democracy

Redefining Nostalgia: The America We Need!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

CARRY FORWARD THE BEST PARTS OF AMERICA!

There are Americans that want to retreat to the past because the past can feel safer, simpler, and more understandable than the present—even when the version of the past they remember never actually existed quite the way they imagine. Nostalgia can deceive us.

Several forces are at work:

  1. Nostalgia for a perceived golden age.
    People often remember the good parts of earlier decades while forgetting the problems. “America was better then!” can mean a desire for economic security, stronger communities, stable institutions, or a clearer sense of national identity—not necessarily a literal desire to recreate every aspect of the past.
  2. Fear of rapid social change.
    Technology, demographic change, immigration, changing gender roles, racial equality, and shifting cultural norms can make people feel that the country they knew is disappearing. When change happens faster than people can adapt, looking backward becomes psychologically attractive.
  3. Economic insecurity.
    For some Americans, nostalgia isn’t primarily cultural. It is economic. They remember a time when one income could support a family, manufacturing jobs were more plentiful in some communities, housing was cheaper, and college seemed attainable without enormous debt. The longing for the past can really be a longing for economic security.
  4. Loss of community.
    Churches, unions, civic organizations, neighborhood associations, local businesses, and other institutions once provided many people with a stronger sense of belonging. Their decline has left a vacuum. People sometimes respond by idealizing the era when those institutions seemed stronger.
  5. Political entrepreneurs exploit nostalgia.
    “Take America back” is an enormously powerful political message because it doesn’t require defining exactly what is being restored. It allows different people to project their own lost America onto the slogan. Politicians can then turn nostalgia into anger: Someone took your country away from you, and I will give it back.
  6. The past provides certainty.
    The future is frightening because it is unknowable. The past, by contrast, is familiar. During periods of political polarization, technological disruption, war, demographic change, or economic uncertainty, people can become more attracted to movements promising restoration rather than adaptation.
  7. Selective memory matters.
    This is perhaps the most important point. Every generation can construct a romantic version of its past. But the United States has always been conflicted and imperfect. The same periods remembered nostalgically by some Americans also contained segregation, discrimination, political violence, economic inequality, limited opportunities for women, and exclusion of entire groups from full participation in American life.

Also there is also a deeper question underneath all of this:

Do people actually want to return to the past—or do they want the benefits they associate with the past?

This is an important distinction.

Someone who says, “I want America to be like it was when I was young,” may really be saying:

I want to feel secure again. I want my community to feel connected again. I want to believe that hard work will lead somewhere. I want to understand where my country is going.

These are legitimate desires.

But the danger comes when nostalgia becomes political restorationism—the belief that America can solve contemporary problems by turning the clock backward and restoring an imagined social order. A democratic society cannot actually go backward. The world changes, technology changes, demographics change, and institutions evolve. (Reuters.org)

The better question is: What was genuinely worth preserving from the past, and how can we bring those strengths into the future without bringing back the injustices that accompanied them?

That distinction is particularly important in today’s political climate. A movement built around “Make America great again” can appeal to genuine anxieties about economic and cultural change. But nostalgia can also become a weapon when politicians define the “real America” as belonging primarily to a particular race, religion, class, or cultural tradition. Christian Nationalism is a threat to you and me.

America’s challenge isn’t to choose between the past and the future.

It is to remember the past honestly enough to learn from it—and then build something better. (The Guardian)

We can do it. The mistake is assuming that if something from the past was valuable, we must also accept the injustices that existed alongside it. America can recover certain social and economic strengths without resurrecting the inequalities of the era that produced them.

1. Stronger communities without social exclusion.

Earlier America often had tighter-knit neighborhoods, civic organizations, volunteer groups, churches, fraternal organizations, and local clubs.

Bring back: community involvement, volunteering, neighborhood organizations, and civic responsibility.

Leave behind: segregation, exclusion, and the idea that some people don’t belong in the community.

2. Economic security without discrimination.

Many Americans remember a period when a person with a high-school education could find a stable job, buy a house, support a family, and retire with some security.

Bring back: good-paying jobs, apprenticeships, unions, pensions, affordable housing, and a realistic path into the middle class.

