Software developer at a big library, cyclist, photographer, hiker, reader. Email: chris@improbable.org
25812 stories
·
232 followers

A North Carolina Supreme Court Candidate’s Bid to Overturn His Loss Is Based on Theory Election Deniers Deemed Extreme

1 Share

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Months before voters went to the polls in November, a group of election skeptics based in North Carolina gathered on a call and discussed what actions to take if they doubted any of the results.

One of the ideas they floated: try to get the courts or state election board to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by voters whose registrations are missing a driver’s license number and the last four digits of a Social Security number.

But that idea was resisted by two activists on the call, including the leader of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network. The data was missing not because voters had done something wrong but largely as a result of an administrative error by the state. The leader said the idea was “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, according to a recording of the July call obtained by ProPublica.

This novel theory is now at the center of a legal challenge by North Carolina appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican who lost a race for a state Supreme Court seat to the Democratic incumbent, Allison Riggs, by just 734 votes and is seeking to have the result overturned.

The state election board dismissed a previous version of the challenge, which is now being considered in federal court. Before the election, a Trump-appointed judge denied an attempt by the Republican National Committee to remove 225,000 voters from the rolls based on the same theory.

The latest case is getting attention statewide and across the country. But it has not yet been reported that members of the group that had helped publicize the idea had cast doubt on its legality.

“I don’t comment on pending litigation,” Griffin wrote to ProPublica in response to a detailed list of questions. “It would be a violation of our code of judicial conduct.”

Embry Owen, Riggs’ campaign manager, disputed the challenge and called on Griffin to concede. “It’s not appropriate for this election to be decided in court, period. NC voters have already made the decision to send Justice Riggs back to the Supreme Court,” she said.

The theory Griffin is citing originated with a right-wing activist, Carol Snow, who described herself to ProPublica in an email as “a Bona Fide Grade-A Election Denier.” Snow promoted it with the help of the state chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a national group whose leader worked with President Donald Trump in his failed effort to overturn the 2020 election. The network also was behind extensive efforts to prepare to contest a Trump loss this year in other states, as ProPublica has reported, as well as in North Carolina, according to previously unreported recordings and transcripts of meetings of the state chapter.

State election officials have found that missing information on a voter’s registration is not disqualifying because there are numerous valid reasons for the state’s database to lack that those details.

Those reasons include voters registering before state paperwork was updated about a year ago to require that information or using alternate approved documents, such as a utility bill, to verify their identities. What’s more, voters must still prove their identity when casting a ballot — most often with a driver’s license. “There is virtually no chance of voter fraud resulting from a voter not providing her driver’s license or social security number on her voter registration,” attorneys for the state election board wrote in response to the RNC lawsuit.

Bob Orr, a former GOP state Supreme Court justice who left the Republican Party in 2021, said he too doubts the theory. “I appreciate fighting for every vote: If you honestly think illegal votes have been cast, it’s legitimate to try to prove that,” he said. “But the bottom line is: Did anyone vote illegally? Have you been able to prove one person voted illegally? At this point, no. And we’re weeks past the election and multiple recounts, and there’s no evidence of that.”

In modern history, the state board’s decision on who wins elections has been final, said Chris Cooper, a professor specializing in North Carolina politics at Western Carolina University. That includes an even tighter race in 2020, when a Democratic justice conceded to a Republican after protesting her 401-vote loss to the board.

“We’re used to close elections, we’re used to protests, we’re used to candidates pushing every legal action up to the point the state election board rules,” Cooper said. But, he added, there is an important difference with Griffin’s petition, which goes beyond the state election board to the courts.

“This is basically saying the state elections system is wrong, and we’re going to court to try to change the rules of the game after the game has been played — which is unprecedented.”

In July 2024, the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network convened online to plan its efforts ahead of the presidential election. Worried about a surge of voter registrations from nonwhite voters who they believed would back Democrats, the activists discussed how to assemble a “suspicious voters list” of people whose ballots they could challenge.

Then, one of the group’s board members, Jay DeLancy, said he had another idea “that’s a lot slicker.”

DeLancy said that if a candidate lost a close election, the loss could be overturned by questioning the validity of voters whose registrations are missing their driver’s license and Social Security information. “Those are illegal votes,” he claimed. “I would file a protest.”

Jim Womack, the leader of the chapter, immediately pushed back: “That’s a records keeping problem on the part of the state board. That’s not illegal.”

