Great work, as always. This administration highlighted alleged Biden family corruption and then took power and exponentially increased the self-dealing and corruption. The voices decrying Hunter Biden's influence peddling have gone conspicuously silent.

Introducing Fela Kuti: Fear No Man

This is nicely done but I think it spends more time on the cultural and political significance of his music and not enough time on the actual music (though plenty of snippets are played). How do you do this story and not even mention the drummer Tony Allen?! open.spotify.com/episode/416u...

Also by Douthat: How the cultural authoritarianism of the left ensured the rise of Nick Fuentes.

She comes very close to stating that it is better when federal agencies are under complete control by the President, which is a recipe for really bad government.

Family Affair: Commerce Secretary’s Sons Cash In on A.I. Frenzy

The people upset about Hunter Biden's corruption are going to be upset about this....or not. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/u...

It's very aggravating to think you are probably right.

I am no fan of Garland, but he is not the worst AG in modern history. That would be Bondi, who enthusiastically allowed the Justice Department to be used as a partisan weapon. In contrast, Garland was too cautious and too bound by norms.

Most of the "Dems should keep fighting" takes ignore what the outcome of that would likely be. It wouldn't be compromise or support for the ACA, as you note. It would be the end of the filibuster (a good thing, as you note) OR a prolonged government shutdown, which many on the right welcome.

Genuinely curious as to how many of the voices calling for Dems to keep filibustering are among those who have missed paychecks, who are working without pay, or who are directly suffering because of the closure. If that is you I am genuinely impressed by your principled and self-sacrificing stand.

I really don't understand what the Times thinks its weasel wording will do for them. The language and the articles aren't going to please Trump (they strongly suggest a problem without stating it), and they just piss off readers who can see and state facts more clearly than the Times can.

If the courts let Trump leverage Medicare and Medicaid in this coercive way, I'd like to imagine a different president going in the opposite direction and punishing any provider who doesn't provide such care. I don't understand why Dems aren't threatening these kinds of things at every turn.

How Trump Played ‘Budgetary Twister’ to Pay Some Workers During the Shutdown

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/u...

The framing here is aggravating. It makes it sound like the administration has found a new innovation or new approach to the challenges of governing But the piece can't bring itself to state the obvious: the administration is breaking impoundment and antideficiency laws.

I couldn't bring myself to read or listen to Douthat's conversation with ACB. Did he even mention the Court's obvious inconsistency in its procedures or tacit overturning of precedent while helping Trump via the emergency docket?

He does, and I don't understand why the Dems aren't vocally threatening to do king-like things with federal money when they (eventually?) regain power.

Questions reporters should ask administration officials: are people allowed to protest ICE and the administration and if so, what are appropriate ways to do it?

I also think Dems should be vocally threatening to do all of these things.

There is no budget "deal" to be made President Trump has so broken the constitutional framework as to make joint normal, responsible government impossible.

I question the Democrats' ability to effectively convey this basic fact to a large swath of Americans: the administration is simply ignoring appropriations law, passed by both Republicans and Democrats. www.doomsdayscenario.co/p/there-is-n...

Love the podcast, but not the lawlessness. Only the most motivated reasoners can argue that the Court isn't trying to help Trump, as you show nicely explains.

I agree with the piece. I am not sure how clearly the Dems have explained to the public that it doesn't make sense to agree to a budget deal if the administration is just going to refuse to spend the money or slow walk the spending and then have the GOP pass a recission package.

Trump defends use of the U.S. military against the 'enemy within' Earlier, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the purpose of the department would exclusively be "war fighting."

Reactionary centrist take: this is merely the inevitable response to the demand for ideological conformity and war against dissent the Left has imposed on college campuses and in public health discourse. www.npr.org/2025/09/30/n...

I think a challenge the left faces is accurately determining which voices are reactionaries directly or indirectly abetting fascism vs. public voices we think are wrong on various issues without categorically rejecting everything they say as belonging to the former.

Good piece!

I really liked it.

And those tactics should include reminding the GOP that at some point there will be a Democratic president who runs a justice department and the regulatory agencies and last time we checked, the Supreme Court invented immunity only for the president, not for anyone else.

That was my reaction, too. I do think that reactionary centrist left punching is real, but I don't think a fair reading would put Klein in that camp, as much as I disagreed with his Kirk take and some of the arguments in Abundance.

Something tells me that if the Biden administration had used state power or the threat of state power to compel or prohibit speech in the ways Trump has, Stephens would be making a lot more noise about the differences between state illiberalism and illiberalism among individuals on the internet.

Opinion | America Darkens

Bret Stephens offers a perfunctory condemnation of Trump, but his heart isn't in it. He really wants to remind everyone that there are screechy leftist scolds and that illiberalism is bipartisan. But Bret, one side is using state power in ways the left never has.

I read the story as describing the possibility that these pet projects will help ensure rich and terrible people will be around even longer (in general their life expectancy is above average) to do terrible things.

Among other issues, the editorial completely ignores the chaotic and lawless means through which Trump has pursued his goals.