Leave behind: racial and gender discrimination that kept many Americans from those opportunities.

The goal shouldn’t be to recreate the 1950s economy. It should be to recreate the economic security people associate with it—this time available to everyone.

3. Manufacturing without isolationism.

American manufacturing once provided millions of relatively stable jobs and helped build communities.

Bring back: investment in American manufacturing, infrastructure, skilled trades, research, and domestic supply chains.

Leave behind: the assumption that America must isolate itself from the world to protect American workers.

A modern manufacturing renaissance can coexist with international trade.

4. Civic pride without nationalism.

There was once a stronger emphasis on citizenship, public service, and pride in contributing to the country.

Bring back: national service, community service, respect for public institutions, and a sense that citizenship carries responsibilities as well as rights.

Leave behind: the idea that criticizing America is unpatriotic—or that some Americans are more authentically American than others.

Patriotism should mean wanting your country to live up to its ideals, not pretending it has always done so.

5. Respect for institutions without blind obedience.

Previous generations often placed greater faith in institutions such as schools, courts, libraries, local government, and public agencies.

Bring back: respect for expertise, competence, public service, and the rule of law.

Leave behind: unquestioning obedience to authority.

Institutions deserve respect when they earn it, and democratic citizens must retain the right to challenge them.

6. A stronger work ethic without glorifying exploitation.

There is something valuable in the older emphasis on responsibility, craftsmanship, perseverance, and taking pride in one’s work.

Bring back: dignity of work and personal responsibility.

Leave behind: the notion that working hard automatically guarantees success or that people who struggle simply aren’t working hard enough.

A society can value individual responsibility while recognizing that wages, housing, education, healthcare, and economic opportunity also matter.

7. Better civic education.

Americans once had a stronger expectation that citizens should understand their government.

Bring back: serious civics education—Constitutional principles, history, media literacy, how Congress works, how courts work, and how citizens can participate.

Leave behind: sanitized history and the notion that America needs to be”dumbed” down.

Students should learn both America’s achievements and its failures. Understanding slavery, segregation, women’s exclusion from political life, Native American dispossession, and other injustices doesn’t weaken patriotism. It makes citizenship more informed.

8. Family stability without prescribing one family model.

There was value in emphasizing stable families and responsibility toward children.

Bring back: policies that make family life economically sustainable—paid leave, affordable childcare, decent wages, housing, and time with children.

Leave behind: the assumption that there is only one legitimate family structure or that government should dictate people’s private lives.

9. Public investment without abandoning individual responsibility

America once undertook enormous public projects: highways, schools, scientific research, public utilities, infrastructure, and institutions of higher education.

Bring back: the willingness to make long-term investments in the country’s future.

Leave behind: the idea that government must solve everything.

The strongest version is neither unlimited government nor government paralysis. It is a capable government working alongside capable citizens and businesses.

10. A belief in the future

Perhaps the greatest strength worth recovering is optimism.

Previous generations often believed America could build something better: landing people on the Moon, defeating fascism, constructing an interstate highway system, expanding educational opportunity, and creating new technologies.

Today, nostalgia sometimes tells Americans:

“The best days are behind us.”

America needs the opposite message:

“The best parts of our past are raw material for building something better.”

That means preserving community without segregation, patriotism without nationalism, economic security without exclusion, tradition without oppression, and individual responsibility without abandoning people who need help.

The real choice isn’t “old America versus new America.”

It is “Which parts of America’s past deserve to be carried forward—and which parts should finally stay in the past?”

And that distinction could make for a particularly powerful argument about why “Make America Great Again” is an incomplete political vision: America doesn’t need to go backward to recover what was good about itself.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

When Power STOPS Recognizing Its Limits.

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Is Out of Control!

There is a dangerous phrase creeping into American political life: “The president can do it because he is the president.” But this idea ignores the important concept of Limits to Presidential Power in our system of government. That is how the American republic was designed to work.

The Trump administration increasingly behaves as though the presidency is not one branch of government but the government itself—with Congress expected to comply, courts expected to get out of the way, federal agencies expected to obey personal commands, and constitutional limitations treated as inconveniences rather than boundaries.