Later in the call Womack said, “I’m 100% sure you’re not going to get a successful prosecution.” And he told the group, “That’s considered to be voter suppression, and there’s no way a court is going to find that way.”

But DeLancy asked for backup from the originator of that theory: Carol Snow. She argued that her theory could in fact overturn the outcome of an election.

“I guess we’re gonna find that out,” Snow said.

Snow is a leader of the conservative activist group North Carolina Audit Force and lives in the state’s rural mountains. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she threw herself into questioning the election’s results. In 2022, she accompanied a pair of far-right activists to a North Carolina election office where the two men unsuccessfully tried to forcefully access voting machines, and she participated in a failed pressure campaign to oust the election director who resisted them, ProPublica previously reported.

She also began filing overwhelming numbers of records requests and complaints to state election officials, an effort that Womack praised on the July call: “I think Carol has shown a way of really harassing — not that we want to do it for harassment purposes — but really needling the Board of Elections to do their jobs by just constantly deluging them.”

Since late 2021, the state elections board had spent far more time on her requests and complaints than those of any other individual, spokesperson Patrick Gannon said in a statement. “Ms. Snow’s constant barrage of requests and complaints causes other priorities and responsibilities to suffer,” Gannon said.

Snow described her work to ProPublica as “simply taking the time to learn about my state’s electoral process” and acting for the public good. “The records I’ve requested are owned by the public. In other words, I’m asking for what belongs to me,” Snow wrote to ProPublica. “If government agencies are understaffed and unable to comply with this state’s Public Records law, they should address the issue with the entities that fund them.”

In the fall of 2023, Snow filed a complaint alleging that North Carolina’s voter registration form did not clearly require voters to provide their driver’s license number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, as required by federal law — instead that information was coded as optional. Snow later described the missing information as a “line of attack” through which bad actors could cast fraudulent votes using fake identities. (A right-wing conspiracy theory holds that this was how Biden won the 2020 election.)

But she was not able to demonstrate that the missing information had led to anyone improperly voting. After obtaining public records for hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, Snow provided the state board with only seven examples of what she called potential double voting. The state board found all seven to be innocuous things like data entry errors.

The state board quickly updated the form to require the information. But from late 2023 through the fall of 2024, six complaints, some of which were partly based on Snow’s theory, were filed with the state election board. Aside from the updates to the form, the state board dismissed the complaints.

By the time of the July call, some of Snow’s peers seemed dismissive as well.

“I’m not suggesting that we can’t arm a candidate that loses a short, a close race with the information they need to file a protest using this,” Womack said on the call. “But I would just suggest to you that that’s not the way to win on this thing.”

Yet the information did end up in the Republican National Committee’s lawsuit trying to disqualify 225,000 voters, a challenge DeLancy filed against Riggs’ victory in North Carolina’s most populous county, and, the day after that was dismissed, Griffin’s challenge to over 60,000 voters.

DeLancy wrote to ProPublica that he filed the challenge on his own and did not coordinate with Griffin. He also said he disagreed with Womack’s description of such challenges as “voter suppression.” Instead, he said, he saw it as “a proper response” to the state election board’s “violation of federal law.” “Carol Snow deserves an Order of the Long Leaf Pine for exposing this treasonous behavior on the part of the election officials,” he wrote, referring to an award bestowed by North Carolina’s governor.

Womack wrote to ProPublica that the group he leads “is a non-partisan, neutral organization” that does “not favor one party over another.”

He also said that recordings of the group’s calls are “prohibited and violate our internal policies” and “whatever bootleg recording you may have is unauthorized and may well be altered.” ProPublica has seen a video recording of the call and verified portions of it with some participants.

Though Griffin’s challenge of Riggs’ victory is now being considered in federal court, legal experts say it could still end up back where he intended: in front of the state Supreme Court.

Griffin’s petition is making what experts describe as extreme asks to the Supreme Court: to allow him to bypass the lower courts, to allow ballots to be thrown out without proving that voters did anything knowingly wrong and to essentially decide whether to change its composition to six Republicans and one Democrat.

“Even if they do their best to be open-minded and independent, the facts of the potential conflicts of interest are just too obvious to the public,” said Orr, the former Republican justice.

Griffin has described Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby as a “good friend and mentor,” and Newby promoted Griffin’s 2020 run for the court of appeals. What’s more, a ProPublica review of campaign finance reports show that the spouses of three justices, including Newby’s wife, donated over $12,000 to Griffin’s most recent or previous campaigns. (The husband of the Supreme Court’s other Democratic justice donated to Riggs.)

