Two monumental events have shaken the U.S. foreign policy establishment since the inauguration of President Donald Trump. They took place at roughly the same time, but few have recognized their connection.
The first was the widespread exposure of USAID as the “world’s hipster vanguard of globalist, cultural Marxist revolution,” in the words of J. Michael Waller. When it wasn’t outright funding jihadist terrorism, USAID redirected billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to left-wing organizers promoting LGBTQ radicalism, anti-racism, climate change, and every other imaginable progressive policy around the globe.
While “charity” CEOs living in taxpayer-funded luxury wailed about how cuts would cost lives, the debate among the online Right was about burning USAID to the ground and salting the earth, or perhaps repurposing some form of foreign aid to support an America First foreign policy agenda.
I’ve been asked why demagoguery rises and falls, more than once by people who like the “disruption” theory—that demagoguery is the consequence of major social disruption. The short version is that events create a set and severity of crises that “normal” politics and “normal” political discourse seem completely incapable of ameliorating, let alone solving. People feel themselves to be in a “state of exception” when things they would normally condemn seem attractive—anti-democratic practices, purifying of a community through ethnic/political cleansing, authoritarianism, open violation of constitutional protections.
The Australian Government’s latest report into the state of live music – “Am I Ever Gonna See You Live Again?” – makes some great recommendations, including for:
tax offsets to be given to venues that host live music;
training and education programs to help foster a love of music among young people;
a rebate or voucher scheme to incentivise younger audiences to attend live music (which, as Australia Institute research has shown, is an approach that has been successful in Europe).
But, for these recommendations to have any weight, they’ll need to be backed up with adequate funding; the March budget is an opportunity for just that.
Understand how progressive organisations navigate the complexities of community organising in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
This overview of an academic paper published in 2025 in The Organizing Journal summarises the first known exploration of the community organising landscape across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
The academic paper was developed from a project by the Commons Social Change Library, Australian Conservation Foundation, and Australian Progress which aimed to fill a gap in understanding how advocacy groups organise in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
The researchers invited 97 groups across the two countries that engage in community organising, and 24 of those group responses.
These were groups that mainly worked on
climate change (44%),
political issues like democratic rights and unions (29%),
environmental concerns (21%), and
social issues (4%).
By examining these survey responses, the research team uncovered patterns in how different groups structure their organising work and the common hurdles they face along the way.
Findings
One of the main findings is that these groups use a bespoke mix of community organising approaches. Most of them use mixed approaches that blend local, relationship-based organising with centralised professional support.
It’s the question progressives are all asking: how can we grab the opportunity presented by the 2025 Australian Federal election to steer the public narrative – in the media, on the streets and online – in the direction of care and connectedness for people and nature?
No matter what policies or campaigns we’re working on, our messages can influence the election outcome for good at this crucial time.
But there’s no doubt we’re up against it.
Organisations like Advance are prepared to spend millions to promote a very different story – one based on the neoliberal ideals of wealth accumulation, competition and social power for a selected ‘in-group’. Even a glance at the news from the USA shows we can’t dismiss their appeal to the voting public – especially when it’s all they’re hearing.
So what the heck can we do? What must we do, if we want to gain traction for our ideas, our policy asks, and our own worldview?
The good news is that plenty of very astute thinkers have been applying themselves to this very question.
Narrative Lessons
Here are some important narrative lessons for progressives in Australia in 2025.
“[T]he love of fame,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, is “the ruling passion of the noblest minds” (Federalist 72). But—also in the noblest minds—passion bows politely to reason, and the love of fame is tempered by love of the true and the good. Fame is the height of honor on the grandest scale, and the noblest minds will want to be honored only for what is most worthy of honor. They don’t seek the applause of fickle opinion here and now, but the respect of the wise and good of all times and places; ultimately, they want to be measured by what is worthy in the eyes of God.
What is most worthy of honor deserves to be remembered. “Old men forget,” as Shakespeare’s King Henry V proclaims at Agincourt, “yet all shall be forgot,” before oblivion shrouds in darkness the most worthy deeds. These will be remembered “from this day to the ending of the world.”
