Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

A classic Twilight Zone episode predicted how democracy dies—not through hidden conspiracies but through willing participation.

Opinion

an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.


But back at the UN, translators keep working on the aliens' mysterious book. The meaning comes only in fragments. Meanwhile, protagonist Michael Chambers grows comfortable with the idea of boarding one of the ships. If hunger is solved and peace secured, why not see what else the Kanamits have to offer?

The suspense builds as he walks up the ramp. Just then, his colleague runs forward in panic. She has cracked more of the book's text. Her voice is urgent as guards push Chambers aboard: "Don't go! The book—To Serve Man—it's a cookbook!"

The final image shows Chambers trapped in a cell, speaking directly to the audience from aboard the alien vessel. He tells us that sooner or later, we'll all be on the menu.

The Hidden vs. The Visible

Serling, a World War II paratrooper, used science fiction because network censors blocked his scripts about lynching and war. As he said, "I found that it was all right to have Martians say things Democrats and Republicans could never say." The Kanamits needed everyone to believe their lie about benevolent service.

Today's authoritarianism works differently. It operates multiple cookbooks simultaneously: sanitized bureaucratic language for institutions, protective messaging for supporters, and open intimidation for opponents. The Kanamits needed universal deception. This administration has discovered something more efficient—and more chilling: you don't need to fool everyone when you can convince enough people they're the chefs, not the meal.

When Government Pressure Works

Consider what happened to Jimmy Kimmel. After he mocked the political response to Charlie Kirk's assassination, FCC Chair Brendan Carr didn't work behind closed doors. He went on podcasts and threatened Disney's broadcast licenses publicly. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr declared. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Within hours, major station owners Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would no longer air Kimmel's show. Disney, facing the loss of crucial broadcast licenses worth billions, caved immediately. The show went dark that same night. PEN America called it "government-instigated censorship." Even Republican senators like Rand Paul condemned it as "absolutely inappropriate." But it worked—the threat was public, immediate, and devastatingly effective.

Troops in the Streets

The administration declared a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., deploying 800 National Guard troops to patrol the capital's streets like an occupying force. The move came after a single incident involving a government worker, but the response was overwhelming: armed soldiers in fatigues manning checkpoints, conducting searches, and establishing what the administration called "protective perimeters."

In Los Angeles, the deployment was even more dramatic: 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines swept into neighborhoods during immigration raids. Residents watched through windows as military vehicles rolled down residential streets and troops in body armor set up operations. The administration framed it as protecting federal agents, but a federal judge saw through the euphemisms.

The judge's ruling was scathing: the administration had "systematically used armed soldiers" whose "identity was often obscured by protective armor" to "demonstrate a military presence" and conduct law enforcement activities. This violated the 19th-century Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly bars the military from policing American citizens. The judge wrote that such conduct amounted to "creating a national police force with the President as its chief."

Just this week, a new executive order took the normalization further. Federal agencies must now "question and interrogate" individuals engaged in political violence regarding the entity or individual organizing such actions before any plea agreements. The order describes this as part of a "comprehensive strategy to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle" domestic terrorism networks.

But strip away the sanitized language, and this is expanded interrogation authority—the power to extract information about political associations before defendants can even consider plea deals. It's presented as "Countering Domestic Terrorism," another cookbook that frames broad investigative powers as protective service for the American people.

The Democratic Test

In Serling's episode, the turning point comes when the translator finally reads beyond the title. Until then, "To Serve Man" was enough to calm suspicion. Only a full translation revealed the cookbook's true purpose.

Democracy depends on such translators—journalists who track how laws work in practice, watchdog groups that expose how "reforms" harm people, and courts that check whether emergency powers match legal boundaries. Without them, promises of service go untested.

The Kanamits needed to hide their cookbook because they required universal compliance. Modern authoritarianism operates in plain sight because it needs only selective permission. Some resist, some look away, and some board willingly, convinced they'll be dining, not being served.

Leaders will always promise they've come to serve. Our job is to translate what that really means—before we board the ship.

Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and the author of The Stability Brief, with over 40 years of experience in civic leadership.

Read More

U.S. Capitol.

As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns

The way that Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns. Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.

Arbitration could offer us a way out of this mess. In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate. This process would allow the Senate to make appropriations decisions by a majority vote while still protecting the minority’s interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
People sitting behind a giant American flag.

Over five decades, policy and corporate power hollowed out labor, captured democracy, and widened inequality—leaving America’s middle class in decline.

Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images

Our America: A Tragedy in Five Acts

America likes to tell itself stories about freedom, democracy, and shared prosperity. But beneath those stories, a quiet tragedy has unfolded over the last fifty years — enacted not with swords or bombs, but with legislation, court rulings, and corporate strategy. It is a tragedy of labor hollowed out, the middle class squeezed, and democracy captured, and it can be read through five acts, each shaped by a destructive force that charts the shredding of our shared social contract.

In the first act, productivity and pay part ways.

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd protesting.
A crowd gathered for a “No Kings” protest on October 18, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska.
Hasan Akbas/Anadolu via Getty Images

An Open Letter to Speaker Johnson: Real Patriots Don’t Fear Democracy

Dear Speaker Johnson,

Well, the so-called “Hate America Rally” came and went, and it turns out the only hate anyone could find was the kind directed at it—mostly from you and the Trump regime. You might’ve been disappointed, Mike. No violence. No mass arrests. No Marxist uprising. No hordes of rabid anarchists plotting the downfall of Western civilization. Just ordinary Americans in the streets, marching and singing, reminding their government that we still don’t crown politicians in this country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest ​Demonstrators holding up signs.

Demonstrators listen to speeches with other protesters during the "No Kings" protest on Oct. 18, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images/TNS

In Every Banana Republic You Need Enablers

In any so-called banana republic you need enablers. President Donald Trump has Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito leading the charge. Johnson is pulling Congress along with the justices who are the most ferocious defenders of Trump on the Supreme Court. It just takes a handful of enablers to allow a king to assume his crown – or to have a banana republic. And these guys are exceptionally good at what they do.

And as jaywalking is only a crime if enforced, Trump is allowed to continue on doing whatever he wants without guardrails or fear of getting a ticket – just like most Americans feel about jaywalking: It’s against the law, but who really cares?

Keep ReadingShow less