Things Are Really Bad

me irl

Last week I appeared on the Reason podcast Just Asking Questions. Check it out.

For years, I’ve made my living as a within-group critic of the left. This status is never 100% intentional. As I’ve said a thousand times, all of my positions both feel internally consistent to me and reflect what I see as the left-wing perspective. Free speech, for example, is a left-wing virtue; it’s not my fault that a lot of people who identify as left-wing lost that basic wisdom in their manic efforts to appear to be One of the Good Ones. And as I’ve also pointed out a thousand times, “a socialist critiques identity politics” is a dog-bites-man story, the opposite of contrarianism. Socialists have been critiquing identity politics forever. And ultimately the point is always the same: I think we have the potential to be a far more progressive country than we currently are, in many key policy areas like entitlements and healthcare, but left-of-center messaging is stuck in a quagmire of abstruse vocabulary and alienating cultural practices. I stand by every word. The left's internal contradictions remain one of the most frustrating and self-defeating dynamics in modern American politics.

But this current moment in our country’s history is genuinely worrying. The current clashes going on are not another culture war spat or a policy debate about tax rates. They’re about the foundational guardrails of our democracy, and they are being systematically dismantled. The recent and abrupt suspension of the Jimmy Kimmel show is not a one-off event. Individually, it’s the dictionary definition of creeping authoritarianism, a public and successful act of state-sanctioned censorship that should terrify every American. And it fits perfectly with the steady erosion of basic norms and increasing audacity of the second Trump administration, which has grown bolder since the the Charlie Kirk murder, which more than one right-wing Twitter account declared (disturbingly) their Reichstag fire. I don’t, in fact, think this moment is unique in American life, and in fact I think the depths of the George W. Bush administration were in some significant ways worse than the current moment. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that things are really bad, and a lot of people who have floated in the space of critiquing the left while maintaining a distaste for the Trump administration need to (also!) train their fire where it belongs right now.

The facts are not in dispute. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made comments on his show about the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Specifically, he accused Trump's political movement of attempting to exploit Kirk's death for political gain and mocked Donald Trump's reaction to the news, which Kimmel compared to “how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.” Kimmel also made remarks alleging that “many in MAGA land” were trying to frame the shooter, Tyler Robinson, in a way that would absolve responsibility, or portray him as anything other than part of that political faction, so that conservatives could score political points. This was at least premature, but the comments clearly fell under the protection of the First Amendment and did not in any sense constitute a violation of FCC norms that would spark a government reaction in any other era. But the Trump apparatus pounced anyway.

Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), publicly threatened ABC and its parent company, Disney, with severe repercussions. Carr, a Trump ally who helped author the FCC chapter of the authoritarian-leaning Project 2025, used language that left no room for interpretation. He accused Kimmel of “truly sick” conduct and suggested that the FCC had a “strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and its parent company Walt Disney Co. accountable.” He reminded broadcasters of their “obligation to operate in the public interest” - a phrase that should be chilling to anyone who recognizes the inherent subjectivity of political speech - and said they could face fines or license revocation. This was a direct, public threat from a federal agency to a private corporation, issued with the explicit goal of silencing a critical voice.

Carr’s action is known as jawboning, and it’s a First Amendment violation. Jawboning refers to when the government, rather than directly censoring speech itself, pressures a third party into doing its dirty work. And in this case, the pressure worked. Within hours, ABC capitulated and suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely. This was, obviously, a cold, calculated act of self-preservation. Reporting from trade publications suggests that the decision was influenced by Nexstar Media, one of the biggest owners of TV stations in the country with a pending merger that requires FCC approval. The message was clear: corporate interests will bow to government pressure to ensure favorable business outcomes. I mean, obviously! It’s comical how many conservatives have convinced themselves that corporate America is “woke” thanks to some DEI codes and empty Pride flag symbolism. These corporations are motivated only be self-interest, and as such are cowardly and craven by nature.