This is bigger than Donald Trump. It is about whether America still believes in constitutional government.

And right now, the warning lights are flashing. Limits to Presidential Power seem to be eroding.

Consider the White House ballroom. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow construction of a roughly $400 million ballroom to continue after a federal appeals court ruled that Trump lacked the unilateral authority to undertake the project without congressional approval. The court’s decision was not about whether the ballroom is attractive, useful or even necessary. It was about something much more fundamental: Who has the constitutional authority to control federal property and authorize major expenditures? (Reuters)

The answer is supposed to be Congress. But that answer increasingly seems unacceptable to this administration. (see Threats to Constitutional Balance, wwwtmichaelsmith.com).

The same pattern appears in voting. Trump issued an executive order attempting to impose sweeping new federal restrictions on mail voting and direct the Postal Service to participate in a national voter-verification system. A federal judge has now blocked key portions of that order, finding that the administration exceeded presidential authority and that the order threatened to interfere with the conduct of elections. (AP News)

Think about the constitutional implications.

The president does not get to rewrite the rules of American elections simply because Congress failed to give him what he wanted.

That is precisely why the Framers divided governmental power. They did not assume presidents would always be honorable, Congress always courageous or judges always perfect. They assumed human beings would seek power.

So, they built a system designed to make concentrated power difficult. Trump’s presidency is testing whether that system still works.

The Executive Branch Is Not the Imperial Branch.

The Constitution begins with Congress for a reason.

Article I gives Congress the legislative power—the authority to make laws, appropriate money and establish the rules under which the federal government operates.

Article II creates the presidency. That distinction matters. A president executes laws. He does not become the legislature simply because Congress is inconvenient. Nor does he acquire unlimited spending authority because he claims an emergency, acquire control over elections because he dislikes the way states administer them, or acquire the power to rewrite constitutional guarantees through executive order.

And he does not acquire the authority to ignore a court simply because he disagrees with its ruling. Yet again and again, this administration seems determined to test exactly where those boundaries lie.

Birthright citizenship provides another extraordinary example.

The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort to broadly eliminate birthright citizenship, reaffirming the constitutional protection associated with the 14th Amendment. Yet on August 6, Trump issued new executive orders seeking to narrow birthright citizenship through a different approach. The administration insists it is complying with the Court’s ruling; challengers argue that it is attempting to accomplish indirectly what the Court has already rejected directly. (American Immigration Council)

Whatever the ultimate legal outcome, the larger question should disturb every American:

What happens when a president treats a constitutional defeat as merely an invitation to try again with a different executive order?

That is not how constitutional government is supposed to function.

The Courts Are Becoming the Emergency Brake!

The courts have repeatedly been forced into the role of an emergency brake on executive power. That should concern conservatives as much as liberals.

Today the president may be Donald Trump. Tomorrow it could be someone whose policies conservatives despise. The constitutional principle must therefore be larger than the president. If conservatives believe presidential power is unlimited when their president is in office, they are not defending constitutional government. They are defending temporary political power. And temporary political power has a way of changing hands.

The Constitution is supposed to survive those changes.

That is why judicial independence matters. And congressional oversight matters and the separation of powers matters. The Framers rejected the very thing Trump increasingly seems to be constructing: an executive branch centered around the will of one man.

Congress Has a Responsibility Too!!

But there is another uncomfortable truth.

A president cannot accumulate this much power without Congress helping him do it—or failing to stop him. Congress was designed to be a coequal branch.

Instead, too many members of Congress have become spectators and cowards. The Constitution gives Congress enormous tools: legislation, appropriations, investigations, subpoenas, confirmations and impeachment.

Those powers mean little if legislators refuse to use them.

The Framers did not create Congress to issue press releases after the executive branch has acted. They created Congress to check the executive branch before power becomes entrenched.

If Congress surrenders its constitutional responsibilities, the president will naturally fill the vacuum. Power abhors a vacuum. Trump understands that.

This Is Bigger Than Trump!

The temptation is to dismiss all of this as another chapter in the endless Donald Trump drama.

