Jonathan P. Baird

It has now been 14 years since Howard Zinn died. A historian, Zinn is mostly remembered for writing A People’s History of the United States, a controversial recounting of the American story. Zinn focused on the stories of workers, minorities and fighters for justice – not Presidents, Supreme Court justices and courtiers of power,

His book showcases the narrative battle over U.S. history with Zinn presenting a bottom-up view devoid of nationalist glorification. He shows the dark side from the perspective of the oppressed and marginalized. Because of Zinn’s importance, I wanted to share a couple memories of my own about him.

Zinn was a professor at Boston University. I lived in the Boston area in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Back then, BU had a radical film series that featured off-beat and lesser-known movies. One movie that was shown was Burn, a 1969 film made by Italian film director Gillo Pontecorvo, who made the Battle of Algiers. I saw Zinn give a talk about Burn.

The film starred Marlon Brando who played an English intelligence agent, William Walker, sent to a Portuguese-controlled island to foment a native revolution.The film takes place in the 1840’s.

Brando’s William Walker sought to replace the Portuguese with British imperialism. He succeeded in fomenting revolution among the slaves while pursuing a goal of colonial manipulation to advance British interests. Pontecorvo shows the history of slavery underlying the slave revolt. In the film, the Portuguese killed off all the native inhabitants and replaced them with imported African slaves who worked in the sugar cane fields.

Burn was made during the time of the Vietnam War and it evoked the story of a revolution against imperialism. In the movie, Brando installs a native leader who was intended to be a puppet for the British although it does not turn out that way. The story was not far off from the example of Ngo Dinh Diem’s role with the Americans in Vietnam.

Zinn’s talk preceded the showing of the movie. He was charming, self-deprecating and with wit and humor he provided a historical background on the movie that was definitely not available elsewhere. The movie was quite expensive to make. It cost $3 million (a lot then), featured a major star (Brando), had beautiful color cinematography, great attention to costumes and a cool score.

Zinn said movie companies suppressed the movie after its release because of its politics. The version shown in America was cut and twenty minutes were edited out. Pontecorvo was very unhappy and United Artists almost fired Pontecorvo.

Burn remains one of the strongest movie statements against colonialism and imperialism ever made. The only other movie I could think of that might be comparable is Raoul Peck’s mini-series Exterminate All the Brutes.

In the original script of the movie, the island in the story was a Spanish protectorate. Spain’s Franco regime pressured the filmmakers to alter the script. Portugal substituted as the main colonial villain. I think it is fair to say there has been massive resistance to appreciating the role of both European colonialism and American imperialism in understanding the modern world.

I saw Zinn give a number of speeches against the Vietnam War on Boston Common. He was a powerful voice for peace. His book, Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal, published in 1967, was the first book on the war to call for immediate withdrawal. It had a big impact.

This was a time when the U.S. government was telling the American public that if Vietnam became communist, there would be a threat to the United States. Maybe now we can look back and see the absurdity of that claim.

Zinn had an earlier history in the Army Air Corps, doing bombing runs against the Germans near the end of World War 2. In his autobiography, You Can’t Be Neutral of a Moving Train, Zinn wrote that it was John Hersey’s postwar report, Hiroshima, that made him more aware of the horrors of war. He wrote:

“I had been an eager bombardier in the war, caught up in a fanaticism which let me participate unquestioningly in atrocious acts. After the war, I slowly came to question whether war, however noble “the cause”, solves anything, given the warping of moral sensibility, of rational thought, that always accompanies it.”

After the war, Zinn worked loading trucks in a warehouse on the four to midnight shift for 3 years. He was from a poor background and he saw his parents work hard their whole lives without gain. He had worked as a waiter, a ditch-digger, a shipyard worker, a brewery worker and he also had periods of unemployment where he needed unemployment benefits.