Newby and other justices did not respond to a detailed list of questions sent to spokespeople for the Supreme Court.

When announcing his candidacy for the Supreme Court, Griffin declared, “We are a team that knows how to win — the same team that helped elect Chief Justice Paul Newby and three other members of the current Republican majority.”

A cartoon illustration that hangs in the Supreme Court depicts all the Republican appellate jurists as superheroes from the Justice League, with Newby caricatured as Superman and Griffin as the Flash.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Israeli Settlement Plans: "Within a Year, We Will Be Living in Gaza" - DER SPIEGEL

1 Share
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Capital

2 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
The complex derivative guys are given AAA ratings then surprised that they still sink.


Today's News:
Read the whole story
hannahdraper
1 day ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Russia terrorizes Ukraine with mass missile, drone attack against energy grid on Christmas morning

1 Share

This audio is created with AI assistance

Editor's Note: This is a developing story and is being updated.

Russia launched a mass aerial attack against Ukraine on Dec. 25, targeting cities across the country with missiles and drones.

The northeastern city of Kharkiv was among the hardest hit, coming under "massive fire" from ballistic missiles, according to local authorities. At least six people were injured, Governor Oleh Syniehubov said.

Explosions were also reported in Dnipro, Kremenchuk, Kryvyi Rih, and the western city of Ivano-Frankivsk.

Russia launched 78 missiles and 106 drones, the Air Force said. Ukraine shot down 55 Kh-101/Kh-55/Kalibr cruise missiles and four Kh-59/Kh-69 missiles, as well as 54 Shahed-type drones and other types of drones, according to the report. Another 52 drones were "lost."

"Every Russian massive strike takes time to prepare. It is never a spontaneous decision. It is a conscious choice not only of targets but also of time and date," President Volodymyr Zelensky said.

Multiple cities in Ukraine imposed emergency blackouts following the attack.

Ukraine's largest private energy company, DTEK, reported that Russia had attacked its thermal power plants, "seriously damaging equipment." The location of the facilities was not disclosed.

The Air Force reported that Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers had taken flight overnight, and later announced that a number of Kalibr cruise missiles had been launched from the Black Sea.

Poland scrambled fighter jets in response to the Russian missile threat in western Ukraine, the Polish Operational Command reported.

A series of explosions were reported in Kharkiv after the Air Force warned of a ballistic missile threat against the city. At least seven missile strikes targeted the city, Syniehubov said.  The attacks caused fires and damage to civilian infrastructure, he added.

Located only 30 kilometers from the Russian border, Kharkiv has suffered relentless aerial attacks over the past two years of the full-scale war.

Mayor Ihor Terekhov on Dec. 24 announced that the city had put up holiday decorations and lights for the first time since Russia's February 2022 invasion. The decorations are "a symbol of (Kharkiv's) resolve," Terekhov said.

The Russian attack on energy infrastructure in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast killed one person, Governor Serhii Lysak said.

Energy infrastructure was also targeted in Vinnytsia and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts, according to local authorities. In Kyiv Oblast, drone debris damaged a cafe, three houses and 12 trucks, Governor Ruslan Kravchenko said.

The mass attack follows a ballistic missile strike against Kryvyi Rih on Christmas Eve. The missile struck an apartment building in the city, killing one civilian and injuring 15 more.

A few days before, Russia launched five ballistic missiles at Kyiv on Dec. 20, causing fires, casualties, and damage to several foreign embassies.

Russia's attacks on Ukraine's critical infrastructure have intensified with the onset of winter. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also issued threats in recent days, promising "more destruction" for Ukraine and suggesting that Moscow could launch an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) against Kyiv.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Red, green, and sour grapes: They’ve got nothing on the Concord grape, America’s most mysterious fruit.

2 Shares

This is part of Fruit Loot, which is taking a look at the strange and surprising links between fruit and money.

When I was growing up, my family would often travel to Korea, the country of my heritage. Each time, my sister and I gleefully looked forward to getting our hands on the things we couldn’t easily get anywhere else—fruit especially. We feasted on Korean melon, persimmons, Asian pears, and what we thought of as “Korean grapes.”