That would be a mistake.

Trump will eventually leave office. The precedents he establishes may not. That is the danger.

Every time a president successfully stretches executive authority, the next president inherits that expanded power. All emergency power claimed today can become a tool for tomorrow’s president. And congressional authority surrendered becomes harder to reclaim.

The question is therefore not:

“Do I like Trump’s policies?”

The question is:

“Do I want any president to have this much power?”

Hopefully, the answer is no. Then this is the time that Americans must defend constitutional limits even when the president is pursuing policies they support.

That is what constitutionalism means.

The Republic Depends on Limits.

America was not founded on the principle that the strongest leader should win. It was founded on the opposite principle:

No leader is supposed to be strong enough to rule without limits.

The Framers had lived under a king. They knew what concentrated power looked like. They deliberately created a government in which ambition would collide with ambition, branch would collide with branch, and authority would be divided so that no individual could easily dominate the republic.

That system is being tested.

The Trump administration’s aggressive claims of executive authority, its repeated confrontations with the courts, its attempts to reshape election administration through executive action, its continuing battle over birthright citizenship and its fight to proceed with a major White House construction project without congressional authorization are not isolated controversies.

They are pieces of a larger question:

Does America still have a government of laws, or are we becoming a government of presidential will?

That is the line we cannot afford to cross. Because once Americans accept the idea that a president can do whatever he wants until somebody finally stops him, the Constitution has already been weakened.

The republic does not require a perfect president.

It requires something more important:

A president who understands that the office belongs to the Constitution—not the other way around.

And if the president refuses to recognize that distinction, then Congress, the courts, the states, the press and ultimately the American people must.

The Framers gave us the tools.

The question now is whether we have the courage to use them.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The Threat to Constitutional Balance: Madison’s Warning

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 47 (wikipedia)

James Madison did not write those words for another country or another century. He wrote them for us.

The Framers of the Constitution were not idealists who believed good leaders would always make good decisions. They were skeptics of power. They had seen what happened when executives escaped meaningful restraints. They understood that liberty is rarely destroyed by a single dramatic event. More often, it is chipped away—one exception, one emergency, one assertion of power at a time.

That is why they built a constitutional system designed to frustrate ambition.

Today, that design is under assault.

Donald Trump has repeatedly argued, through both words and actions, that the presidency should operate with fewer constitutional restraints than the Framers intended. His administration has challenged congressional authority over federal spending, resisted oversight, tested the limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement, and frequently portrayed judicial decisions as political obstacles rather than binding constitutional judgments. Taken together, however, these controversies reveal something larger: a governing philosophy that elevates executive will over Constitutional balance.

The danger is not merely Donald Trump.

The danger is that Americans become accustomed to presidents acting as though constitutional limits are optional.

Madison anticipated exactly this temptation.

In Federalist No. 51, he explained why liberty requires conflict within government itself:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The Constitution was never designed to produce efficiency. It was designed to prevent domination. Congress would resist presidents. Presidents would resist Congress. Courts would restrain both. The resulting friction was not a flaw—it was the very mechanism by which freedom survives.

But friction disappears when one branch refuses to recognize the authority of another.

Congress alone possesses the constitutional power to appropriate federal funds. Article I leaves little doubt that spending decisions belong to the legislative branch. When any administration attempts to redirect, delay, or effectively rewrite congressional spending priorities through executive action, it is not merely engaging in an institutional dispute. It is testing one of the Constitution’s most fundamental separations of power.

Congressional oversight has likewise become an inconvenience to be resisted rather than a constitutional duty to be respected. Oversight is not partisan theater. It exists because the Framers knew that executive officials, left unchecked, would naturally seek greater authority. Investigations, subpoenas, inspectors general, and public accountability are constitutional safeguards—not political annoyances.

Immigration policy illustrates another constitutional tension. The executive branch possesses broad authority to enforce immigration law, but no president is exempt from constitutional constraints. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to “persons,” and courts have long recognized that many constitutional protections extend beyond citizenship itself. The strength of a constitutional republic is measured not by how it treats the popular or the powerful, but by whether it honors legal process when doing so is politically inconvenient.