He was able to go to NYU and Columbia on the GI Bill earning a Ph.D. in history. In 1956, he got a job teaching and being chair of the History Department at Spelman College in Atlanta. Zinn landed in the middle of the early civil rights movement. He immediately connected to the movement. He wrote that he nurtured an indignation against bullies. He hated to see human beings being treated as inferior beings because of the accident of their skin color.

Zinn was a teacher to, among others, Marion Wright Edelman and Alice Walker. He traveled to Selma in October 1963 as an advisor to SNCC to observe its voter registration campaign. Zinn was part of Freedom Summer in Mississippi. His activism eventually cost him his job at Spelman. It also led to later conflicts at BU.

Because of his writing and his activism, Zinn was always a lightning rod for criticism. When John Silber became president of BU, he blocked Zinn getting raises and promotions even though Zinn was one of the most popular professors on campus. Silber denied Zinn teaching assistants even though he was teaching up to 400 students in a semester. Silber hated Zinn. Zinn had to appeal the matter of back pay, an appeal he ultimately won.

Conservatives who hated Zinn’s politics often criticized the quality of his scholarship. When Mitch Daniels was governor of Indiana, he instructed his subordinates to make sure Zinn’s book A People’s History of The United States not be used anywhere in Indiana. This effort ultimately backfired. The book became a hit, selling more than two million copies.

If Zinn was alive today, I have no doubt he would be an anti-war voice, protesting the Gaza war and demanding an immediate ceasefire. He would have opposed college presidents sending in police to campuses to arrest peaceful students for exercising their First Amendment rights. Zinn was always a dissenter in a hopeful way. He wrote:

“To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.

What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places – and there are so many – where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.”

There are hardly any people more inspiring and heroic than Howard Zinn.

Polls are omnipresent in America and I admit to deep skepticism about their accuracy. I think of Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton and the failure of the red wave to materialize in 2022 as examples that justify that skepticism.

One poll result that has stood out to me is the view that the Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, is better for the economy than President Biden. An April Reuters/Ipsos poll gave Trump a 41% to 34% lead on who has a better approach to the economy. Earlier NBC polls favored Republicans handling of the economy by a wider margin.

The result is puzzling. During Trump’s presidency, his major accomplishment was a tax cut that favored big corporations and the super-rich. Overwhelmingly the 1% got most of the benefit but the tax cut fit a long-standing narrative that Republicans are the party of low taxes and low spending. In contrast, Democrats are seen as the tax and spenders. They are seen as weak, giving handouts.

I would suggest that this narrative doesn’t capture our current reality. On a wide range of economic issues, Democrats’ policies are far more favorable to working people than the Republicans. The evidence is right before our eyes.

We are seeing a modern resurgence of the labor movement. There was a hot labor summer in 2023. The writer Anat Shenkar-Osorio says there were 380 labor actions in 2023. Joe Biden joined a picket line along with United Auto Worker (UAW) members, the first time a president has ever done that. Biden has also adopted union-friendly policies. The UAW won a huge contract victory with double-digit percentage raises as well as cost-of-living raises from the Big Three automakers.

Republicans generally align with corporate bosses and Wall Street greed. They consistently oppose the labor movement. The UAW is currently trying to organize 150,000 workers in 36 nonunion plants across the South. This includes Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Volvo and Tesla plants. In an April 16 letter, Southern Republican governors in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas announced their opposition to the UAW campaign.

In spite of their opposition, on April 19, workers in a Chattanooga Tennessee Volkswagen plant overwhelmingly voted to join the UAW. This is the first auto plant in the South to organize via election since the 1940’s. A Mercedes plant in Alabama is next. They hold an election May 13 to see if the workers will decide the join the UAW.

Before this year, anti-union sentiment was entrenched in the South. So the Chattanooga victory is historic and it may well set off a chain reaction of union victories. The UAW’s impressive win in 2023 against the Big Three has supercharged their ground game and won over many workers who were previously reluctant to join.

