Incoming Feed Items

This is an “Off Topic” piece of Notes on the Crises. Off topic pieces will always be colored blue.  Readers are encouraged to ignore them if they are only interested in my day-to-day analysis and reporting. Check my “on topic” pieces for information about the anonymous sources I’m collecting, and ways you can support the newsletter’s coverage of the Trump-Musk crisis. As always: if you want to back my work, take out a paid subscription, or pester your institution to do so. Thanks!

This article is read by Eunice Wong, a Juilliard-trained actor, featured on Audible's list of Best Women Narrators. Her work is on the annual Best Audiobooks lists of the New York Times, Audible, AudioFile, & Library Journal. www.eunicewong.actor

Subscribe now

Text Originally published Feb. 07, 2025

Does Equity Matter for City Government’s Dynamic Capabilities? Lessons from the City of Cape Town, South Africa

By Nai Lee Kalema

What does equity have to do with city governments’ cultivation of dynamic capabilities?

When it comes to examining city governments’ cultivation of dynamic capabilities in relationship to improved outcomes, service delivery, and public value, equity matters. Here, equity may refer to the extent to which those improvements are distributed across geographical areas and populations and put in service of diminishing highly disproportionate resource and burden allocations.

Notes on the Crises pivoted on February 1st into around the clock coverage of the Trump-Musk Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025. Today is Day Fifteen

Twenty years ago, my husband and I were at a party of grad students in Claremont, California, discussing the differences between Old Testament law and the New Covenant written on the hearts of man as described in the New Testament. At one point a male classmate jumped up, eyes wide with shock, saying “wait. WAIT…you guys actually believe this stuff? Like not ironically, not for the sake of the noble lie…. For real—you actually believe this?”

I remember nodding, and then laughing at the whole scene. His shock was genuine, and his comment carried no malice. He was an upper-class kid who had attended elite schools, and he had simply never met a young, devout intellectual before. The idea that a thinking person would openly, unabashedly believe in Christianity was shocking to him.

It’s difficult to remember now, but in the early 2000s young intellectuals on the Right did not dabble in religion. The dawn of a new millennium offered only two alternatives to the milquetoast, Clintonesque liberalism that had dominated the 1990s: libertarianism or George W. Bush’s evangelical “compassionate conservatism.” Tech bros or values voters.

Many times over the last several years, Donald Trump’s political opponents on the Right claimed he was a drag on the Republican Party’s political prospects. This argument was never very plausible. The reversals that congressional Republicans suffered over the last six years (such as losing the House and Senate by narrow margins) were well within the normal range of the vicissitudes of electoral politics. But whatever meager credibility such criticisms may have possessed has now been completely laid to rest by President Trump’s astonishing return to power, bringing with him Republican control of both houses of Congress—a feat accomplished in the face of unprecedented opposition from some of the most powerful forces in American political life. Trump has proven himself to be a potent political force and a boost to the fortunes of his party.

Trump, however, will only be around for four more years. If the American Right is to continue to succeed after he has left the scene, it will have to learn the secrets of his success. This means admitting that Trump’s impressive wins are the fruit not of mere luck, nor even of his extraordinary energy, but of his even more extraordinary political astuteness. As the pollster Patrick Ruffini remarked, simply but profoundly, in an election night X post: “Donald Trump understands what politics is about at a fundamental level.”

Jon Durfee and Michael Lee

There are a number of dimensions to the current, ongoing constitutional crisis in the United States, all of which arise from actions taken by the Trump regime. There is the burgeoning conflict between the federal executive and federal judiciary which is likely headed to a showdown over the executive's compliance with judicial orders. There is the executive branch's usurpation of the powers of the federal legislative branch, Congress. Then, there is the breakdown of rule of law and ethics within the federal Department of Justice itself. There have been developments on all three fronts today.

The U.S. Constitution does not assign the federal attorney general independence from the chief executive, the U.S. President. In this, the federal structure conspicuously diverges from the many state constitutions that call for elected state attorneys general who have authority, separate and independent from state governors, to pursue litigation. This distinct authority – derived from state constitutions, statutes, and common law predating the American Revolution – prevents state governors from interfering with the legal judgment of the attorney general, who has paramount responsibility for representing the interests of the state and its people in court.

This week, I was invited to share a little about my life with Long COVID over at Public Health Action Network. The result was an essay titled Fallout, a reference to the eerie feeling I have on the rare occasion I’m able to leave home: like I’ve tumbled, disoriented, out of a fallout shelter. In the essay, I shared that after walking 200 feet to the neighborhood market in early January, I triggered a miserable week of migraines and fatigue. For days after my oh-so-brief outing, I lay in bed with an eye mask on, doctors on speed dial and medications on rotation, unable to work.

