Incoming Feed Items

Harvard University historian James Hankins celebrates the 94% reduction in illegal border crossings that the Trump Administration achieved in just its first six weeks as an “unprecedented accomplishment.” He cites polling evidence indicating that, while a wide majority of Americans supports deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of felonies, a wide majority is against deporting most undocumented but otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens. Mass deportations, he argues, are neither “good for the country” nor “politically smart.” He warns GOP leaders that stories about “immigrants suffering in detention camps, tearful family separations…and so forth…could turn into a major wedge issue for Democrats in the 2026 election cycle.” This argument for measured, not mass, deportations needs to be amended and refined—but it should not be rejected.

Let tax reform drive your voting decision this election with the Prosper Australia 2025 policy scorecard.

For about a week, I've been writing long threads on Mastodon, detailing and explaining significant developments in the various court cases involving Venezuelans the Trump regime has classified as alien enemies and is attempting to remove from the country, presumably to a hellish prison in El Salvador. Most courts involved have taken at least some steps to stop any such removals while the substantive issues are litigated. Even the Roberts Supreme Court issued an emergency order telling the executive branch not to remove Venezuelans held in the Northern District of Texas, because the district court there and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to act. This emergency order came on the heels of another opinion from the Roberts Court, the one where the justices held that Venezuelans detained per Trump's Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation had to seek relief by filing habeas corpus petitions in the federal district court in the location where they are confined. The justices also held:

Jeffrey B. Dawson and Hunter L. Clark

Matt McCaw never wanted to leave Oregon. The problem, he explains, is that Oregon left him. “The state went off the rails during the COVID pandemic,” the 46-year-old textbook salesman tells me. “The authorities immediately closed down our schools and churches. Instead of an education, my six kids were given exactly four hours of online classwork a week. People hassled you if you dared to set foot outside your front door without wearing a mask. And of course you couldn’t even escape by going out for a movie or a meal, because everything was boarded up, and the restaurants were takeout-only.”

It’s one thing for a civil authority to take such drastic measures within the strict confines of a genuine public emergency. But as Britain’s Harold Macmillan once sagely reminded us, speaking of the strange reluctance of the state to relinquish supplementary power once given a taste of it: “You can always throw a dog a bone, but you can’t always take it back again.”

Australia Institute research shows that subsidies for luxury imported utes costs the Federal Budget $250 million per year.

Almost every large, dual-cab ute on the market is exempt from the luxury car tax because utes are “designed mainly for carrying goods and not passengers”.

But everyone knows most of these vehicles rarely leave the bitumen of our suburbs and rarely carry anything more than the weekly shopping or children for the school drop-off.

“Big dumb utes make our roads more dangerous, cause more pollution and reduce the government’s ability to fund social services,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“Basic economics says to tax things you want less of and subsidise things you want more of, yet Peter Dutton seems to want less electric vehicles and more American-style utes on our roads.

“The Coalition says it’s scrapping the EV tax break – which it supported up until Monday – because people who buy electric vehicles can afford them. Surely the same should apply for big utes.”

The post Silence on big ute subsidies as Coalition backflips on EV’s appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the Coalition’s defence spending announcement, why Australia needs bravery from policymakers, and the latest debate between Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 24 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Follow all the action from the federal election on our new politics live blog, Australia Institute Live with Amy Remeikis.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

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:

Why are young college-educated women trending left-wing?

Many like Charlie Kirk blame universities for indoctrinating young women. But the problem is deeper. Parents and young women have swallowed a feminist vision of the heroic feminine that elevates the university while leaving tradition and family behind.

“What defines” the New Woman, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead wrote in her 2003 book Why There Are No Good Men Left, “is not her relationship to marriage, but the remarkable path she follows from cradle to career.” She is single for longer than she used to be. She may not want children. She is independent, confident, increasingly irreligious, and must stand on her own. Advanced education and professional achievement are keys to the new view of womanhood.

Marriage, motherhood, and religion used to be the most important markers for women. Parents beamed when daughters married. Fathers hoped daughters would earn an M.R.S. degree. Wedding pictures were mounted above fireplaces. No more.

Election campaigns are when political parties tell us their priorities – they will structure their campaigns around certain themes, all designed to show voters that they are listening and they care.

But these priorities are often limited by notional and often arbitrary lines about what can be afforded to be done. Before the Budget this year, for example, the Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said: “as Finance Minister, I probably get a hundred good ideas for one that we can do.”