The Biden administration and Democrats also deserve credit for passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. The benefits of that law for workers are just beginning to be felt. Tennessee’s BlueOval City electric vehicle battery facility is leading the way in creating clean energy jobs with high pay and full benefit packages. The plant is located in Hayward County, a poor part of Tennessee.

The Inflation Reduction Act has helped to stimulate more than $92 billion investment in the electric vehicle (EV) production, battery and critical mineral industries. So far it has created an estimated 84,000 jobs. This is a major boost both to EV transition and American manufacturing. Next year, Ford will begin production of electric trucks at BlueOval City, This was only possible because of the Inflation Reduction Act. It is not clear if workers appreciate the role of Democrats in making this effort a reality.

Even though unions are increasingly popular among Americans, only 10% of the workforce is unionized. Much of the decline in union membership has to do with Republican hostility to labor. Trump appointees to federal agencies often had a fox-in-the-chicken-coop quality. They opposed the pro-worker mission of the agency whether it was the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Trump appointees to the NLRB completely failed to carry out duties. They did nothing to stop the harassment of union organizers, interference in union elections, wage theft that victimized workers and misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Similarly, Trump’s Secretary of Labor, a corporate lawyer, tried to dismantle regulations, especially at OSHA. The Republicans left over 40% of the leadership positions at OSHA vacant during Trump’s tenure.

One other area deserves mention. I had noted Trump’s 2017 tax cuts which saved big corporations and the super-wealthy many millions of dollars. It was his gift to the 1%. Biden got through a 15% minimum tax on corporations. It was the first tax increase on corporations in more than 30 years and he has used that money to fund his climate package.

In 2025, Trump’s tax cuts expire and he is telling billionaires re-elect me and I will again cut your taxes. Companies like Amazon were reporting profits of $11 billion and paying zero taxes. Biden is saying the opposite of Trump. He will raise taxes on billionaires and big corporations. Biden has funded the IRS to go after wealthy tax cheats. Trump had deliberately de-funded the IRS so that less rich people would get audited.

When FDR campaigned for President in 1936, he threw down against the robber barons of his day. He said:

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate of me – and I welcome their hatred.”

Messaging from today’s Democrats is far more tepid. The way forward is to follow FDR’s example. Taking the side of working people will get much better electoral results. The Republicans have shown that all they care about is maximizing profits for the people who don’t need more money.

Here is my son, Josh Baird, singing a song by Dawes, A Little Bit of Everything

Previously I have written about the failure of lawyers and judges to respond to the growing threat of fascism in the United States. Very few lawyers who supported Trump’s anti-democratic coup attempt have faced any discipline. So I have to acknowledge a positive development.

In California, after a 34 day trial, the Court recommended John Eastman, a key Trump lawyer, be disbarred for his role in Trump’s coup attempt. The Court fined Eastman $10,000 for “making numerous false and misleading statements regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election”. It found Eastman demonstrated moral turpitude and failed to show any remorse or accountability for his actions.

In a comprehensive 128 page order, Judge Yvette Roland pointed out that Eastman knowingly made many false statements in furtherance of Trump’s criminal scheme to stay in power. Eastman knew that Attorney General William Barr had reported to Trump that there was no evidence of widespread fraud or illegality that could have affected the outcome of the election. Eastman also knew that 60 courts had dismissed cases alleging voter fraud.

Yet in spite of those realities, from December 9, 2020 tp January 6, 2021, Eastman recklessly formulated legal strategies to promote the Big Lie idea that the election was in question and had, in fact, been stolen. He was a loyal foot soldier (actually maybe a general) in Trump’s fascist coup attempt.

In his January 6 speech at the Ellipse before Trump spoke, Eastman falsely asserted that Dominion voting machines had fraudulently manipulated the election results between November 3,2020 and January 5, 2021.