The grapes were always the star of the show. They tasted like grape candy. Spherical with dark blue-purple skin, they aren’t eaten the same way as typical American table grapes. Holding one grape with its “belly button” (what I call the part where the fruit attaches to the vine) to your mouth, you gently suck while pinching the fruit with your fingers. The green jellylike flesh pops out of its thick skin and into your mouth. Grapes that are consumed this way are called slipskin because of how readily the flesh falls from its casing. After pulling each grape out, we’d work with our teeth to extract and spit out the large seeds, then return to the skin to suck out any extra grape juice. We’d repeat this until we were left with lightly purple fingertips and a mound of skins and seeds.

Recently, my boyfriend’s parents showed us around their magnificent garden in Staten Island. They had footlong gourds, fig trees, a wall of tomato plants, and, to my shock, Korean grapes. It turns out these grapes—which account for two-thirds of Korea’s grape production (and are also popular in Japan)—are not Korean at all but American. A hybrid of the iconic Concord grape.

Concord grapes are rarely seen in grocery stores, but even if you’re not familiar with the name, you definitely know the taste—at least if you grew up in the U.S. It’s the source of flavor in grape bubblegum and Kool-Aid, the grape traditionally used to make the jelly in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and the grape of Welch’s grape juice.

And yet, the Concord grape languishes in relative obscurity. Each year in the U.S., about 420,000 tons of the fruit are produced, a sum that accounts for just 7 percent of the 5.9 million tons of all grapes produced in the country annually. The vast majority of those Concord grapes are grown in Washington and New York (primarily by the National Grape Cooperative Association, which owns Welch’s) and are destined not for the table or individual consumer but for juices, candies, and other processed goods. One expert told me that the proportion of Concord grapes grown every year that are eaten as whole, fresh fruit is probably less than 1 percent.

This is surprising, considering that Concord grapes were once a blockbuster fruit whose discovery was met with considerable fanfare. Horticulturist Ephraim Wales Bull spent much of the 1840s experimenting and crossbreeding grape varieties in Concord, Massachusetts. He supposedly planted about 22,000 seedlings before he finally arrived at what he thought was the perfect grape. It was a hardy plant well suited to cold climates, it ripened quickly and early enough in the year to avoid death by frost, and it had a sweet yet full-bodied flavor. Naming the fruit for the town he lived in, Bull debuted his Concord grapes to wide acclaim—they won first prize at the 1853 Boston Horticultural Society Exhibition. At the exhibition, one journalist wrote: “At last, a grape had been developed that would grow in New England—bigger and better than any grown before.” The Concord was announced to be “the grape for the millions.”

After such a lauded debut, the Concord grape spread far and wide. Bull sold cuttings—each for $5, or about $120 today—left and right. Buyers of these cuttings were often other farmers and growers who in turn began selling their own Concord grapes en masse to the public. But then commercial nurseries began propagating and selling grapes to the public without any royalties going to Bull; he died relatively impoverished. The epitaph on his grave reads “He sowed; others reaped.”

Concord grapes got another boost in popularity thanks to an 1869 innovation. A dentist from New Jersey of the Wesleyan Methodist faith wanted a grape juice to use during Communion that would not ferment into alcohol. He adapted Louis Pasteur’s eponymous method, boiling bottles of juice to kill yeast and prevent fermentation. It was the country’s first unfermented fruit juice—a big deal, as it allowed bottles of fruit juice to stay on shelves without fermenting into alcohol—and many of the first orders went to churches also seeking a nonalcoholic Communion wine. The inventor, Thomas Bramwell Welch, called it Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine; the beverage would come to be known simply as Welch’s grape juice.

If you’ve ever tasted Concord grapes, they were likely in the form of juice or another of Welch’s Concord-based inventions: grape jelly. Welch’s Grapelade (a play on marmalade) was a staple among the rations given to American soldiers during World War I, and this jelly later became the J in PB&J.

But even as Welch’s products grew more popular throughout the 20th century, the popularity of Concord grapes as a fresh fruit was likely already waning. Steve Cockram, the general manager of Growers Co-op, a grape supplier, explains that as more railroads and freight routes were established throughout the U.S., people discovered that these grapes just don’t ship very well. That wonderful slipskin that I love—the thing that makes these grapes so fun to eat—means “they basically fall apart in transit,” he tells me. Plus, unlike the red and green table grapes you get at grocery stores today, they can’t be made seedless. And people hate seeds.

Terry Bates is a senior research associate at Cornell and also the director of an agricultural lab that largely focuses on grapes. In his mind, the decline of Concord grapes is attributable largely to the California wine market boom of the 1970s. Though Concords can be (and are) used to make wine, wine connoisseurs wanted California wine to resemble European wine—a shift that meant forgoing native grapes like Concords and prioritizing European ones. And while there are people who love the sweet, bold, and slightly musky taste of Concord wine, Bates says, “it’s almost like they’re ashamed to say it.”

