.”
Both these men, along with the President and Republicans in Congress, want to feather the pockets of the wealthiest Americans and fill the coffers of corporations at the expense of the poor and middle class.
I hope Democrats stick to their guns in the Government funding debate and fight republican cuts to ACA subsidies, which will hurt middle-class Americans by doubling monthly healthcare premiums, increasing out-of-pocket costs for families, and resulting in a loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans.
My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.
Let’s Ask Arty uses existing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to query LLMs about politics in these troubled times.
Query: Can you please fact check the speech and statements that President Trump gave at the United Nations on 09/23/2025?
President Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025, included several claims that have been widely fact-checked and found to be misleading or false across multiple topics. Here’s a breakdown of the most notable inaccuracies:
🌍 Claims About Ending Wars
Trump stated:
“I ended seven wars… Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the Congo and Rwanda, Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan.”
Fact Check:
Cambodia and Thailand: A truce was reached, but it involved mediation from other leaders and was not solely brokered by Trump.
Kosovo and Serbia: No war was actively occurring; Trump’s administration previously brokered an economic agreement, not a peace treaty.
Congo and Rwanda: Fighting continues despite a peace agreement; rebel groups were not part of the deal.
Egypt and Ethiopia: No war existed—only a dispute over a dam project.
Pakistan and India: India denies Trump’s involvement in the May ceasefire.
Israel and Iran: A ceasefire followed U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, but the situation remains volatile.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: A peace declaration was signed, but its long-term impact is uncertain.
🌡️ Climate Change and Renewable Energy
Trump called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and claimed renewable energy sources “don’t work” and are “too expensive.”
Fact Check:
In 2024, renewables and nuclear accounted for 40% of global electricity generation, with solar and wind surpassing coal in the U.S..
Over 90% of new renewable projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.
Solar PV and onshore wind were 41% and 53% cheaper, respectively, than the lowest-cost fossil fuels.
📉 Economy and Poll Numbers
Trump claimed:
“I have the highest poll numbers I’ve ever had.”
Fact Check:
Public polling averages show his approval rating around 42–44%, down from 51–52% earlier in the year.
No public data supports the claim of record-high approval.
🛂 Immigration
Trump described U.S. immigration laws as “suicidal” and blamed them for economic and social decline.
Fact Check:
These statements are opinion-based and not supported by data presented in the speech. Experts widely dispute the characterization of immigration laws as inherently destructive.
🕊️ Criticism of the United Nations
Trump said:
“All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.”
Fact Check:
While the U.N. has been criticized for slow responses, it continues to play active roles in peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and global coordination. Trump’s portrayal oversimplifies its functions
My Take
I’ve given up on President Trump ever speaking truthfully about anything. Whenever he opens his mouth, lies spill out. Lying is his default setting.
I can’t see how anyone with even an ounce of intelligence could watch that speech and not be embarrassed and ashamed of who we put in office.
We all knew the speech (like all of Donald Trump’s speeches) would be littered with lies and misinformation, so no surprise there. But the boorish and self-congratulatory tone was off the charts, even for Trump. If the delegations had any courage at all, they would have stood up and walked out.
I abhor violence, but the “violence doesn’t solve anything” lament rings hollow in a country that was born out of violent revolution and resistance, and a country that fought violently to prevent fascism from spreading across Europe and the world. Opposing tyranny and a love of freedom are part and parcel of the American experience. When an individual or government threatens our right to speak and live freely, we resist, protest, and, if necessary, we fight.
The American Revolution did not explode spontaneously into violence – it grew over time from protests, pamphlets, and reasoned arguments. When all of that failed, the only thing left was to either submit to tyranny or to fight.
We celebrate the success and ultimate sacrifice of the American Revolution every Fourth of July and Victory Day every second Monday in August. We pump our fists and fly flags to the rallying cries of “Live Free or Die,” “Give me liberty, or give me death,” and “Don’t Tread on Me.” The activities associated with these sentiments are rarely free of violence.
We humans haven’t evolved as much as we pretend. We struggle to sustain a lasting peaceful coexistence with one another; we’re unable to live-and-let-live, often because of the ginned-up fear around political, religious, and cultural differences, which keep us divided and fighting amongst one another. And make no mistake, leaders like Donald Trump understand that if we are fighting one another, we’re not fighting them.
