Citations Needed

In this public News Brief, we detail how the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN reinforce every faulty premise of Israel's attack and how top Democrats in Congress and former Harris aides either ignore Trump and Israel's massive escalation or openly support it, showing once again the scope of debate in our politics and media ranges all the way from A to B.

"Can Democrats Learn to Dream Big Again?," wonders Samuel Moyn in the New York Times. "The Democrats Are Finally Landing on a New Buzzword. It's Actually Compelling," argues Slate staff writer Henry Grabar. "Do Democrats Need to Learn How to Build?," asks Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker.

For the past few months, news and editorial rooms have been abuzz with talk about a new, grand vision for the Democratic Party: abundance. Abundance, according to its media promoters—chiefly NYT's Ezra Klein and The Atlantic's Derek Thompson—is a political agenda that espouses the creation of more of everything we need: housing, education, jobs, and energy, to name a few examples. To accomplish this, we are told, we must aim to eliminate bureaucratic red tape that has for so long bogged down production, innovation, and capital's innate capacity and desire to provide a better, more abundant life.

It's an alluring promise—if suspiciously vague and devoid of class politics: obviously, doing more good things is better than doing fewer good things, right? Who can argue with this generic premise? Who wouldn't want to support an agenda that's effectively the Do Good Things Agenda?

Scratch the surface, however, and what one finds it isn't just a folky, common sense treatise against red tape, but something more sinister and dishonest, something more slick and shallow. What one gets is a standard entryist strategy that begins with a so-vague-it's-incontestable hook—illogical or corrupt regulations are bad—the quickly pivots into a Silicon Valley flattering, and often Silicon Valley funded, political agenda, a narrative designed to blame inequality and our objectively broken political system on too much regulation and "bureaucracy" rather than there being too much power in the hands of an elite few.

What one gets, in other words, is a counter to left populism. What one gets is the latest attempt to reheat neoliberalism as something fresh, innovative and able to excite the voting base.

Last week, in Part I of a two-part series we're calling "The Empire Strikes First," we discussed the Democrats' post-2024 apologia, propped up by scapegoats ranging from trans people to "economic headwinds" to Harris actually being too far left.

On this episode, Part II of the series, we explore what comes next: the 2028 Democratic strategy and the so-called abundance agenda that is increasingly shaping it. We'll examine how Democratic media influencers and policymakers use lofty, seemingly progressive rhetoric to rehabilitate and re-sell the same old neoliberal deregulation, privatization, and austerity narrative that got us here in the first place, and ensure that no left-wing movement—that could, god forbid, require a meaningful change in the party—get in their way.

Our guests are the Revolving Door Project's Kenny Stancil and Henry Burke.

In Ep. 222, "The Empire Strikes First Part I: Party Elites Who Lost to Trump (Twice) Blame Everyone But Themselves," we detail how our media allows the same party flacks who got the Dems into this mess, control over the narrative of how to get them out. With guest UC-Berkeley professor Jake Grumbach.

In this episode we detail demagogues' favorite faux populist schtick of taking scientific studies out of context and mocking them, often with help from mainstream media. with guest Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In this News Brief we are joined by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of The Real News Network to discuss their new documentary, "Freddie Gray: A Decade of Struggle" about the lessons, pitfalls and genuine reforms stemming from the 2015 Baltimore Uprisings.

You can watch the documentary here: therealnews.com/freddie-gray-the-…ng-10-years-later

"American Extremists Aiding Radicals Across Border," trumpeted the Detroit Free Press in 1919. "707 Illegal Aliens Arrested in Checkpoint Crackdown," reported the Los Angeles Times in 1987. "87 Bronx gang members responsible for nine years of murders and drug-dealing charged in largest takedown in NYC history," announced the New York Daily News in 2016. "'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center," claimed NBC News in 2023.

Each of these headlines includes a label for a certain type of Bad Guy. Whether it's the "Extremist," the "Illegal Alien," the "Gang Member," or the "Terrorist," these terms—and their cousins—seek to exceptionalize the alleged transgressions of their targets, separate them from both the law and history and dehumanize them, all while priming media audiences for crueler laws, harsher policing, longer incarceration and sometimes even extrajudicial punishment. The terms, of course, don't have clear, universally accepted definitions—nor are they supposed to—their use is often heavily racialized and, by their very nature, subject to the whims and ideologies of the Security State and the media doing its bidding.

What effects, then, do these Bad Guy Labels have on public perceptions? How do they serve to foreclose critical thinking about who is deemed inside the bounds of due process and humanization and who is categorically an other in urgent need of disappearing and punishment?

On this episode, we examine four thought-terminating Bad Guy labels, analyze their origins, why they rose to prominence and explain how they are selectively evoked in order to turn off people's brains and open up space for quick and cruel state violence.

Our guest is attorney and author Alec Karakatsanis.

"Poverty plan hit for fraud, waste," reported the Associated Press in 1966. "Study says government waste is unbelievable," insisted United Press International in 1983. "Beneath Trump's Chaotic Spending Freeze: An Idea That Crosses Party Lines," announced The New York Times in January of this year.

It's an argument that dates back decades, even centuries: Government is bloated, spending wastefully, and enabling widespread fraud and abuse. The only solution to this waste, fraud, and abuse is to root it out. Cutting salaries, personnel, or entire programs or agencies, it follows, will streamline government bodies, saving millions to billions of dollars.

But who gets to decide what's "wasteful" in the first place? How are these concepts routinely racialized? What effect does it have on a public dependent on social programs and essential government services like safety inspections? And why should governments be expected to "save" money, when their job—at least in theory— isn't to make money in the first place, but—again in theory—improve the welfare of its citizens? On this episode, we detail the past and present of the "waste, fraud, and abuse" framing, looking at how it's long been used to justify the degradation of essential social programs; mischaracterize governments as businesses; and weaken protections for workers, renters, and everyone else who isn't a capital-owning member of the elite.

Our guest is Death Panel's Beatrice Adler-Bolton.

"Senate Weighs Investing $120 Billion in Science to Counter China," trumpeted The New York Times in 2021. "A New Economic Patriotism Can Help Unite Our Divided Congress," argued Newsweek in 2023. "US cedes ground to China with 'self-inflicted wound' of USAid shutdown, analysts say," cautioned The Guardian in 2025. In recent years, we've been exposed to the latest version of a centuries-old geopolitical message: We all have a common enemy, and we all need to unite to fight it by making our own country stronger. That enemy—most commonly China—is threatening to outpace, if it isn't already outpacing, the US in infrastructural investment, educational programs, technological development, and elsewhere, and we need to devote millions, billions, even trillions of dollars to restoring the vitality of our institutions in order to reverse this trend. But why must defeating an "enemy" be the justification for policy that has the potential to benefit the public? Why should we just accept the premise that there must be an "enemy" to compete against and defeat? Why can't policy be enacted for the sole purpose of improving people's lives? And how does this messaging about the threat of a looming adversary serve the ruling class? On this episode, we detail the timeworn trope of the common enemy as a "unifying" device, looking at how increasingly so-called progressives are appealing to feel-good sentiments of unity and to the genuine needs for sound infrastructure, robust social safety nets, corporate regulation, and functional institutions in order to sell the idea that there is, and always will be, a shadowy bad guy that must be vanquished. Our guest is historian, professor and author Greg Grandin.

In this public News Brief, we discuss the media and high-profile Democratic Party leaders and 'Free Speech' crowd's muted—or, in many cases, completely silent—response to the greatest attack on free speech in recent memory: Trump's kidnapping and disappearing of Palestinian solidarity students.