Thus, the order of grapes we know today fell into place: Grocery stores became the domain of the more robust green and red table grapes, European grapes came to dominate the vineyards, and Concords became the stuff of juices and jams.

Unfortunately, Concord juices and jams are also facing an uncertain future. According to Cockram, people aren’t drinking fruit juice like they were 50 or 100 years ago—a trend driven significantly by dietary recommendations that have rendered people wary of consuming simple sugars. And if they are drinking fruit juice, it’s probably orange juice.

After vitamin C was discovered in the early 1900s, a few influential nutritionists began touting the healing nutritional properties of oranges. Sunkist and the California Fruit Growers Exchange ran national advertising campaigns focusing on the fruit’s health benefits. This happened in parallel with an orange boom in Florida—thanks to the introduction of new fertilizers, production rates increased almost fivefold from 1931 to 1950. But the thing that really cemented orange juice’s legacy was World War II. To prevent scurvy in its troops, the military made canned orange juice a staple ration. When soldiers returned home, they brought their taste for orange juice with them.

Thanks to the marketing forever linking oranges with good health, as well as the explosive postwar popularity of orange juice, the beverage eclipsed grape juice in a way that it’s never quite recovered from, says Cockram. And so grape juice receded from the American public consciousness. Even today, bottles, jugs and cartons of orange juice dominate grocery store shelves.

The Concord grape business is a tough one. Growers in 1970 could expect about $250 a ton, or 2,200 pounds of Concord grapes, says Bates—“and today you’re still getting paid $250 a ton.” That price’s stubborn fixedness means that, with inflation, grape growers are effectively getting pay cuts every year.

When it comes to grapes in North America, Concords are native to the region—as Bates puts it, “There’s nothing more sustainable than Concord.” When you take grapes native to the Mediterranean and try to grow them in the Northeastern U.S., you have to constantly spray the vines with chemicals to keep the fungus and insects off. But Concords are naturally well suited to the area—robust in the cold, disease-resistant, and just a good and easy grape to grow. It’s a shame that such a great plant that’s so well adapted to the region isn’t more highly valued.

I’m not quite sure when Concord grapes and their hybrids first came to Korea, though records show that throughout the early-to-mid-20th century, the country imported a number of different American, European, and Japanese grape cultivars. But no one seems to know why they became so popular in East Asia. There, it’s not uncommon to find boxes of them at grocery stores or eat them in desserts. Welch’s has a hold there too—Korea was the first place I ever tried Welch’s grape soda and Welch’s grape ice pops. In fact, Korea and Japan are the biggest consumers of the company’s grape products, after the U.S. and Puerto Rico, a Welch’s representative told me. For whatever reason, the flavor of Concord grapes is prized there, and it boasts a wealth of Concord grape treats you’d be hard-pressed to find stateside.

In my opinion, no jelly or juice has anything on fresh, cold ripe Concord grapes. If you’ve never tasted them but are now dying to, know that Concords have a relatively short harvest season, which typically runs from mid-September to October. If you live near where Concords are grown, you might be able to ask your grocery stores to start stocking them. If that’s not an option, Cockram suggests, you can go online and find a grower who will ship them to you directly.

I spent the fall with bags of these grapes in my fridge, courtesy of my boyfriend’s mom, and it’s been a delight to rediscover them. Selfishly, I want to hoard my wealth and keep every last grape for myself. But I also want to evangelize everyone in the name of the Concord—spread the knowledge and let the people see what they’re missing. The flavor will likely feel familiar, conjuring memories of candy, soda, and childhood, but full-bodied, with a whole new dimension. Trust me—you’ll be hooked.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

How To Survive The Trump Years

1 Share

It’s been nearly 50 days since the soul-crushing election, and many of us are still in a bit of shock and experiencing continued denial. The headlines have been disturbing, to say the least, as they preview what the next four years could be like here in the U.S. and around the world. We are in dire need of some coping mechanisms.

With 2024 drawing to an end, I figured it might be useful to compile some strategies and tips, gleaned from experts and from my conversations with many readers, on ways to survive these next four years, both individually and collectively as a democracy. These are in no particular order, and some of them may or may not resonate with you. I hope you nevertheless find them helpful and even practical.