He said “they put ballots in a secret folder in the machines, sitting there waiting until they know how many they need” and that after the polls closed “unvoted ballots” were matched with “an unvoted voter” to fraudulently change the election totals in favor of Joe Biden and the Democratic candidates in the Georgia runoff.

Eastman falsely argued that Fulton County Georgia officials removed a suitcase of hidden ballots from under a table out of view of election observers and fraudulently processed ballots.

Additionally, he said Georgia election officials allowed unqualified individuals to register and vote; he alleged they allowed underaged and unregistered individuals to vote; he said they allowed individuals to vote who had voted across county lines; and he argued they accepted votes cast by deceased individuals.

In a separate proceeding, Eastman is under criminal indictment in Georgia, along with Trump and many others, for racketeering and conspiracy. Other Trump lawyers, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis, have already pled guilty to the Georgia criminal charges.

Writings also figured in the California Eastman proceeding. In his infamous memos, Eastman asserted that Vice President Mike Pence had the legal authority to delay a count of electoral votes on January 6. Eastman unsuccessfully tried to convince Pence to execute a plan unilaterally to reject the electoral count of certain states and to delay the electoral count to further Trump’s coup.

One other false assertion needs to be mentioned. Eastman argued on Steve Bannon’s War Room radio program on January 2, 2021 that there was “massive evidence” of fraud involving absentee ballots, most egregiously in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This was another Big Lie Trump has consistently pushed and, no doubt, he will use it again in 2024.

What we have is an example of a lawyer who wanted to win too much. He did not hesitate to make up facts that served his purpose. Misrepresentation was his stock in trade. In violation of all ethics and his professional responsibility, he was willing to subordinate himself to Trump’s power-hungry scheme.

Eastman has asserted a First Amendment defense but the First Amendment is not absolute. The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that is employed as a tool in the commission of a crime. False statements made knowingly are not protected speech. Eastman crossed the line from zealous advocacy to criminal conduct that obstructed the lawful administration of justice.

Eastman has every right to appeal to higher courts but the handwriting is on the wall. He has more than earned disbarment from the legal profession. All lawyers have a duty of honesty and candor to the tribunal. Eastman recklessly and knowingly breached that duty.

It is critical to the rule of law that the legal system show it is not powerless in the face of MAGA coup attempts. As noted, very few Trump lawyers have had to pay any price for their participation in his 2020 election schemes. Rudy Giuliani was suspended. Jeffrey Clark, former Department of Justice lawyer, also faces disbarment proceedings.

Without discipline, too many lawyers will be willing to collaborate with whatever half-baked extra-legal strategy Trump concocts for the 2024 election. Discipline is the needed disincentive. Trump’s past behavior shows he would never accept losing. The rule of law is at stake.

I think the Bar and Judiciary are still too passive about the continuing fascist threat to our democracy. Too many lawyers and judges are playing the game of both-sidesism and pretending the MAGA threat is not happening. MAGA will again try and use violence, intimidation and the charge of voter fraud to get its way. They have forced many election officials to quit out of fear of retaliation. MAGA doesn’t respect the outcome of elections.

In 2024, lawyers and judges need to stand strong to roll back fascist politics. That threat has not gone away.

I am a signer on this letter which was delivered to our NH congressional delegation yesterday.

An open letter to the NH congressional delegation:

We, as New Hampshire Jews, are horrified by the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza, backed by U.S. military aid. Incessant Israeli bombing and military action has killed more than 30,000 people, the majority of them women and children, and wounded tens of thousands more. These numbers don’t count many more deaths due to disease and famine caused by Israel’s intentional destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure, its blockage of the vast bulk of humanitarian aid, and its brazen attacks on hospitals.

We strongly condemn Hamas’s despicable and barbaric attacks on October 7. Yet that horror does not excuse killing at least 25 times as many Palestinians, whether it be in the name of revenge or security.