Because election commitments are accompanied by costings, voters can get a real sense of what political parties truly think are their priorities – and how much they are willing to spend when something is for them a priority.

Across the community, there is serious concern about the prevention of domestic and family violence. Until today, it hasn’t really featured in the campaign. So far in the campaign, Labor have promised $8.6 million in additional spending to tackle domestic and family violence. While today the Liberal Party has just announced a $90 million policy.

How much is that money? Surely it is sizeable given for example Peter Dutton said this morning that “most every measure in this space is supported on bipartisan basis because everyone accepts the fact that the scourge of violence and domestic violence, financial coercion and every aspect in this debate is completely and widly unacceptable in our society and we should do everything together to try to defeat it and work toward a better outcome for individuals and for our country as well.”

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.

Of Comms and Conclaves | The Roundtable Ep. 264

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

If anyone can witness the genocide in Gaza with utmost clarity, it would be medical professionals working there. Their accounts continue to be as harrowing as those of journalists and Gazans themselves, stripped of rhetoric and left with only raw truth. Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a general, trauma and critical care surgeon in California, has been to Gaza twice and he joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report.

“There is no serious health system in Gaza anymore,” Sidhwa tells Hedges. Instead, what’s left of hospitals are mere buildings filled with medical professionals stripped of the equipment vital to saving lives, refugees seeking anything more than tents and endless streams of people barely surviving the constant onslaught of bombs.

Kenechukwu Anadu, Pablo D. Azar, Marco Cipriani, Thomas M. Eisenbach, Catherine Huang, Mattia Landoni, Gabriele La Spada, Marco Macchiavelli, Antoine Malfroy-Camine, and J. Christina Wang

Iain Frame
More “Roundtable: Public Banking
Two public banks, one common sense. The Royal Bank of Scotland, the British Business Bank, and neoliberalism”

A survey of hundreds of Australians reveals that the majority oppose the Coalition’s Super for Housing policy, dismissing it as “short-sighted” and ineffective at solving the nation’s housing affordability crisis.

National housing campaign Everybody’s Home’s survey of 740 people shows 76 per cent of respondents oppose allowing first home buyers to access $50,000 from their superannuation for a housing deposit.

Respondents expressed deep concerns about the scheme’s potential to inflate housing prices, with three in four (75%) either extremely or very concerned that using an extra $50,000 of super savings would push house prices up.

Key findings from the survey include:

Why is Harvard’s motto in Latin? On the current coat of arms, printed on three open books, is the inscription VE-RI-TAS: “Truth.” Through Harvard’s history, there have been several other mottos, including in Christi Gloriam and pro Christo et Ecclesia (sometimes appearing alongside the original Veritas). The current one-word version, stripped of references to Christianity, was adopted in the early 20th century.

Would it be so surprising, given its current trajectory, if Harvard finally decided to remove the word entirely, like an annoying wisdom tooth? While the Trump Administration’s recent ultimatum to Harvard has drawn critiques not just from the Left but even the New Right, there is still broad consensus that something must be done to halt the decay of America’s prestige institutions.

However cringe it may seem to some, the administration’s demand that Harvard implement “viewpoint diversity” in admissions and faculty appointments at least recognizes, in official print, that our nation’s reputedly elite institutions have largely put themselves in service of a left-leaning political patronage industry. It is hard for many people to see how this conduces to Veritas.

Gippsland has proudly powered Victoria for generations. Now it’s forging a new energy future, powered by abundant resources of offshore wind and community spirit. Senator Jess Walsh details her experience with Gippsland’s community driven energy shift, the critical role of government in making it happen, and how to cut through the nuclear noise to focus on real, sustainable solutions. Jess spoke at Per Capita’s monthly John Cain Lunch in April 2025. Watch the recording below.

Dr Jess Walsh is a proud Labor Senator who believes a well-paid, stable job is the foundation for a good life in this country. Jess serves as Chair of the Senate Economics Committee which covers the Treasury, Industry, Science and Resources portfolios. She believes the economy needs to work for all Australians, with a focus on prioritising women, uplifting regional communities, and safeguarding our most vulnerable. Jess has been a loud voice for workers throughout her career and wants workers – from care economy workers to manufacturers – to be given the pay, conditions, and respect they deserve. Before entering Federal Parliament, Jess was a researcher, campaigner, and union leader.