You feel it sometimes in your gut, and you see it in others’ comments: a sense of doom and despair. “There is nothing we can do.” “They will get away with everything.” “Nothing we can say will ever get through to the other side.” “Face it, it’s the end of our democracy.”

Let me first say that anyone who hasn’t indulged in even a bit of this thinking hasn’t been paying attention. Things are bad, and in fact quite bad. So it’s perfectly natural and human to entertain these thoughts.

But we can’t remain stuck in such thinking. So I want to offer some perspective from a great man who has seen and overcome many great challenges in his life.

I worked for years with the actor and activist George Takei, who spent his childhood in Japanese American internment camps during World War II. He and 125,000 others in his community experienced what a fascist America really looked like: families rounded up and forced from their homes at gunpoint, forced to live for weeks in horse stables then for years behind barbed wire fences, with no charge and no trial, all for the “crime” of looking like the enemy.

It would have been understandable for George to become embittered and to turn his back on this country. Instead he dedicated his life to a cause, working to deliver reparations for his community and to teach the history of the internment so that we would never repeat that terrible chapter of our history.

He taught me a word in Japanese that I still think about a lot to this day: gaman. It means to face challenges with dignity and fortitude. Things have been bad before, and for many racial minorities, far worse than now. But they didn’t give up. They persevered, even in the face of the terrible dysfunction and injustice of our system.

When I feel like throwing up my hands, I remember George Takei, and people like the late John Lewis, and I draw strength from their example. They did not let despair paralyze them or cause them to surrender.

One of the ways fascism succeeds is through fear. And one way fear spreads is through public repetition and normalization. Some of our corporate and media leaders are already setting terrible examples by “obeying in advance” and capitulating to Trump’s threats. We shouldn’t be like them. But beyond that, it’s important to consider what impact our own attitudes have on others.

Author often sees defeatism and capitulation in the comments of readers of his Today’s Edition newsletter. While these reactions are understandable, they are not helpful. Here is what he said about them recently:

And a word of restraint to every reader who is itching to write in the Comment section, “What makes you so sure that Trump will leave office” or “There won’t be any more elections,” I urge you not to give voice to dark fears that are not likely to materialize. If you repeat such warnings in response to every hopeful rallying cry, you unwittingly normalize the notion that Trump can stay past his expiration date. That is exactly what he wants you to do. Don’t help him out. Instead, direct your energy into ensuring that Democrats are as successful as possible in 2026 and 2028.

Others are working hard to find hope and a path forward. They, too, feel frustrated and scared. But the last thing they need is more weight dragging upon their hopes and actions.

I wouldn’t stand by a firefighter battling a blaze and exclaim, “Why bother, it’s all just going to burn down anyway!” Likewise, I wouldn’t want to deflate the hopes of those striving to push back against MAGA Trumpism.

It takes but a moment to pause and realize that a defeatist comment may feel cathartic in the moment, but could negatively affect the mood and the spirits of others fighting hard against creeping authoritarianism.

I often receive texts and DMs from friends and colleagues asking about the events of the day, and I can almost always tell if they’ve been watching CNN or MSNBC. (I don’t personally know anyone who watches Fox, but my friends whose parents do report similar behavior.) They want to know my take on what such-and-such pundit said, and my response lately has been the same: Turn off your TV.

The 24 hour news cycle has one mission: to draw you into its drama. Whether it’s to enrage audiences on the right with stories about the woke left or to outrage audiences on the left with the dangerous antics of the right, there is very little critical thinking going on and a whole lot of reacting. There are still a few good programs on these networks, but nothing is worth keeping it on more or less full time.

I want to share a personal story here. My own mother was a free thinker in her youth. She formed her own opinions and wasn’t afraid to challenge orthodoxy. Sometimes she got things terribly wrong, but she was willing to admit to that. But as she got older, she watched Chinese state-supported media more and more, and she began parroting the talking points of the CCP. It was like watching her become a Fox-addicted viewer, but from the Chinese perspective. She even refused to believe there were camps built by the Chinese government to hold hundreds of thousands of Uyghur prisoners for “re-education.”

So I got her a copy of the New York Times to read (I know, I know, but it was at least a very different take on China). I only learned after her death that this added news source had made an impact. She had cut out and highlighted a long article about the Uyghur camps and left it in a folder in her office with my name on it. She knew I would find that folder, and she had let me know that she believed me now about the camps.