Israel’s actions serve no long-term strategic purpose. For every actual Hamas terrorist killed, Israel is creating many more potential terrorists in their place. We understand Israel’s right of self-defense, and we vigorously oppose anti-Semitism, but Israel’s morally indefensible overreaction has only fueled Jew-hatred that is putting both Israel and all Jews at greater risk.

We ask that you as our United States Senators and Representatives work for three goals:

1. An immediate and sustained ceasefire. Besides the importance of stopping the war, a ceasefire must lead to the immediate release of all hostages so they can be returned to their loved ones.
2. Full humanitarian aid via UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). This group has been providing aid on the ground for years, and it is the only entity with the capability to reach the masses of people in need. Air drops and seaport shipments with no ground network in place simply aren’t enough to prevent mass starvation and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions.
3. Suspension of military aid to Israel for its actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Our tax dollars and our weapons should not go to massacre any more people, especially children. By its reckless and brutal actions, Israel has forfeited the right to receive additional, unrestricted American military aid.

We, as Jews, know all too well that dehumanizing others can lead to unimaginable tragedy. When six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, so many people and nations said nothing. This history is why we cannot remain silent in the face of Israel’s conduct. We want to make it clear that this is not being done in our name. That is why we must speak out to end this war now.

Here is my son Josh Baird singing a cover of Maggie Rogers song Don’t Forget Me.

Probably like many people in Concord, I was disappointed in the NH Superior Court’s decision finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the State for its removal of the Elizabeth Gurley Flynn historical marker. I am very glad the plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Reconsider.

Concord was Flynn’s birthplace. Whatever you think about her complicated and colorful life, she is one of the most beloved labor leaders in American history. The state of New Hampshire recognizes and celebrates no labor leader of any political stripe with a historical marker. Among those acknowledged with a marker, the State recognizes hardly any women.

Since the history of Flynn and the early 20th century labor movement is largely forgotten, some points deserve emphasis. Flynn lived in a time when the wages and working conditions of American workers were terrible. Workers commonly labored grueling 10 to 12 hour shifts, 65 to 70 hours a week, for starvation wages.

Working conditions in factories, mines and mills were frequently unsafe and deadly accidents were common. Child labor was everywhere. Discrimination of all types prevailed. There was no OSHA or Fair Labor Standards Act.

As a member of the Industrial Workers of the World also known as the Wobblies or IWW, Flynn was selflessly committed to organizing the unorganized and improving workers’ standard of living. She led the Bread and Roses textile strike in Lawrence Massachusetts in 1912. She went on to organize garment workers in Pennsylvania, restaurant workers in New York City, silk workers in New Jersey and miners in Minnesota. Theodore Dreiser called her “the East Side Joan of Arc”.

In 1920, Flynn helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union. She was a key organizer in the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti. Flynn was such a great orator that the Los Angeles Times described her as a “leather-lunged hellion that breathed reddish flames”.

Flynn helped to defend the Wobbly songwriter Joe Hill who was ultimately executed by the state of Utah. The consummate organizer, Flynn wrangled a meeting about Joe Hill with then-President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson wondered to Flynn “if further insistence might do more harm than good”. Flynn replied “But he’s sentenced to death. You can’t make it worse, Mr. President”.

Joe Hill was such a fan of Flynn that he composed the song The Rebel Girl about her, The song, a classic of the labor movement, went, in part:

“Yes, her hands may be hardened from labor
And her dress may not be very fine
But a heart in her bosom is beating
That is true to her class and her kind…”

Later in her life, Flynn joined the Communist Party. During the McCarthy period, she and others were prosecuted for violating the Smith Act, a law that forbid advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence. At trial she acknowledged support for socialism but denied that she advocated force or violence. Flynn was convicted and served two years in federal prison. She became chairwoman of the Party in 1961 before she died in 1964.

In her statement at the Smith Act trial in 1952, she said the conditions she encountered in the textile towns of New Hampshire contributed to her joining the Communist Party.