The Fifteenth Amendment reminds us that democracy itself requires constitutional vigilance. Ratified after the Civil War, it prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. Every election law should be judged against two constitutional obligations: protecting election integrity and ensuring equal access to the ballot. Neither objective is an excuse for abandoning the other.

Perhaps the greatest constitutional concern arises when the judiciary itself becomes a target.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the courts possess “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Their authority depends entirely upon the willingness of the executive branch to obey lawful orders. Presidents may criticize judges. They may appeal decisions. They may seek legislative changes. But they cannot preserve constitutional government while treating judicial rulings as optional. (Ron Chernow-Hamilton)

When the executive decides which court orders deserve obedience, the rule of law becomes the rule of one person.

Trump’s defenders argue that every modern president has expanded executive power. They are right.

Franklin Roosevelt transformed the administrative state. Richard Nixon stretched presidential authority until Watergate forced constitutional reckoning. Barack Obama used executive actions when Congress was gridlocked. Joe Biden also faced repeated constitutional challenges to executive initiatives.

But this argument misunderstands the issue.

Constitutional violations do not become constitutional traditions simply because they are repeated.

Every administration that expands executive authority leaves behind powers waiting to be inherited by the next president. Each president points to the actions of his predecessor. Each expansion becomes tomorrow’s precedent. Every exception becomes tomorrow’s norm.

This is how republics decline—not in revolution, but in rationalization.

The Framers expected this.

They assumed every officeholder would want more power than the Constitution allowed. That is precisely why they divided power so carefully. They were designing a government that could survive ambitious leaders—not depend upon their restraint.

George Washington understood this better than anyone. Having defeated the world’s greatest empire, he could easily have remained in power indefinitely. Instead, he surrendered authority voluntarily because he believed republican government depended upon the peaceful transfer and limitation of power. His example became one of the nation’s first constitutional traditions.

The question confronting America today is not whether Donald Trump is uniquely responsible for constitutional erosion. He is not. Executive power has expanded for generations under presidents of both parties.

The question is whether his administration represents another step down that same path—or an acceleration so significant that it permanently alters the constitutional balance envisioned by Madison, Hamilton, and the other Framers.

Americans should answer that question with the Framers’ own words echoing in their minds.

Government was designed to restrain power—not celebrate it.

The Constitution was written to protect liberty—not personalities.

No election, no political party, and no president is more important than the Constitutional order itself.

The Framers gave future generations a republic built upon one radical idea: that law governs rulers, not the other way around.

If Americans lose that principle, they will not lose the Constitution because someone abolished it.

They will lose it because they stopped insisting that those entrusted with power obey it.

And republics rarely survive when their constitutions become merely advisory. So call your Congressman and Senators to remind that we have a CONSTITUTION for a reason and you expect them to abide with it.

T. MICHAEL SMITH

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

America’s Military Might

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Is It Enough for Lasting Peace?

For decades, the United States has held the greatest military advantage in the world. Its aircraft carriers, intelligence networks, advanced weapons systems, and global alliances have given it unmatched power. Yet history has repeatedly shown that military strength alone does not guarantee political success.

The war with Iran this year highlights a difficult reality: a country can win battles and still struggle to win the peace. The long-term consequences will not be determined only by missiles destroyed or military targets hit. They will be determined by what happens after the fighting ends — and whether leaders learn the lessons of the past.

The United States entered this conflict with overwhelming conventional military superiority. Iran could not compete directly with American forces. But Iran has spent decades preparing for a different kind of conflict — one based on endurance, regional influence, unconventional strategies for warfare, and making any confrontation costly.

This has been Iran’s strategy: if it cannot defeat the United States militarily, it can make victory politically complicated.

America’s Lost Advantage Was Not Military — It Was Strategic

The United States once had significant leverage over Iran. The nuclear agreement negotiated during the Obama administration created international inspections and placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program. It was imperfect, but it provided something valuable: visibility and diplomatic influence. (Washington Post)

When the agreement collapsed under Trump and the United States returned to a maximum-pressure strategy. The goal was to force Iran into accepting broader restrictions. Instead, Iran adapted.

