Regarding the history of propaganda: Bloody Mary

Lucy Worsley

Season 2, episode 4 of the PBS history series Lucy Worsley Investigates goes into the details of Catholic "bloody" Queen Mary I and her reputation as a vicious Catholic murderer. History says that she wasn't much different from contemporary Protestant murderers when they were in power in England. Mary was England's first ruling female monarch. Her ruling power was cemented by a pre-nup agreement with the Catholic Spanish Prince Philip. They married in 1554. Her pre-nup barred Philip from power and law-making influence. Philip was heir to the Spanish throne and the Hapsburg Empire.

Anyway, the bottom line is this. Propagandists are nothing new. They have poisoned the public for millennia with their lies, hate, closed-minded prejudices and sanctimonious (religious or secular) lust for power. In Mary's case, since the 1550s or thereabouts.

What was going in in the 1500s is not much different from what is going on in 2025. Same stuff, different century.

Why post this? Maybe some historical perspective would help save us from Trump and MAGA. But maybe not. Regardless, Worsley spins a pretty good yarn. Her historical research seems to be solid. As usual, interpretation is probably bitterly disputed. 

We voted for this, right?

Now that criticism of djt and MAGA policy and tactics are starting to get louder, we are hearing from djt and MAGA elites that we voted for all of this, so go pound sand.* Intuitively and emotionally, that feels lie a bald faced lie. About 90% lie and 10% truth.

* Well actually, "go pound sand" is implied not stated. One always need to stay fair and balanced.

But is that really true? Obviously, that is a complicated question. From its neural network, statistics and pattern-matching point of view, and based on its long, complicated analysis Pxy concluded that Trump's assertion that "we voted for this" is about 5-10% true. Why only 5-10% true? Here's the main reasons summarized, with the entire series of Qs&As at this link. 

Q3: Summarize the main facts or reasons in your two analyses in up to 10 bullet points of 1-2 sentences each (3 sentences if necessary) stating why Trump's and MAGA elites' assertions that "we voted for this" is only ~5-10% true.

A3: Summary: Why Trump's "We Voted for This" Claim is Only 5-10% True

Electoral and Democratic Legitimacy Issues

• Trump won with only a plurality (49.8%), not a majority - meaning over 50% of Americans never voted for his agenda, fundamentally undermining claims of broad democratic mandate.

• Significant voter regret emerged quickly - 25% of Trump voters expressed disappointment or regret, with 47% of moderate Trump supporters showing regret, indicating they didn't get what they expected.

Systematic Deceptive Framing

• Trump explicitly rejected Project 2025 during the campaign but implemented two-thirds of its recommendations - this represents a fundamental betrayal of campaign promises and deceived voters about his actual agenda.

• Deregulation was framed as "freedom" from oppression but actually transferred wealth and power from average Americans to corporate elites [and Christian nationalist elites, IMHO] - voters were told they'd be liberated but instead lost worker protections, consumer safeguards, and environmental protections.

• Trump's rhetoric about defending Christians from "oppression" masked policies that actually empowered religious elites to discriminate - the framing deliberately conflated religious freedom with the right to oppress marginalized communities.
  

Policy Implementation Contradictions

• Economic policies produced opposite effects from campaign promises - Trump's tariff implementation caused market volatility and inflation concerns, with 56% disapproving of his economic management including 20% of his own voters.

• Federal workforce cuts through DOGE affected Trump-supporting areas - massive layoffs contradicted voter expectations that cuts would only target "elites" or opposing political groups.

• Healthcare policies included significant Medicaid cuts despite Trump's promises to leave it "alone" - his "Big Beautiful Bill" directly contradicted campaign assurances about protecting social programs.

Violation of Democratic Consent Principles

• Systematic deception invalidated informed democratic consent - following Sissela Bok's analysis [moral reasoning], Trump's lies about policy consequences prevented voters from making autonomous, informed choices about their governance.

• The deception was "culpable ignorance" - Trump's administration knew the true consequences of their policies but deliberately concealed them - this wasn't accidental misinformation but intentional deception to gain power through false premises.