Many of our major papers, from the Washington Post to the LA Times, have billionaire owners who have recently demonstrated that they would rather please, or at least not ruffle the feathers of, the incoming administration than hold themselves up to basic standards of journalistic integrity. A small but collectively significant thing we as consumers can do is to vote with our eyeballs and our dollars.

There are many independent sources of news with terrific reporting still happening. ProPublica was the one to break the stories on the corruption of Justice Clarence Thomas and the purchase of his support by wealthy benefactors, and I support them with an annual subscription. Another great outfit is Popular.info, which regularly exposes corporate malfeasance among other important topics. I have a favorite set of Substack journalists and analysts I support including for news with a historical perspective, for legal news and analysis, Robert Hubbell for a daily news summary, and Talking Points Memo for political analysis.

While these sources admittedly lean left, I also regularly read and support more centrist reporting from The Bulwark.

A very common but I believe mistaken take is that Trump’s daily dose of crazy is there to distract us from what he really wants to get done while we’re not paying attention. But after nine years of following Trump, I believe this is neither a helpful nor correct way to think about him.

Trump has no master plan. He acts impulsively, often based on something he recently saw or someone said to him. For example, it was one of his wealthy New York friends, Ronald S. Lauder, who put the idea of buying Greenland into his head, where it is still rattling around to the dismay of the Western allies. And as I wrote yesterday in The Status Kuo, it may well have been internet troll Laura Loomer who got Trump fixated on Panama and the false idea that the Chinese are somehow angling to control both the canal and the “invasion” of migrants who are passing through the Darién Gap at the border with Colombia.

Often, Trump acts so impulsively that his own advisors are caught off guard, such as when he suddenly invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to the inauguration. That news set off alarms not only across Washington but also within Trump’s own camp. (Xi has declined the invitation, but geez.)

It’s better to view Trump as a kind of pyromaniac who will set many things aflame, with the rest of us there to stomp out fires before they become conflagrations. The good news is that many of his ideas wind up going nowhere, even if we have to spend time creating fire walls or wetting down the roofs. (For example, Denmark is never going to sell us Greenland.)

The bad news is that some of his other ideas are backed by people hell bent on seeing them through, such as the mass deportation of undocumented migrants or the politicization of our civil service under Project 2025. It is those people we need to watch carefully, who will take advantage of the chaos Trump causes daily to accomplish his nefarious goals.

High among these actors stands the unofficial president, Elon Musk. He has already shown that he will goad the GOP and Trump into chaos then take full advantage of the moment, just as he did with the crisis over the continuing resolution and the looming government shutdown, where he wound up killing key provisions that would have hurt his businesses.

In short, while Nero fiddles and Rome burns, watch who is entering and exiting the treasury.

There’s been a lot of attention paid to historian Timothy Snyder’s first rule in fighting fascism, which is not to obey in advance. But there’s not enough attention on his second rule.

In his book On Tyranny, Snyder writes,

Defend institutions. It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union—and take its side.

The great thing about this rule is that all of us can do something meaningful to help. Speak up for our court system and the rule of law, even when (or perhaps especially after) they fall short of expectations. The goal is to improve them as institutions, not to cast them aside. Support your local newspaper with a subscription. Rally at your state capital in support of laws protecting abortion rights. Support striking workers by avoiding companies that are anti-union.

These acts seem small, but collectively they matter a great deal, and our institutions cannot succeed without support from the public.

In our social media driven politics, it’s often the loudest and most obnoxious voices that the algorithms amplify. They find and uplift these voices based upon the reactions of others. Just as we must turn off the network television, we need to recognize online trolling and not give it added oxygen.

What does this look like in practical terms? When a troll (or Russian or AI bot) leaves a comment meant to provoke a reaction from you, ignore it. Or report it. Do not engage; do not respond. Tag an administrator if you’re so inclined. Your experience online will be greatly improved if you practice this non-engagement.

On a related note, when a person seems genuinely upset and is lashing out or even making inappropriate or hyperbolic statements, resist the urge to shame them, temping as that might be. I personally employ a technique I learned from a parenting podcast (yes, a parenting podcast) called “Most General Interpretation.” I ask myself, “What is the best way I can look at what this person has just said?”

Sure, they may have gotten the facts totally wrong. They may have called me a name or questioned my knowledge or motives in an unfriendly or hostile way. But perhaps they are upset or tired or just had a bad day. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but it does allow me to respond more compassionately and without judgment.