Years of sanctions damaged Iran’s economy, but they also pushed Iran to develop survival strategies, strengthen ties with countries like China and Russia, and build a more independent military capability.

The lesson is uncomfortable: economic pressure can weaken a country without changing its government’s behavior.  Iran learned that it could absorb punishment and continue operating. The United States still had more power, but Iran became better at using the tools available to it.

The Unintended Consequences of War

The immediate goal of military action may have been to weaken Iran’s capabilities. But the political consequences are much harder to control. When  there is no plan it is difficult to keep up with the opposition.

External attacks often create the very unity that governments lack during times of internal crisis. Iran’s leadership can use the conflict to argue that the country is under attack and that opposition must be suppressed in the name of national security.

A government facing foreign pressure often becomes more defensive and more authoritarian. The war may have weakened Iran’s military infrastructure, but it has strengthened hardliners who argue that compromise with the West is impossible. (Reuters)

This is one of the great contradictions of modern warfare: a strike intended to weaken a government can sometimes strengthen its political position.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Lessons

The United States has learned repeatedly that destroying an enemy’s military capacity is easier than creating lasting political stability.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, America demonstrated its ability to win major military campaigns. The greater challenge was building governments, maintaining public support, and preventing instability after the fighting ended.

Iran presents an even more complex challenge. It is a large country with a deep national identity, a long history, and a government that has survived decades of pressure. The question is not whether the United States can strike Iran.

The Question is what happens the day after? 

Without a political strategy, military success can become the opening chapter of a longer conflict.  The Trump administration did not have a coherent war plan given that the Secretary of Defense is an idiot. And clearly the agreement we signed demonstrates the lack of a political strategy.

Trump signed the deal with Iran to advance peace talks and convince Americans that the war was a win.  Of course, the agreement achieves none of the goals that Trump claimed would emerge. And Iran gains access to billions of dollars to rebuild the consequences of the war.  A win? (Washington Post)

What will happen is a resupply of the oil market, lower gas prices, and allowing Republicans the time to regain their focus on the midterms.

A More Dangerous Middle East?

The war also changes the regional balance of power. Iran’s influence may be reduced, but it is unlikely to disappear. Tehran has spent years building relationships with groups and governments across the region. If weakened, Iran may rely even more on indirect methods:

  • proxy forces
  • cyber operations
  • missile threats and drones
  • political influence campaigns

A weaker Iran does not automatically mean a safer Middle East. The danger is that the conflict creates a new cycle: retaliation, escalation, and another generation growing up with war as the normal condition. (Reuters)

The Global Consequences

The impact extends beyond the Middle East. Energy markets, inflation, global shipping, and international alliances are all affected by instability in the region. A prolonged conflict could increase defense spending while forcing governments to make difficult choices about domestic priorities.

China and Russia also benefit strategically from American attention being focused on another major conflict. Every prolonged U.S. military engagement creates opportunities for competitors to expand their influence elsewhere.

The Nuclear Question

Perhaps the most important long-term consequence involves Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A country that believes it can be attacked at any time may conclude that only a nuclear deterrent can guarantee survival. That does not make nuclear weapons acceptable. It demonstrates the dangerous logic that can develop when diplomacy collapses.

The world has seen this before: insecurity can drive nations toward the very weapons everyone is trying to prevent them from obtaining.

America’s Real Test

The United States faces a larger question than whether it can defeat Iran militarily.

It must answer whether it has a strategy for creating stability after the conflict. American power remains unmatched, but power without a political plan has limits. The greatest danger is not losing a battle. The greatest danger is winning the battle while creating the conditions for the next war.

The true measure of success will not be how much damage was done to Iran. It will be whether the United States and its allies can build a more stable future — one where diplomacy replaces endless cycles of confrontation.

Because history’s warning is clear:

Winning a war is a military achievement. Winning the peace is a political one.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

THE PROUD BOYS et al.

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Far-right Nationalist Organizations

The Proud Boys are a far-right nationalist organization founded in 2016 by White nationalist Gavin McInnes, a media personality and co-founder of Vice Media. The group describes itself as “Western chauvinist,” arguing that Western culture is superior and should be defended. However, critics, civil rights organizations, and many researchers have characterized the group as extremist. They cite its history of political violence and associations with white nationalist and anti-democratic movements.