Even though this behavior was utterly predictable, this rapid and total capitulation is chilling. The Kimmel case is a documented instance of a government agency forcing a private corporation to engage in censorship. This situation exposes a profound institutional weakness in American democracy: the profit motive of major corporations, especially those with pending regulatory matters, outweighs their commitment to democratic principles like free speech. This exposure to political pressure and corporate cowardice constitutes a fatal flaw in our system. The idea that a free market or private enterprise will act as a sufficient check on government power, obviously, was always a fantasy; now, the Trump era’s omni-erosion of basic norms has made this sort of vulnerability impossible to ignore. Press freedoms are in retreat.

The financial vulnerability of media companies is a useful weapon in the authoritarian arsenal; it helps establish a layer of distance between the regime and the censorship. It’s also an American parallel to the methods of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. In Hungary, Orban's allies built a media empire that consolidated control, leading to a great deal of self-censorship. The Kimmel affair proves that the American media landscape is not immune to these tactics. And of course conservatives in this country have had a boner for Orban for years.

The Kimmel situation is bad enough on its own, and is also not an isolated event. It’s a shameless shot across the bow of anyone who would publicly deride Trump, a tactic pulled from a systematic authoritarian playbook that’s dismantling the institutional guardrails of our democracy. Trump’s status as some sort of free speech warrior was always a transparent joke, but we’ve seen a chilling shift in just how obvious this all is here in his second term. Clearly, Trump and his cronies think that the fervor inspired by the Kirk murder has allowed them to really take the gloves off when it comes to attacking their political enemies and the press.

The assault on the press is a multifront campaign:

• Litigation: The administration has filed massive, often frivolous, lawsuits against outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. These suits aren’t filed to actual win in court but to intimidate the press and harm media companies through high legal costs.

• Access: It has restricted press access to the White House and Pentagon, and banned reporters from the press pool for trivial reasons, such as using the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of “Gulf of America.”

• Regulation: The administration has explicitly stated that networks broadcasting negative coverage of him could face government punishment, and has threatened to revoke broadcast licenses and defund public broadcasting.

• Direct intimidation: An Australian reporter asked Trump a very basic question about his immense increase in personal wealth during his presidency; Trump responded very aggressively, saying that the reporter was “hurting Australia,” and the reporter’s network ABC was later banned from a Trump press conference in the UK.

The administration has also launched an assault on the judiciary. This includes the use of threatening rhetoric against judges, calling them “lunatics” and “agitators,” and the unprecedented move of the Department of Justice filing misconduct complaints against judges for rulings the administration disliked. The goal is to delegitimize any judicial decision that goes against the administration and to instill fear in the judiciary. The administration is also targeting civil servants and academic experts. The regime has threatened immigrant-rights non-profits and other groups it deems radicals, with some administration officials re-framing dissent as “domestic terrorism.” We have additionally seen a purge of career scientists and experts from federal agencies, a move that’s destroyed decades of institutional expertise and seen a comical attempt to replace it with Trump loyalists who are almost universally unequipped to actually fulfill the mandates of their various agencies - which of course suits anti-government nihilists just fine.

These aren’t isolated, unconnected events; they’re part of a unified, if typically chaotic, strategy to dismantle institutional power. The common theme is the de-legitimization of any power or authority that is not directly controlled by the executive. The press, the courts, and the bureaucracy are being systematically undermined to the point where they can no longer function as checks on power. This is all classic authoritarian stuff. The goal is not to win political debates, but to make political debate irrelevant by seizing control of the institutions that make it possible. The first Trump administration no doubt had similar ambitions, but it was also consistently bumbling, beset by petty scandals and relentless internal turmoil as the various grifters and opportunists who saw Trump’s term as an vehicle for personal gain chafed against each other. Trump’s new junta is still fairly bumbling, but there’s also a harder, harsher edge to the whole affair, more true believers in positions of power, and even less resistance from other Republicans. The result is authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and authoritarian tendencies deployed in the pursuit of corruption.