America is marching towards fascism, and many Americans seem okay with the path we’re on. Maybe it doesn’t feel like fascism when you share the political, social, and religious ideology of your fascist government? Regardless, most Americans (across the political spectrum) do not want conflict, yet we find ourselves on a dangerous precipice of violence with one another, fueled by the assassinations of Melissa and Mark Hortman and Charlie Kirk.
And what makes our current situation even more perilous is that our President is not calling for calm or trying to defuse things.
Why do you think that is?
It’s because the President sees anyone who does not share his authoritarian views as the “enemy within.”
We shouldn’t kid ourselves about the character and nature of the individuals who sit at the highest levels of our government. Our government is awash in fascists and Christian nationalists who have no intention or desire to sit down with secularists, progressives, or even moderate democrats because they view them as a direct threat to their authoritarian designs on America.
If you cherish freedom for everyone, now is the time to speak loudly and to push aggressively (and peacefully) against a government that is trying to strip freedom away from your fellow citizens.
My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.
Through his organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Charlie Kirk became a significant force in conservative youth politics by tapping into a feeling of cultural displacement among young white men—especially those outside elite institutions—by validating their frustrations and offering a political identity that felt empowering.
He successfully rebranded conservatism for youth by leaning into cultural grievances, opposing progressive ideas (like DEI, CRT, gender fluidity), which resonated with young men who felt blamed or sidelined in mainstream discourse.
In many ways, Charlie Kirk’s meteoric rise embodies the quintessential American success story, where money, power, and fame are all that matter and where kindness, empathy, and service to others are for suckers.
On the surface, some of what Charlie Kirk did and achieved seems almost noble. He reached out to a segment of society that felt politically voiceless and culturally alienated, and he gave them a voice. He recognized the underrepresentation and an utter lack of organized advocacy for non-college-educated white males in America and championed their needs.
The problem was how Charlie Kirk framed their economic disenfranchisement.
Kirk sold young white non-college-educated males on the simplistic notion that the source of their economic disenfranchisement were immigrants, women, minorities, and wokeism, when in reality, their alienation from mainstream American society and its institutions and their feeling of lost purpose and status stems from economic and social shifts that have eroded the traditional path of a stable, middle-class life for those without a bachelor’s degree.
When a large segment of the population feels economically useless and politically invisible, it creates fertile ground for resentment, polarization, and instability. Discontentment is low-hanging fruit for the opportunistic and power-hungry, and Trump and Kirk cultivated and harvested that low-hanging fruit with great success, while continuing to spread the seeds of grievance, misinformation, and lies across the fertile minds of disaffected American youth for fame, fortune, and power.
Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump are emblematic of the deep rot in America’s political system, where politicians and influencers exploit the disaffected for their own personal gain, indoctrinating followers with cultural hot-button issues and identity politics to the point where the cultivated group doesn’t even care that they’re not being helped.
Like Trump, Kirk was never interested in helping his followers; he was only interested in exploiting them. To Charlie Kirk, America’s disaffected youth were a cash crop.
Genuine solutions to political disempowerment and economic disenfranchisement are complicated, expensive, and require systemic intervention from empathetic, pragmatic, and intelligent leaders who are genuinely interested in helping others. Amplifying polarization, promoting misinformation, and framing politics as a zero-sum cultural war are not solutions; those actions ensure the status quo.
We must connect the disaffected to hope and aspiration, rather than hatred and anger. It’s one thing to say, I feel your pain, quite another to do the hard work of alleviating the pain – and as we see with Trump and saw with Charlie Kirk, it’s a lot easier and more lucrative to point a finger and say, “them, they, those people, they’re the reason you are not flourishing.“
Doing the hard work to bring the disaffected back into the fold means investing in government-sponsored programs, training, and empathy, and those things are a tough sell in today’s political environment.
My Paper, My Words is a collection of essays, stories, and poems that reflect the challenges of a middle-class husband and father trying to navigate a rapidly changing political, religious, and technological landscape of post-911 America.
bendingtheneedle 