What the group believes

The Proud Boys generally promote nationalism and strong border enforcement. They oppose what they call “political correctness,” left-wing political movements, and traditional gender roles. They have a confrontational style of street activism.

The organization officially states that it is not white supremacist and has included members of different racial backgrounds. However, critics point to repeated collaborations and overlaps with white nationalist activists and extremist groups at various events.

Why they became nationally known

The Proud Boys gained widespread attention through frequent clashes with left-wing protesters in cities across the United States. They played a role a in political rallies during the Trump campaigns. Also, there was a 2020 presidential debate in which President Donald Trump told the group to “stand back and stand by,” a remark that generated significant controversy.

January 6 and criminal convictions

The group’s most consequential involvement was in the events surrounding the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In particular, federal prosecutors argued that several Proud Boys leaders helped organize and direct actions. These actions contributed to the breach of the Capitol.

Among those convicted was chairman Enrique Tarrio, along with other senior members. They received some of the most serious sentences handed down in connection with January 6. This happened after they were convicted of offenses including seditious conspiracy. Many were pardoned.

Why the group remains controversial

Supporters often portray the Proud Boys as a nationalist activist organization defending free speech and opposing left-wing extremism.

Critics argue that the group’s rhetoric and activities have encouraged political violence. They served as a gateway between mainstream political activism and more extreme movements. Their actions have contributed to political polarization and intimidation.

As a result, the Proud Boys occupy a significant place in debates about extremism, political violence, civil liberties, and the health of American democracy. Furthermore, their impact extends beyond the organization itself. They have become a symbol of broader tensions over nationalism, identity, and the limits of political activism in the United States.

The Proud Boys have remained active, although their activities appear different from their peak period around 2020–2021.

Recent reporting and monitoring organizations indicate that Proud Boys chapters continue to participate in demonstrations, counter-protests, and political events, particularly in states such as Florida. For example, some chapters have appeared at immigration-related demonstrations and “No Kings” protests in 2025–2026.

There have also been highly visible appearances by former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio following his release from prison. He participated in public events and marches related to January 6 commemorations and other political gatherings in 2026. (NBC4 Washington)

However, researchers who track extremist groups note that the organization is more fragmented than it was before the January 6 Capitol attack. Some chapters have split from national leadership. Local groups often operate independently. Moreover, there has been a shift in some areas from large street confrontations toward local political organizing and online activity. (AXIOS)

The group continues to be described by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League as a right-wing extremist organization. They note its history of political violence and intimidation.

The Proud Boys occupy a somewhat different place in the far-right landscape than groups such as the Oath Keepers or Patriot Front. While there is overlap in membership, rhetoric, and political goals, the groups differ in organization, recruitment, and tactics.

The Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers have traditionally focused on recruiting current and former military personnel, law enforcement officers, and first responders.

Characteristics: more militia-oriented structure, strong anti-government ideology, emphasis on armed preparedness. Other traits include claims of defending constitutional liberties against government overreach and major involvement by members in January 6.

Unlike the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers generally present themselves less as a street-protest movement and more as a self-styled constitutional militia.

Patriot Front

Patriot Front is generally viewed by researchers as more explicitly white nationalist than the Proud Boys.

Characteristics:  highly disciplined and centralized, uniform appearance and coordinated marches, focus on nationalist propaganda campaigns, less emphasis on spontaneous public confrontations, and strong emphasis on white identity politics.  Patriot Front’s messaging tends to be more ideological. In contrast, it is less focused on the culture-war activism associated with the Proud Boys.

Active Clubs

The “Active Club” movement is a newer trend rather than a single organization.

Characteristics: small decentralized cells, physical fitness and combat training, mixed martial arts culture, heavy emphasis on local recruitment, and attempts to avoid the public visibility that hurt older groups.

Many extremism researchers view Active Clubs as potentially significant because they focus on building networks quietly rather than seeking media attention.