I would think that a historical marker is about acknowledging a historical figure. Sainthood is not required. Consider for example, Hannah Dustin’s marker in Boscawen. She is one of the very few women New Hampshire recognizes with a marker. After being the victim of an Indian raid and seeing her own child murdered, Dustin later participated in the killing and scalping of 10 Indians. Like Dustin, many historical figures have complex and ambiguous legacies, including committing murder.

Think about Franklin Pierce. As a former president, he is certainly deemed historically worthy. Pierce hated abolitionists, enforced the Fugitive Slave Act and was a collaborator with slavery before the Civil War. Among historians he is commonly seen as one of our worst Presidents. Yet he gets recognized. No test of moral virtue attached where Pierce is concerned.

The Court’s use of standing with the Flynn marker was an easy off-ramp but it is not right. Under the Court’s logic, if the plaintiffs in this case don’t have standing, no one could have standing. The plaintiffs sponsored the marker, did required signature-gathering, and took all legally required steps to have the marker approved and installed. The Court’s decision makes it an impossibility to dispute the State’s action removing the marker.

Standing as a legal doctrine often seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The inconsistency of court findings of standing are notable. It has often been used to slam the courthouse door shut on plaintiffs. In this instance, the decision by Governor Sununu to take down the Flynn marker two weeks after it was installed was a lawless power grab. He didn’t like the fact that the marker remembered someone who had been a communist.

Sununu went through no legal process to un-install the Flynn marker. He simply declared it on his own. As one of the plaintiffs, Mary Lee Sargent said:

“There is no provision in statute or in the rules governing the marker program that says established markers can be removed based on ideological rather than historical grounds.”

The removal of the Flynn marker is an embarrassment to the state. The powers-that-be prefer erasing the historical memory of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and all people like her. Whatever New Hampshire ultimately decides, Flynn’s important place in American labor history remains assured.

After the oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on the Mifepristone case, FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, most pro-choice commentators breathed a sigh of relief. It appeared that the Court was not buying that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine had standing, a legal doctrine required to allow a case to move forward.

To have standing, a party must be able to show they have been injured in some direct way the Court could remedy. In this case, the harm was entirely speculative. The anti-abortion doctor plaintiffs argued a theoretical possibility of harm which was unpersuasive.

At stake is the future of medication abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the medication Mifepristone, figured in 63% of medical abortions in the U.S. in 2023. Based on the oral argument, it is unlikely this will be the case to ban medication abortion.

That said, the fact that this dumb case will not succeed in getting rid of medication abortion is not reassuring to reproductive rights supporters. The anti-abortion movement is looking to use a zombie law, the 1873 Comstock Act, to justify a national ban on all abortions. Both Justices Alito and Thomas mentioned it in the oral argument with Alito calling it a “prominent law”.

Conservatives are looking to the Comstock Act as the vehicle to ban every single abortion in America whether in red or blue states.The Comstock Act was originally about banning pornographic literature, birth control and early abortion-incducing substances that were sent through the mail. It is extremely likely conservatives will try and revive this 19th century law which has been in deep sleep mode.

To appreciate the craziness of the Comstock law revivers, you need to look at who Anthony Comstock was. In his time in the later part of the 19th century, Comstock was one of the most feared and reviled men in America. The writer Amy Sohn, who authored The Man Who Hated Women, a biography of Comstock, wrote:

“Comstockery and Comstockism came to connote prudishness, control, censoriousness and repression of thought.”

Sohn wrote that Comstock did more to curtail women’s rights than anyone else in U.S. history. He was an anti-sex freak who literally had no understanding of reproduction. He believed a fetus could form seconds after unprotected sex. He was horrified by pictures of naked bodies.

Comstock was a book banner. He bragged about removing thousands of books from circulation that touched on sex in any way. He was quick to place such books in the category of pornography. According to Sohn, Comstock, with no remorse, drove 15 people to suicide with his relentless prosecutions. He was against everything he considered obscene or that he believed suggested lust.