No human deed, in the whole “course of human events,” surpasses the American Revolution—bringing forth “a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Rightly will the names of those happy few, that band of brothers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Adams—be remembered to the ending of the world.
On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss new research showing just how difficult it is to save for a house deposit and the political response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 13 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
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.
BIPOC Cholbe | The Roundtable Ep. 258
First, they came for the green card-holding terror groupies—then they came for…us? Not exactly. But the recent detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University protest organizer who fought “for the total eradication of Western Civilization,” has prompted cries of fascism. Again. Meanwhile, California governor Gavin Newsom sheds his skin and snakes his way toward the center of the political spectrum: best not be fooled! This week, the guys discuss the antisemitic venom poisoning some young right-wingers, the ongoing disarray of Democrats; and more! Plus: a batch of media recommendations.
Prosper Australia was proud to join with Per Capita and a host of other organisations across the community sector in presenting the 2025 Community Tax Summit. Held in the richly historic Trades Hall, the Community Tax Summit was a two-day conference that brought together researchers, advocates, people with lived experience, and economists to examine how […]
The Interstate Bridge Project’s traffic projections pretend that the massive shift to “work-from-home” never happened
The IBR traffic projections rely almost entirely on pre-Covid-pandemic data, and ignore the dramatic change in travel patterns.
Traffic on I-5 is still 7 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to Oregon DOT data
Commuting between Portland and Vancouver has fallen by half since 2019 according to Metro
Traffic on the I-5 bridge is lower today that the purported 2005 baseline for the Columbia River Crossing project (135,000 vehicles per day)
Post-covid travel analyses have shown a permanent shift toward lower growth in vehicle miles traveled
State DOTs claim that mythical “industry standards” require them to ignore everything that’s happened since 2019, including the effect of work-from-home
The Interstate Bridge Replacement project’s traffic and revenue forecasts appear to be built on increasingly shaky ground. New data from an array of sources shows that post-pandemic travel patterns have dramatically diverged from pre-pandemic trends, calling into question the fundamental assumptions underlying the multi-billion dollar project. Commuting patterns are different, traffic is now lower, and growing more slowly than prior to the pandemic, contrary to the assumptions built into IBR traffic projections.
Any account of the decades-long occupation of Palestine from a Palestinian is immediately expected to be refined within a specific lens to appeal to the pathos of Western society. Well meaning activists, journalists and politicians may intend to share the stories of Palestinians, but too often end up curating them into a digestible format, one adjacent to the truth rather than one that embodies the whole of it. In other words, society forces Palestinians to justify and format their identities, experiences and traumas in order to be seen. Yet through this process, crucial pieces of their stories are sacrificed.
This article was originally published, in slightly different form, by Strong Towns member Eli Smith on The Faith-Based Housing Initiative Substack.It is shared here with permission. Header image provided by the writer.
In 2015 former Treasurer Joe Hockey suggested to buy a house you just needed a “good job that pays good money”
Ten years on new research shows that had a person on the average full-time male earnings in each state been saving 15% of their after-tax income, they would still be unable to afford a deposit on a median-priced house.
Worse than that, in Sydney they would have gone backwards. At the end of 2014 they would have needed a deposit of $154,600, but by the end of 2024 after saving $126,00 for 10 years they would still need an extra $155,404 in order to afford a 20% deposit on the median-priced house in Sydney.
As people have saved, the price of houses – and the size of the deposit needed – has kept going up, even faster.
In politics, as in life, winning is better than losing. But some losses are worse than others. An especially damaging defeat creates a situation that is both hard to endure and hard to change.
This is the Democratic Party’s dilemma after the 2024 election: It suffered a bad defeat. An important cause of that defeat was that the party had embraced and become identified with a social justice ideology that offends more voters than it attracts. To become more politically competitive by becoming less politically correct is, under the circumstances, clearly advisable but also highly improbable.