I agree with that analysis. My personal beliefs before the two main Pxy analyses are reflected in my two complicated questions. 

Q: How persuasive is the analysis and assessment that "we voted for this" is only about 5-10% true --- not persuasive (~0-10%), mildly persuasive, moderately persuasive (~45-55%), mostly persuasive, or persuasive (~90-100%)?

Supreme Court’s 2025 Funding Freeze Ruling: A New Era of Unchecked Executive Powe

 

Introduction: The Case and Its Broader Context

In April 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to freeze federal education grants to universities and non-profits in 8 states, a move justified by allegations that certain programs were “discriminatory” due to their association with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Universities challenged the freeze, arguing it violated Congress’s constitutional power of the purse (Article I, Section 9) and the Impoundment Control Act. A federal district court sided with the universities, issuing an injunction to restore the funds, emphasizing that the executive cannot unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated money without clear legal cause and that real, immediate harm would result from the freeze.

The administration appealed, and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority intervened, not on the merits of the underlying claims, but on a procedural point: the risk that, if the funds were distributed and the government later prevailed, it might not be able to recover the money. The Court accepted this hypothetical risk as sufficient to maintain the freeze, even though the administration presented no concrete evidence of harm or unlawful conduct.

The Logic of the Ruling: From Thin Reasoning to No Reasoning

Unlike typical emergency relief standards, which require a showing of actual, imminent harm and a likelihood of success on the merits, the majority’s logic dispensed with any substantive evidentiary bar. The government’s speculative assertion—that funds might be unrecoverable—was treated as equivalent to real, proven harm. In effect, fictional and actual harms became interchangeable in the eyes of the law.

To illustrate: imagine a plaintiff in a private lawsuit, with no evidence, asking the court to seize the defendant’s assets “just in case” they might win in the future and the defendant might be broke. In any normal context, such a request would be summarily rejected. Here, the executive branch was permitted to freeze billions in funding for public institutions on nothing more than a hypothetical.

This is not just a “thin” or “modest” procedural decision; it is the elimination of standards altogether. The phrase “there’s no there there” applies: the Court’s reasoning provided no substantive basis for such a drastic remedy, only a procedural fig leaf.

Addressing Counterarguments

Supporters of the ruling might argue that the administration’s claims were at least grounded in real legal frameworks, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or executive orders. However, citing a legal category is not the same as providing evidence of a violation. In law, evidence means facts, documents, testimony, or other materials that substantiate a claim. The administration’s filings were allegations, not evidence. The Court did not examine or require discussion of any putative evidence, and the dissenting justices highlighted this absence.

Now, some argue this was just a procedural ruling-- an emergency stay, where courts often bend over backward to pause things while the case is sorted out. Fair enough. Emergency stays don't need ironclad proof; they just need a plausible risk of harm, like losing money you can't get back. But even in those cases you need something-- a fact, a number, a precedent -- to show the risk is real. The administration gave nothing. No data on how these grants would be spent. No evidene these universities were about to spend the money and vanish. Just a "what if" scenario, as flimsy as the hypothetical lawsuit I imagine above in which I just assert with no empirical support that the plaintiff in an unresolved case may become insolvent, and so the court should allow me to seize their assets. If I ask a judge to freeze a plaintiff's assets because they "might" go broke, I'd be expected to show that they are dodging bills or that their business is tanking.  But here, the Supreme Court said, "Sure, unrecoverable funds-- sounds plausible enough!" to the administration's empty claim. That is NOT a low bar, it is no bar at all. 

 

A Broader Pattern: Empowering the Executive to Override Laws and Rights

This decision is not an isolated incident. It is part of a growing set of Supreme Court rulings that, taken together, grant the president unprecedented authority to circumvent laws, constitutional protections, and congressional intent—especially in areas where large classes of people or institutions are at risk.

• The Court’s new ban on universal (nationwide) injunctions, decided in June 2025, means that district courts can no longer block unlawful government policies for everyone affected—only for the named plaintiffs. This change makes it far easier for the executive to implement sweeping actions (such as defunding universities or mass deportations) with minimal judicial interference, even when large groups are in harm’s way.