Roe v Wade had turned the Comstock Act into a dead letter but with that precedent overturned the anti-abortion movement plans to bring Comstock back from the dead. Mail is implicated in every abortion whether in clinics or by medication. All tools and medications come through the mail. The anti-abortion movement will either re-fashion the current Mifepristone case or bring new cases to the Supreme Court relying on the Comstock Act as their means to achieve a national abortion ban.

Democrats and all supporters of women’s rights should seek to repeal the Comstock Act. Congress previously repealed parts of the Act connected to birth control but other parts of Comstock were never repealed. There is a legal argument that the law was set aside by a court decision in 1930 but that will be part of the argument.

As a woman-hater, Anthony Comstock should be seen as one of the worst people in American history but the anti-abortion movement sees the law named after him as their fastest route to the result they want. They don’t care he was a misogynist.

It is not reassuring that FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine made it to the High Court. The story behind the case deserves mention because this is a meritless case that passes no smell test. A judge with no medical or scientific expertise found a medication unsafe despite the FDA’s long-standing approval of its use. Mifepristone has been used by 5.6 million women and research shows fewer serious risks than Tylenol.

The plaintiffs set up shop in Amarillo Texas even though none of them had members there so they could judge-shop and get their case heard by Matthew Kacsmaryk, the only judge in that district. Kacsmaryk is an anti-abortion fanatic who Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench. Even though Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000 and had been used safely for 24 years, Kacamaryk ordered a nation-wide ban against the use of Mifepristone.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, another hub of far right Trump appointees, largely let Kacsmaryk’s decision go forward although his injunction was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Kacsmaryk relied on discredited medical studies and internet blog posts to make his case against Mifepristone.

The Supreme Court is not done with abortion issues this term. In April, in the case of Idaho v United States, the Court will determine if medical providers can continue providing abortions to pregnant women who are experiencing dire medical conditions. Idaho has a near-total ban on abortion . The state law conflicts with requirements of the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Biden administration is attempting to enforce the federal law.

This case also would not be happening if Roe had not been reversed. The federal law requires stabilizing treatment for any emergency medical condition. Idaho takes the position that necessary care will not be provided until the patient’s condition deteriorates to the point where a physician is “objectively certain” that an abortion is needed to save her life.

The consequences of delay could be devastating for women. Consequences of delay in the emergency could include sepsis requiring limb amputation, uncontrollable uterine bleeding, preeclampsia. hypoxic brain injury and permanent fertility issues. Since January 2024, the Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce its law pending the Court’s decision.

The threat to women is not stopping. It is a mistake to see these cases as unrelated. They are part of the anti-abortion movement’s project of entrenching white Christian patriarchal dominance. The lawyers in both the Mifepristone case and the Idaho case are the same. They are from Alliance Defending Freedom, a far right extremist organization that the Southern Law Poverty Center considers a hate group.

It is hard not to wonder what is next: will some ultra-conservative judge say birth control is unconstitutional? Don’t be surprised.

In my last article, I outlined a progressive Democratic agenda 2025 that differentiates sharply from what the Republicans are selling. The Democrats are a big tent and I write with the recognition that some Democrats, likely quite a few, will not share this perspective. My earlier piece did not address a number of critical issues so this piece continues the argument deepening what a progressive Democratic project should be about.