Beginning with, “I hear you, and I get it” or “I’ve felt that way sometimes, too” is a great starting place before you make whatever point you were considering in response. It’s amazing how often people who seem like trolls are actually just having very human emotions in the moment and need a compassionate listener.

Okay, enough kumbaya for now.

Most of us have jobs, responsibilities, families and busy lives outside of politics. Still, we read the news, we stay informed, we vote regularly, we donate to candidates, and sometimes we still lose elections and the consequences are very bad. When that happens, as we just experienced, is there anything ordinary citizens should be doing more of to remain helpful in the fight to save our democracy?

Sometimes the best thing an ordinary citizen can do is support those who are the political equivalent of first responders. These are the activists, lawyers, community organizers and local candidates who form a protective shield and provide a safety net for the most vulnerable.

It’s really important to identify which communities are likely to be most impacted by draconian policies put forth by the incoming administration. These include immigrants, trans people, and women needing access to abortion care. Donating to immigrant rights groups, LGBTQ+ rights organizations (I serve on the board of the Human Rights Campaign and fundraise for it regularly), and women’s reproductive rights organizations will deliver the most impact by directly supporting the folks in the trenches who are fighting the far-right agenda and have real expertise in the matter.

Not everyone has the time to volunteer. But many of us have a few bucks to spare each month. Make your contributions recurring and part of your monthly budget so that these organizations don’t have to spend time coming back to you for more. And when your own personal financial situation improves, up your monthly contributions.

A powerful antidote to the challenges of our times lies in the strength not just of our institutions but of the communities that work to uphold them. And the internet has made it easier than ever to join civic minded groups and participate in democracy, whether in person or online.

The power of community is particularly important when disaster strikes. Writer Rebecca Solnit has been a strong voice and compelling advocate of turning to community to overcome great loss and tragedy. She studied the aftermath of tragedies like September 11th and Hurricane Katrina, which led to her book A Paradise Built in Hell. Solnit found that people often respond to collective trauma with solidarity, courage, and a commitment to create change for the better—a kind of broader take on what Fred Rogers once advised in the face of disaster: “look for the helpers.”

We should understand that the 2024 election was a disaster, too, though a slow moving one that will take time to play out. The fear and uncertainty that naturally arises from it can be compounded by a sense of isolation and detachment from others.

On the other hand, a solid sense that we are facing this threat together, community beside committed community, leads to a secure and even profound belief that they cannot overcome us all because we are in fact half the electorate, united in our resolve to defend our democracy and republic.

It’s easy to imagine a terrible outcome. After all, most of us see the dangers and are watching many of our fellow citizens slow march themselves straight toward a political cliff.

But just as we can imagine a really bad outcome, we can also imagine a far better one, where for example Democrats retake the House and maybe even the Senate in 2026, where criminals like Steve Bannon are sent to state prison for money laundering and fraud, and where the worst of Trump’s appointments are either rejected or stymied by their own incompetence and institutional resistance by the departments they hoped to disrupt.

But the experts say that it is not enough to simply imagine a better outcome. To help relieve anxiety and combat despair or paralysis, it’s critical to picture that better outcome and then take one small, positive step toward it.

Maybe it’s donating to a cause, or calling your senator (Senate hotline: (202) 224-3121) or showing up at a local school board meeting to resist censorship in schools.

In taking that small step toward an envisioned outcome, you become an active participant in helping to bring it about. It can unstick you from that feeling of helplessness or resignation that just thinking about a terrible outcome can often produce. In this way, we can all consider not just what we are going to say and think about our future, but what we are actually going to do about it.

The above is by no means an exhaustive list. It’s more like a baseline or starting point for engaged resistance. At the very least, I hope this framework opens you up to what’s possible and to the important idea that none of us is wholly powerless in the face of a second Trump term and rising MAGA fascism.

Indeed, and somewhat paradoxically, the worse things grow and the crazier things get, the more opportunities and incentives there will be for active, organized resistance. We can use Trump’s own hubris and sense of invulnerability to rally our side and strike a powerful counterblow in 2026. In fact, the first test of this is just weeks away where two special elections will determine the balance of power in both chambers of the Virginia legislature. (To help out, see Ben Wikler’s thread on Bluesky here.)

Look to our team here at The Big Picture, too, where we’ll continue to bring our perspective, ideas and resources to the fight ahead. Together, we can and will survive the next few years, in solidarity with all who want to see restored the values of American democracy and adherence to the rule of law.

Thanks for reading The Big Picture! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories