Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A step back from the edge of the cliff

Opinion

Donald Trump announces third campaign for president

Donald Trump announced another run for president Tuesday night, even though he was one of the biggest losers in the midterms, writes Goldstone.

Alon Skuy/AFP via Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.

To call the results of the midterm elections shocking would not be an overstatement. Confounding conventional wisdom and many pollsters (yet again), Democrats dodged the dreaded “red wave” that would have given Republicans, especially in the House, license to initiate any variety of attacks on President Biden and his family, up to and including multiple impeachments as payback for what they insist were unfair and uncalled for attacks on Donald Trump, up to and including multiple impeachments.

At the very least, if Republicans did win control of the House, and perhaps the Senate, they could thwart Democratic policy initiatives and then blame them for inaction in 2024. And while they did win the House, with conservatives still promising attacks on Biden, the nation has told them that their appetite for such shenanigans is extremely limited

But the real winners were not Democratic senators, Kevin McCarthy, or even President Biden, but rather moderation and democracy, both at the expense of the day’s biggest loser, Donald Trump. In the weeks and months before the midterms, the United States faced what seemed the very real prospect of an election marred by widespread claims of fraud, voter and poll worker intimidation, and even the possibility of armed intervention by far-right groups claiming it to be taking patriotic action.


In addition, many of those projected to win in key races denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election and promised that, once in office, they would ensure that no Democrat would ever be elected in the jurisdictions over which they would preside. Trump had either explicitly or implicitly encouraged each of these ploys, all in pursuit of a return to the White House, from whence he would wield dictatorial power and remain in office until he decided to pass the torch to a chosen successor, likely his son. Even more frightening was that virtually no Republican beyond the soon to be out of office Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger dared voice opposition.

As Election Day approached, those prospects began to look more and more ominous. Many of the stunningly unqualified candidates Trump had forced on the party — Mehmet Oz, Herschel Walker and Tudor Dixon, among others — either led in the polls or were within striking distance of victory. Biden was viewed unfavorably by more than half of the electorate, blamed for a post-pandemic economy that was saddled with high inflation, a good bit of it generated by oil companies raking in huge profits, and, because of his struggles with a stammer, once more accused of senility by right-wing pundits, many of whom should have known better.

For most Democrats and some Republicans, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2022, was certain to be a cataclysm. Trump was so confident that he planned to announce another presidential run on election eve, only at the last minute acceding to his advisors’ entreaties to wait until the election was over. Then, America’s would-be Vladimir Putin would triumphantly begin the process by which he would be swept into office.

But American voters did not cooperate.

Given the opportunity to play into a narrative that could easily have been the first step to the dismantling of American democracy, millions refused. To be sure, millions more did not, but far less than Donald Trump had both predicted and counted on. But many of those Trump millions were in deep red states where most voters would have voted for Osama Bin Laden before pulling the lever for a Democrat. In almost every key race considered “competitive” by most media outlets, extreme right candidates either underperformed expectations or outright lost. Even Oz, running against a Democrat whose stroke had left him often unable to speak cogently in their one debate, lost a Senate seat previously held by a conservative Republican. And Herschel Walker got fewer votes than Raphael Warnock in a state where Gov. Brian Kemp trounced Stacey Abrams. The list of Trump disasters, not the least of which was Ron DeSantis’ huge win in Trump’s adopted Florida, went on and on.

But that by no means implies the Republican Party has fully rejected Trumpism and returned to the democratic ideal. Although Mike Lawler, a newly elected Republican congressman from New York, has called for his party to move on from Trump, tens of millions of MAGA Republicans are sure to brand him as an apostate and vow to oust him in the 2024 primary. Another New Yorker, Rep. Elise Stefanik, endorsed Trump for president before Trump announced he would run.

Control of the Republican Party, therefore, is still very much in doubt, and with it, the survival of the American system of government. The framers of the Constitution, most notably pluralists such as James Madison, neither anticipated nor planned for the rise of such powerful political parties and that they would coalesce into our current two-party system. Instead, they envisioned many, smaller groups of advocates for particular issues and with more narrow points of view arguing for favored initiatives, thus necessitating compromise among shifting coalitions. Such a scenario would have mitigated the minority rule they built into the system, while avoiding what has been termed “tyranny of the majority.”

But that lack of foresight left each of the parties, and thus contemporary America, vulnerable to anti-democratic forces eager to exploit the resulting opportunities. In the first half of the 20th century, for example, the outsized influence of Southern Democrats, operating in what was effectively a one-party system, perpetuated Jim Crow, slavery’s illegitimate offspring. Currently, it is the Republicans who are doing their best to turn a two-party system into a one-party system. Donald Trump merely showed them how to do it more brazenly.

And so, American democracy is still in no way secure. But the pathway to making it secure just may have been revealed. What the 2022 midterms made clear is that issues and candidates, not just ideology, actually do matter to what one hopes is a majority of American voters. If the leaders of both parties can absorb that lesson – which, sadly, is far from a certainty – Madison’s vision of a government that puts a premium on thought, honest debate and policy just might be reclaimed.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less