A Win Is a Win
First, the election. Republicans retained a majority in the House of Representatives, with a 220- to 215-seat advantage, after a net loss of two seats. By gaining four seats, the GOP also captured control of the Senate with a workable but not dominating 53-47 majority. Finally, the party won the presidency with a 49.8% to 48.3% popular vote plurality and won 58% of the Electoral College: 312 electoral votes to the Democrats’ 226.
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.
In the opening months of 2025 a wave of protest and resistance has rolled across the United States as people grapple with sustained attacks on the rights and livelihoods of those from all walks of life.
In raising their voices protesters have pushed back against the “shock and awe” approach of the federal government and its allies by showing that resistance is alive and possible.
Amongst the many strategic questions raised by all this activity is that of where action can be most effectively carried out and how protests can move away from standard locations and predictable actions to wrongfoot opponents and garner greater public attention.
Training resources about campaign strategy for changemakers including workshop exercises, activities and templates to explore in a group setting. You can draw on these materials to put together training workshops and planning sessions. Remember to modify materials for your particular context.
This guides shares tools and activities which have been developed by many different trainers and strategists. Thank you to everyone who has made their work available for others to learn from. If you use materials please acknowledge the source and respect any licenses that apply.
This is a live list. If you have a resource to add please let us know.
Here are other training tools that may be of interest.
On this episode of Follow the Money, Dr Fiona Macdonald, Acting Director at the Centre for Future Work, joins Glenn Connley to discuss Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Peter Dutton’s plan to axe public service jobs, and why the private sector generally doesn’t deliver better public services.
This discussion was recorded on Wednesday 12 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
The making and unmaking of British ‘monetary Keynesianism’
Tuesday 25 March, 1.00pm-2:30 pm, 2025
Room 341, Level 3, Social Sciences Building (A02), University of Sydney
Speaker: Dr Sahil Dutta
For a generation that spanned from the depths of the interwar period to the birth of the postwar welfare state, British political economic policy was defined by Cheap Money. This involved the Bank of England and Treasury coordinating fiscal and monetary policy to lower long-term interest rates. This monetary experiment was short-lived, but its impacts were lasting, shifting the terrain for macroeconomic governance for the following two decades. Liquidity and credit greatly expanded and attempts at austere monetary policy were left ineffective. Successive governments and the Bank of England instead had to rely on direct regulations on banks and, increasingly, austere fiscal policy to manage the economy. The talk will explore how ‘monetary Keynesianism’ emerged and how its undoing left a legacy where fiscal policy came to be the heart of Britain’s faltering ‘Keynesian revolution’. By revisiting this period, a different light can be shed on the post 2008 re-emergence of Cheap Money and new lessons can be learned for fiscal-monetary coordination today.
As I wrote in my earlier post today, Donald Trump has escalated his attack on rule of law and U.S. constitutional democracy by issuing an executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm he dislikes and fears. Now, Perkins Coie, represented by Williams & Connolly, has commenced a lawsuit to invalidate and quash Trump's order. The complaint, filed in the District Court of DC, is excellent. It is a lesson in both basic constitutional law and civil rights law. You can download a copy of the complaint, annotated by me below. Here's a link to the complaint on the web. In this post, I will describe and explain Perkins Coie's claims and arguments.
This article, Narrative Power in Crisis: How to Narrate Towards Action by the Narrative Initiative, presents five guides to use when narrating through a crisis. This article was written in the context of Trump becoming president of America in Jan 2025, but is applicable to be used in any crisis situation.
How to Narrate Towards Action
A key element of the Trump administration’s strategy is to convince the public that the MAGA movement is unstoppable. They will broadcast the message that “No one can beat us” with each advance, whether the arena is legal, journalistic, educational or civic. They will be doing this on multiple issues simultaneously, hoping to send community, labor and cultural groups into panic mode. When everyday people, without whom mass movement is impossible, absorb the idea that something is unstoppable, they lose the political will to organize and act. We can narrate in a way that inspires action, rather than contributes to its depression.
Tools for activist training and strategy development, including campaign strategy, power, conflict, narrative and storytelling. Follow the links to find materials to put together your own training workshops and planning sessions.