Consider the recent scandal involving Tom Homan, who is serving as the Trump administration’s “border czar.” Homan was caught red-handed in a undercover FBI sting accepting $50,000 in cash from agents posing as businessmen seeking government immigration-contracts under a potential second Trump presidency. The meeting was recorded, and Homan appeared to agree to help them secure those contracts after the election. However, when Trump returned to office, the Justice Department closed the investigation. This is life in a country where the government is both corrupt and increasingly authoritarian: they steal whatever isn’t nailed down, then they use their power to make sure there are no consequences for doing so. What if a cable news channel that investigates the Homan case is deemed to be violating its obligation to act in the public interest? What if a reporter finds themselves pulled in for questioning by Trump’s lawless, faceless immigration Stasi? These are no longer fanciful questions.

Yes, I do believe that my long-held critiques are still relevant. Among other things, the progressive left in this country created an environment of censorship in the last decade which has helped erode commitment to the cherished ideal of free expression. I’m not so naive as to think that the right would hesitate to censor themselves were it not for the recent history of liberal censoriousness, nothing so crude. But it’s true to say that many of the same people who are outraged by Trump's censorship of Kimmel have, for years, cheered on the deplatforming and ostracization of voices they dislike, all in the name of political purity. And, yes, I believe that norms like free speech (for free speech is a norm even more than it is a legal right) are supported by continuity of practice and undermined by inconsistent application. Liberals have dismissed freedom of speech as a reactionary concept and now find themselves, as all petty censors eventually do, on the wrong side of the speech code. Their past willingness to abandon core principles for the sake of in-group status makes their current outrage seem hypocritical and partisan. And, in broader terms, the liberal left has prepared itself for an online culture war, not a political one. They disarmed themselves in the discourse of freedom and rights, deriding them as a tool of white male supremacy and an anachronism, and now find themselves unable to take up that banner when doing so is most needed. It doesn’t help that they’ve soaked themselves in irony for so long that they don’t know how to express themselves in the simple, unfussy language that appeals to basic rights require.

But, well. I do think that the time for self-criticism is always, and I think that we would not be in this mess were it not for years of politically suicidal behavior from elite liberals, who decided to get maximally self-righteous in a country where “You think you’re better than me?” is a national religion. Right now, though, the reality is that it’s going to take a tremendous lift from everyone to fight back against a president and party that are nakedly grabbing at power, taking advantage of the hollowness of our institutions and the fragility of the norms that most past presidents haven’t thought to break. We always need to hold the feckless Democrats and ingroup-obsessed liberals accountable - critique is necessary and, frankly, long overdue - but right now that impulse can’t become an excuse for complacency. The Trump administration is orchestrating a genuinely authoritarian turn, the stakes are existentially high, and everyone who cares about democracy needs to recognize that and mobilize. We should keep pushing our critiques where they matter, but also organize, vote, and fight like our institutions depend on it, because in this moment they do.

Of course, an essential point always remains: you can’t defeat the fascists unless you give the people something better to believe in; Democrats can’t beat Republicans without giving voters something to vote for. For so long, they haven’t.

The gravity of the moment cannot be overstated, and the only way out is political. We are facing a genuinely authoritarian movement that has successfully co-opted corporate interests and is systematically dismantling the institutions that protect us. The only way to defeat this is to get serious. Yes, we must abandon the performative purity tests, the insular cultural battles, and the self-defeating hypocrisy that have been a hallmark of liberalism for too long. We need to focus on what matters: building a mass movement capable of wielding real political power to improve the material lives of working people. The goal is to defeat a genuinely dangerous threat and to build a better world. That requires political seriousness, strategic thinking, and a recognition that the work of politics is just about the opposite of forming a moral aristocracy. The idea that all sound political strategy involves a move to the center is wrong; the idea that the only way to win is through compromise is wrong; the idea that the public wants a Democratic party that relentlessly tacks to the right is wrong. What we need, though, is a recognition that the only possible way to beat the demagogue is through appealing to what people actually need and want, and this will require making the kinds of appeals that liberals are not in the habit of making.

This is, I know, not my usual jam. And the point I made earlier this year about why I don’t write about Trump still stands: nothing I’ve said here is original, none of it is based on original reporting or specific expertise, and there isn’t anything here that you couldn’t get in a more thorough or concise form somewhere else. This just isn’t my comparative advantage. But I did think it was important to write this all down. Because i would prefer to say that this is all happening, while I'm still able to say it.