Since last summer, I’ve described myself as homebound because I’ve been unable to leave my apartment without triggering symptoms this way. But over the last month, I’ve begun to ask myself: is it accurate to say I can’t leave home at all? Or would it be more accurate to say that I can’t leave home walking? After all, I do now have days where I sit up for several hours, working on this newsletter. Does that mean it would technically be possible for me to sit in a chair and go to the store? In other words, do I need to start thinking about getting a mobility aid, like a wheelchair?

Read more

Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw

La semana pasada, mientras recogía mi coche del mecánico, el señor sin mascarilla que me atendió detrás de una barrera de plexiglás, hizo un gesto acerca de mi mascarilla y me preguntó: “¿Estás enferma o estás tratando de no enfermarte?” Lo dijo con curiosidad amable, sin ridiculizar y sin las hostilidades que muchas veces enfrenta la gente que todavía usan las mascarillas en público. Respondí agradablemente que estaba tratando de no enfermarme.

Luego él señor compartió conmigo la siguiente información: otros en él taller lo habían estado presionando a quitar la barrera de plexiglás que apenas lo separaba de los clientes, pero él se negó. Uno de sus amigos se había muerto de “eso”; los mecánicos en el taller están constantemente enfermos con “eso”; y uno de los mecánicos perdió una de sus piernas debido a un coágulo de sangre después de estar entubado por tres meses con “eso”. Ni una sola vez usó la palabra “Covid”, pero los dos sabíamos de que estábamos hablando. Había devastado a personas que conocía y no quería desacerse de la última protección que lo separaba de los clientes que llegan enfermos todo el tiempo. En su propia manera, él insistió en seguir recociendo la pandemia protegiéndose como mejor sabía.

The captains of the tech industry have rapidly warmed to Trump. But are they sincere? Or is the whole thing just a cynical display of fealty to the new leader, only to be reversed as soon as power changes hands? It’s probably a mix of both—not only across the industry, but sometimes even within a single person.

A helpful test is to ask when a given figure’s rightward lurch occurred. Those that happened after the election are much more likely to be transactional. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman of OpenAI—who had previously been openly anti-Trump—seem to epitomize this category. Google’s Sundar Pichai likewise bent the knee, but was giving hostage-video vibes.

As Donald Trump was sworn in as president for the second time, he was surrounded by the men who deplatformed and silenced him four years ago. Google CEO Sundar Pichai banned Trump from YouTube and removed his app, Truth Social, from Google Play. Mark Zuckerberg sat flanked by Republican politicians despite banning Trump on Facebook and Instagram following the January 6 protest at the Capitol.

Whether it’s due to political opportunism or a real change of heart, the tech moguls’ now cozy relationship with Trump is one of necessity. It was easy to censor someone they thought would never become the most powerful man in the country again.

The question of how conservatives should respond to Big Tech’s sudden embrace of Trump is an important one. For too long, conservatives have insisted on purity tests for their allies. This is less about making sure your allies won’t turn on you and more a strange insistence that every convert must be a true believer. The problem is that the Left abandoned this notion a long time ago to their benefit.

Consider what Zuckerberg said when he was on Joe Rogan’s podcast. He’ll be introducing a community notes type of fact-checking system to all Meta platforms, which will significantly reduce the mainstream media’s power over Americans’ free expression via third-party fact-checkers.

Imagine that we’re disagreeing about whether I should drive the wrong way down a one-way street, and you say, “Don’t go that way—you could get in an accident!” And I say, “Oh, so no one has ever driven down a one-way street without getting into an accident?” You didn’t say anything about always or never.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the bogus claims made by American officials about Australia flooding the US market with aluminium, the latest housing data (still no house for Elinor *sadface*) and Australia’s urban-rural divide.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 13 February 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Trump’s latest tariff bid shows the old rules of trade no longer apply. Scraps of paper will not save us’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (February 2025)

Last night, Liberal Senator Jane Hume announced they’d done a deal with the Albanese Labor Government on electoral laws – and some twelve hours later, it became law, having been rushed through both houses of Parliament.

Labor’s compromises with the Coalition have worsened the bill even further:

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Your Not-So-Lying Eyes | The Roundtable Ep. 254

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

The material needs of working class people in America continue to be obscured and co-opted by politicians and people claiming to know what’s best on both sides of the political aisle. While Republicans and right-wingers address some of these needs head on, they do so by luring people through empty rhetoric and culture war distractions. On the other side, Democrats and liberals police and enforce a cancel-culture paradigm built by elites that also distracts and divides the proletariat from ever engaging in meaningful connection and change.