Learning, reflecting on action and preparing for the future are key elements in any social change project.
These guides share tools and activities which have been developed by many different trainers and strategists. Thank you to everyone who has made their work available for others to learn from. If you use materials please acknowledge the source and respect any licenses that apply.
Remember to modify activities and session plans to fit your context, including:
the time you have available
the space you are meeting in, including whether it is in person or online
the purpose of your training or planning
the access needs and skill levels of your participants
stories and case studies that are relatable to your audience or your own experience
your style and comfort level as a trainer or facilitator
The Commons will continue to gather training materials to support social change trainers and facilitators. If you have resources to add please contact us.
The promise of AI innovation has captured the attention of the technology industry and its associated policy makers. While we wait for the development of a National AI Capability Plan in Australia, companies are left with a set of voluntary guardrails to navigate the technologies’ associated risks.
In a world in which the tech industry has shown blatant disinterest in following laws and policies, against a backdrop of rampant authoritarianism and a global political trend of sunsetting “responsible AI” initiatives, we need an enforceable legislative framework that prioritises privacy and protects us from harm.
What do we mean when we talk about Artificial Intelligence?
“AI” can be a slippery concept that has different meanings and purposes depending on who is using it and why. In its broadest sense, “AI is the ability of a computer system to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, and making decisions.”
Donald Trump has been going after large law firms who represent clients and causes he doesn’t like. This started with his executive order stripping security clearances from any Covington & Burling lawyers and employees who assisted Special Counsel Jack Smith and directing all federal agencies to review any contracts with Covington and, essentially, to stop doing business with the firm. Several days ago, Trump issued an even more egregious order against Perkins Coie. These orders make it crystal clear that Trump is after any and every civil society institution that can impede his dictatorial ambitions. Over this past weekend, Trump announced his intention to penalize more law firms. As always, believe him when he tells you what he is going to do.
The case has large implications for compensation to Indigenous peoples for government acts between 1911 and 1975, particularly in the Northern Territory and also the Australian Capital Territory.
Prior to Wednesday’s High Court decision, The Australia Institute is pleased to publish research by Dr Ed Wensing outlining the potential implications for the ACT.
Key points:
Native title matters remain unresolved in the ACT with no statutory land rights system.
The issues raised by Yunupingu in the Northern Territory have many similarities with historical circumstances faced by Traditional Owners in the ACT.
The ACT Government has acted hypocritically. It has a policy of reconciliation and healing, but joined the Commonwealth’s appeal to the High Court on two out of three grounds.
“The High Court’s decision has huge implications for the ACT and its Traditional Owners,” said Dr Ed Wensing, Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Indigenous Policy Research at the Australian National University and long-time contributor to The Australia Institute.
“The nub of the case is about the expansion of the period of liability for compensation for Territory Government granted titles over native title.
“If the High Court decides in favour of Mr Yunupingu and the Gumatj Clan, the ACT’s long-held position that all native title rights and interests in the ACT were extinguished by past events simply evaporates.
New Year’s Day 2020 was no different than the ones that came before. Many people were traveling back home from the Christmas holiday, expecting to find their jobs and schools much as they had left them. Almost no one owned a surgical mask, and nobody had ever been offered a free cheeseburger in exchange for taking a vaccine.
Those first months of the new year brought whispers of a virus that was causing disruption in China. Based on everything most Americans knew at the time, there was no reason to pay attention to COVID-19. The virus seemed far away—things like that never happen here. Nevertheless, in early March, our children’s schools shut down for “two weeks to flatten the curve.” They did not reopen for the remainder of the school year.
The months that followed brought a great deal of confusion. There was constant revision of recommended guidelines. Who was in charge of those guidelines? And by what authority? The lack of data in the early stages of the pandemic made it virtually impossible for citizens to evaluate whether the restrictions were really supported by what soon came to be known as “The Science.” And as is increasingly the case, The Science was “settled.”
The costs are being passed onto ordinary Australian households and businesses through skyrocketing insurance premiums. Emergency response, recovery and reconstruction costs are also paid through our taxes.