• Recent decisions have also granted presidents broad immunity for “official acts” and limited the judiciary’s ability to review or challenge presidential motives, further insulating executive action from legal accountability.

Implications: A Recipe for Arbitrary and Political Governance

The combined effect of these rulings is to give the president a near-unchecked power to run roughshod over the laws and the Constitution. By accepting hypothetical or fictional harms as grounds for freezing funds, and by limiting judicial remedies to only those directly before the court, the Supreme Court has enabled the executive to:

• Freeze or withhold congressionally appropriated funds from any institution—public or private—on the thinnest of procedural grounds, bypassing Article I, Section 9.

• Target disfavored universities, museums, or other entities for political reasons, with no need to provide evidence or individualized findings of wrongdoing.

• Implement mass deportations or other large-scale policies with only minimal judicial oversight, as courts can now only protect the specific plaintiffs in a given case.

Conclusion: The Rule of Assertion Replaces the Rule of Law

The 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the university funding freeze is emblematic of a broader judicial trend: the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of executive assertion. No longer is the president required to show real evidence or face meaningful judicial scrutiny. So long as the executive can imagine a future harm, it can freeze funds or take drastic action at will—a Pandora’s box for arbitrary and politically motivated governance, with profound consequences for constitutional order and the protection of rights.

Talking respectfully to the angry working class

A summary

By now it is clear that "elite discourse" is a failure in trying to connect with angry, resentful working class voters who have abandoned the Democratic Party. Recitations of facts and application of sound reasoning come across as insincere, callous, condescending and/or insulting. So, heavy reliance on facts and reasoning are out. Pointing out elite MAGA lies, slanders and crackpottery does not work. Also ineffective are warnings about (1) the rise of authoritarianism, dictatorship or theocracy, (2) the failure of democracy and the rule of law or loss of civil liberties, or (3) racism and bigotry. Rhetoric that explains reality fails to connect -- people need to hear stories, not lectures.

What works? Populist (or semi-populist) appeals to emotion and working class dignity are far more effective for most working class people. Anti-elitist rhetoric works. When done properly, anti-oligarch and anti-kleptocracy messaging can work. Narratives of support for masculinity and marriage works. Story telling in common or plain-spoken language is necessary. Expressions of deep concern for economic and social stability works very well. Sincerity, empathy, consistency and spontaneity are important to signal. Effective messaging often includes expressing some degree of urgency, e.g., economic problems, as urgent crises requiring immediate action against elite interests.

There is a major difference between elites on the left and right. Elites on the left dislike and try to limit anti-elitist rhetoric in the Democratic Party. By contrast, elites on the right encourage and weaponize anti-elitist rhetoric in the GOP because they know that is one of the best ways to connect with and gain political support from the disaffected working class. Right wing elitists deflect blame from themselves by framing themselves as authentic, unfiltered representatives of the people. That effectively co-opts and capitalizes on anti-elitist rhetoric, despite them being elites themselves. They employ performative authenticity, use populist language, and emotional appeals to create a perceived but false moral superiority and basis for trust. That turns anti-elitist sentiments into a tool to consolidate power and disarm genuine critique of systemic inequalities.

In other words, authoritarian Republican donors and right-wing elites have a sophisticated understanding that they need to tolerate anti-elitist rhetoric as a necessary element in their political wealth and power strategy.

Commentary

That summarizes my understanding of an interview with Joan Williams (law professor at UCSF) based on decades of her sociology research. C-SPAN broadcast the interview yesterday or the day before. I can't find it online yet. What Williams is arguing is grounded in solid evidence from modern social science. There is also a lot of logic in much of what the working class responds to in the context of their everyday lives. For example elite interests have shafted the working class, hence the appeal of anti-elite narratives. Williams argues that both major political parties have screwed the angry, disaffected working class. She asserts that they a very good reason to be angry at both parties.

If Williams is at least mostly right, most of what I post here (~95% ?) is ineffective or counterproductive with working class people who can potentially be reached. Some of them cannot be reached by pro-democracy politics, roughly "liberal" politics. According to Williams people who cannot be reached include racists and authoritarian ideologues.