• Democrats oppose economic inequality while Republicans are wedded to the interests of the 1%. The richest families in the U.S. have experienced far greater gains in wealth than other families in recent decades. The richest 1% of households averaged 104 times as much income as the bottom 20% in 2020 according to the Congressional Budget Office. Income and wealth inequality have returned to Gilded Age levels. Democrats favor a far more equitable distribution of income and wealth that would dramatically lessen poverty. Poverty is morally unacceptable in a country as wealthy as America. Changes in the tax code and its enforcement could dramatically improve life for the bottom 80% monetarily. With so many billionaires and millionaires, a wealth tax is an idea whose time has come.
• Homelessness and our housing crisis deserve immediate attention. Democrats favor a housing policy that refocuses attention on our lack of adequate affordable housing. Rents have skyrocketed and for many home ownership has become an impossible dream. Far too many are homeless and too many blame the homeless for this predicament. Instead of blaming the homeless and criminalizing homelessness, Democrats recognize that housing policy must evolve to help a wide swath of people who are struggling to afford the cost of housing. Rent control in some locales, expanded federally subsidized housing and the building of far more housing for low and middle income people are important public policies that Democrats support.
• Democrats support campaign finance reform and disclosure laws which force the exposure of dark money. Several Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United, have led to political campaigns awash in unlimited often dark money. The law has given the super-rich an unfair advantage allowing them to buy or heavily influence elections. Even worse, we cannot find out who is behind secret mega-donations. Democrats believe in transparency and public financing of elections as a way to promote the fairest outcomes.
• It is time to expand the number of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court started with six justices. Under President Adams, it went down to five. President Jefferson restored a sixth seat and added one justice. President Jackson added two seats. Later during the Civil War, the court increased to ten and then shrank back to nine justices where it has remained since 1869. It is constitutional to change the number of justices. In light of Republican gamesmanship, we are stuck with an ethically-challenged, out-of-touch Court.. Republicans have packed the present Court which appears to be owned by billionaires. Democrats support Congress expanding the number of justices to make the Court more representative of the American people. For those progressives who belittle the differences between our two parties, I would point to the importance of which party has the opportunity to make court appointments. Contrast Ketanji Brown Jackson with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett.
• Democrats support a ceasefire and an immediate end to the Israel/Gaza war. This war is a humanitarian catastrophe with absolutely horrible loss of life. Although the Hamas attack on October 7 was a war crime, Israel’s response has been a drastic overreaction. Democrats support an end to hostilities, release of hostages and an infusion of massive humanitarian aid to prevent starvation and disease.
• American foreign policy needs much more reliance on diplomacy and much less on war, militarism, and feeding the military-industrial complex. Democrats favor significant cuts to the military budget and a far less interventionist foreign policy. After both the pointless wars in Vietnam and Iraq , Democrats support a thorough reassessment of our goals of empire. Americans have been repeatedly misled into war. We must insist in the strongest fashion that nuclear war never be fought. There would be no winners.
• Democrats oppose racism and white supremacy and we believe in a de-segregated society. Whether it is school re-segregation or residential segregation, America has been moving backwards. Democrats acknowledge that America was founded on our two great national sins: slavery and genocide of Native Americans. Democrats are committed to an honest recognition of these sins along with an action agenda to address them. Republicans pretend to phony colorblindness. Their attacks on critical race theory and Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs are a thinly veiled retreat back to white supremacy.
• Hate is un-American. Whether it is against trans people, other LGBTQ people, Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or Latinos, the hate being spewed by MAGA Republicans is disgusting. Democrats support tolerance and understanding toward all minorities. Scapegoating a group is all too reminiscent of white supremacist hate groups who have played too prominent a role in the American past as reflected in lynchings.
• Democrats are committed to science and intellectual honesty unlike the Republicans who have become the party of the Big Lie, conspiracy theories and misinformation. Whether the issue is climate change or the efficacy of vaccines, America cannot retreat into a world of lies. Intellectual dishonesty can only lead to disaster. If Republicans cannot even accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, you have to wonder what other facts they won’t accept. Being unable to accept facts and inventing your own world is a recipe for a nightmare.

Numerous observers have commented on the vital importance of the 2024 electoral race. Democrats have a potentially powerful agenda. People who think there is no difference between the parties are living in a state of delusion. While there is certainly internal division among Democrats, at least they are fighting over progressive steps and the best way to achieve them.

About the Republicans, I am reminded of a quote from James Baldwin:

“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”

2024 promises to be fascinating.