The one group paying none of the costs are the giant fossil fuel exporters who are causing the problem in the first place.
The Australia Institute has proposed climate damage compensation levy on fossil fuel exports to help take the burden off Australian households and businesses.
Major floods in eastern Australia pushed insured losses in 2022 to a record $7 billion, almost double previous records. Perhaps more alarmingly, since 2013, insured losses in each year have exceeded the combined losses of the five years from 2000 to 2004.
Between 2022 and 2023, the average home insurance premium in Australia rose by 14%, the biggest rise in a decade. As The Australia Institute revealed last week, around one-in-five households are now either uninsured or underinsured.
“If you cause a fire or flood at your neighbour’s house, you pay for the damage. That’s what should happen here,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.
“Ordinary households and businesses are paying the cost of floods and fires caused by giant global energy companies. It’s time we made them pay instead of us.
“A drop in the ocean of their massive profits would make a huge difference to Australian households and businesses reeling after the QLD floods.
The extensive “Notes on the Crises Investigative Journalism Source Wish List” can be found here. The highest priority items on my “wish” list are currently Bureau of the Fiscal Service Parkersburg, West Virginia Budget Appropriations and current United States Treasury attorneys (including any Bureaus). All listed items are, however, important to me and I updated the list today. As always, Sources can contact me over email or over signal (a secure and encrypted text messaging app) at my Signal username “NathanTankus.01” or with the QR code below. I will speak to sources on whatever terms they require (i.e. Off the Record, Deep Background, On Background etc.)
The Reserve Bank of Australia today released its risk assessment into the payments industry’s proposed decommissioning of the Bulk Electronic Clearing System (BECS).
Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest and detention by the Trump DHS/ICE is in the news and the courts. Today, his lawyers have filed a motion to have ICE return him to New York, asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to protect Khalil from disruption of the underlying habeas corpus proceedings begun before ICE transferred him to Louisiana. This motion shows how Trump’s treatment of Khalil is also a challenge to judicial authority. It lays out the frighteningly Kafkaesque details of his original detention by ICE. Upon the arrival of DHS at his apartment building, Khalil did have a chance to contact his attorney, who quickly fired a habeas petition, challenging his detention, arrest, and confinement by ICE/DHS. This habeas petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, giving that court jurisdiction - authority - over Khalil’s situation. Yet, notwithstanding the filed habeas petition, ICE transferred Khalil from New York to Louisiana, without notifying his attorney or the court.
There is a movement sweeping state legislatures, from Connecticut to Hawaii, to enact a “green” amendment that would enshrine a person’s “individual right” to a “safe and stable climate.” To be sure, clean air and drinking water are certainly laudable goals, necessary for life. But enshrining the “green” amendment into state and federal constitutions would have unintended—and disastrous—consequences.
The movement for an amendment began gathering momentum after the landmark decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2013). In that ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared unconstitutional portions of Act 13, which expanded natural gas drilling from the Marcellus Shale reservoirs. Since then, activists such as those at For the Generations have argued that a federal amendment, modeled on Pennsylvania’s Constitution, would further strengthen the fight against climate change.
On this episode of After America, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the importance of upholding the international rule of law, the deterioration of relations between Ukraine and the Trump administration, and why Ukrainian security is important for the entire world.
This discussion was recorded on Friday 7 March 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
In 1955 Henri Lefebvre delivered an important lecture on Georg Lukács that was subsequently published in French over thirty years later as Henri Lefebvre, Lukács 1955. That volume also carried an interview between the historian and philosopher of science Patrick Tort and Henri Lefebvre, which revolved around the issues that were raised in the mid-twentieth century lecture. It also included a piece by Tort. As part of our research collaboration on Henri Lefebvre that led to the volume On the Rural: Economy, Sociology, Geography, our attention was cast to this material, so we asked Federico Testa to translate the interview. The interview is now published open access in Historical Materialism as ‘The Lukács Question’ and carries with it our introduction as well as important editorial commentary on the issues it contains.