The Threat Posed by Right-Wing Extremist Groups: A Summary

Right-wing extremist groups represent a continuing concern for law enforcement, researchers, and democratic institutions because some have embraced political intimidation, violence, or anti-democratic rhetoric in pursuit of their goals. While these groups vary widely in ideology and tactics, they often share a belief that the nation is under threat from political, cultural, or demographic changes and that extraordinary action is justified to stop those changes.

Groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Patriot Front differ in structure and messaging, but concerns arise when members engage in political violence, harassment, armed intimidation, or efforts to undermine democratic processes. The threat is not limited to organized groups; decentralized networks and lone actors inspired by extremist ideologies can also pose significant risks.

One of the greatest dangers is the normalization of political violence. Democracies depend on citizens resolving disputes through elections, courts, public debate, and peaceful protest. When movements portray opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens, violence can begin to appear justified to some supporters. History shows that democratic erosion often starts not with a single dramatic event but with a gradual acceptance of intimidation and political extremism.

The challenge for a democratic society is to protect constitutional rights—including free speech, assembly, and political advocacy—while responding effectively to groups or individuals who cross the line into violence, intimidation, or efforts to subvert democratic institutions. Maintaining that balance is essential to preserving both security and liberty.

T, Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Stop Calling Americans Ignorant

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Start Fixing the Incentives That Drive Engagement

It has become a lazy reflex in politics and the media: blame “the uninformed public, they are ignorant.” If only people paid attention our problems would shrink. That story is comforting—and wrong.

What looks like ignorance is often adaptation.

The modern American is buried under a constant barrage of information: wars, elections, scandals, economic swings. Then there is streaming 24/7 through platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. No one can process it all. So people triage. They skim headlines, trust familiar voices, and tune out what doesn’t immediately affect their lives. That’s not stupidity; it’s survival.

And here is some hard truth: being well-informed does not pay. You don’t get a raise for understanding trade policy. And you do not get rewarded for reading beyond the headline. You do, however, risk social friction for challenging your own side or raising uncomfortable facts. In a system that punishes nuance and rewards certainty, most people make the rational choice—stay at the surface. They are not ignorant, but are realists.

The information ecosystem is engineered for engagement, not truth. The algorithms driving today’s media reward outrage, simplify complexity, and feed people what they already believe. Inside those bubbles, people don’t feel uninformed—they feel validated. The result isn’t a nation of contented ignoramuses. Citizens of our nation believe they’re informed because the system keeps telling them they are. Is this being ignorant?

Then there’s the quiet force no one wants to name: resignation. After years of political gridlock, broken promises, and high-stakes crises with little visible resolution, many Americans have internalized a corrosive idea—nothing I do matters. That belief doesn’t produce curiosity. It produces withdrawal.

Add in the realities of everyday life—long hours, rising costs, family obligations—and the picture sharpens. The single parent working two jobs isn’t choosing to be ignorant; they’re choosing what keeps the lights on. Time is a prerequisite for attention, and millions simply don’t have it.

So no, the public isn’t broadly “content” in ignorant behavior. Americans are constrained by a system that makes deep engagement costly.

That distinction matters, because it points to a different solution. If you want people to re-engage, lecturing them won’t work. Neither will drowning them in more information. What moves people is relevance—when an issue hits their wallet, their safety, their family. What moves people is trust—when the message comes from someone who understands their reality. And what moves people most is agency—the belief that their action, however small, actually changes something.

The failure isn’t just on the audience. It’s on a political and media culture that confuses volume with clarity, outrage with insight, and access to information with understanding.

If we keep calling the public ignorant, we’ll keep getting the same result: a checked-out citizenry and a broken conversation. If we start asking why people disengage—and fix the incentives that drive it—we might get something better.

MAGA politicians are counting on voters’ despondency and cynicism to make the reimposition of Jim Crow a pain-free process for themselves. But Democrats’ refuse to concede and their determination to build momentum, using key events and political battles to drive organization and turnout, will aid their fight to flip the House.  Plus, it will help the long-term mission to restore democracy.

Not a perfect electorate. That’s a fantasy.

But an engaged one. That’s enough to change everything.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com