Australia is a low tax nation, and this has left Australians with higher rates of poverty, poorer services and crumbling infrastructure.

If the government raised as much revenue as the average tax take of advanced nations in the OECD, it would have an extra $135 billion a year.

That could be used to improve infrastructure, deliver better education and health services and fast-track the shift to a low-emissions economy.

The Australia Institute proposes a range of changes to the tax system that are already at the centre of policy debate. Some are supported by current members of parliament, while others have been major party policy in the past. They are well-known by policy practitioners and popular with voters.

Such changes would not mean higher taxes for the vast majority of Australians, but would instead be done in ways which will make Australia fairer and safer.

We could:

• Cut fossil fuel subsidies and end the gas industry’s free ride.
• Reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.
• Close the tax loopholes for superannuation and luxury utes.

Such reforms to the tax system could raise between $12 billion and $63 billion a year:

Earlier this year, Business Council of Australia president Geoff Culbert told the AFR that Australia is “permanently in election mode” and our three-year term limits are “too short”. The prime minister and opposition leader both say they support four-year terms, though they’re not willing to chance their arm on a constitutional referendum to make it happen.

In the last 25 years, Australia has had eight (soon to be nine) federal elections. If that sounds like heavy going, spare a thought for generations past. From 1950 to 1975, Australians voted in 15 federal elections, including four separate half-Senate elections.

This is to say nothing of the four separate referendums held between 1950 and 1975, compared with just one in the period from 2000 to 2025.

When Gough Whitlam joked that he was enjoying a rare “non-election year” back in 1985, he had a point.

On this crossover episode of After America and Follow the Money, Ebony Bennett and Dr Emma Shortis discuss the US administration’s mass deportations, the scandals surrounding the Departments of Defense and State, and why Australian democratic institutions are worth defending.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 22 April 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @EmmaShortis

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

Despite legal pledges to reduce greenhouse gases to address climate change, Oregon’s transportation greenhouse gas emissions are going up, not down. 

State, regional and city governments have adopted climate goals that purport to commit to steadily reducing greenhouse gases, but we’re not merely failing to make progress, we’re going in the wrong direction. 

April 22 is Earth Day, and to celebrate, Oregon is moving forward with plans to billions dollars into three Portland area freeway widening projects. It isn’t so much Earth Day as a three-weeks late “April Fools Day.”  

If you’re serious about dealing with climate change, the last thing you should do is spend billions widening freeways.

Prominent voices on the Left and within movement conservatism have argued that President Trump’s approach to foreign trade is strange, unorthodox—and even un-American. This is not surprising. After all, doctrinaire commitment to free trade—and doctrinaire distaste for protecting American industry—has been the dominant view among elites of both major political parties for at least a generation. Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that Trump’s actions on trade appear as a wholly irrational disruption of a system that, according to our political elites, does not need to be discarded.

This view of the matter, however, is based on an incomplete understanding of the American political tradition. Trump’s approach to trade policy has deep roots in American history, as we can see if we cast our gaze further back than we are accustomed to doing. Indeed, it does not go too far to say that the American Founders would find Trump’s approach to international commerce perfectly intelligible and respectable.

The most obvious way to link President Trump to the Founders is to invoke the justly celebrated name of Alexander Hamilton. The Report on Manufactures, Hamilton’s most famous state paper during his tenure as George Washington’s Treasury Secretary, laid out policy objectives that are essentially the same as those being defended by Trump and the members of his cabinet who are responsible for trade policy.

My new book on the genocide in Gaza, "A Genocide Foretold," was just published. You can order a copy here.

"Chris Hedges profoundly describes exactly what is happening in Palestine and talks on behalf of the victims. In his painful writings, he makes their voices heard."

— Atef Abu Saif, former Minister of Culture of Palestine

Link to order: https://www.sevenstories.com/books/4716-a-genocide-foretold

As fellow St. Louisan T.S. Eliot said, “April is the cruelest month.” But April is also the coolest month: The Last American Road Trip is a national bestseller!

This happened for one reason: you! Thanks to word-of-mouth praise, my new book gained traction. I now have written a bestseller in the worst economy since 1932, topping my prior feat of writing a bestseller in the opening salvo of a global plague.

These are strange times. Nothing lasts, but nothing ends either.

It is surreal to be on tour. There is a stark dichotomy between the wonderful people I meet on the road and the dread I feel when I read the news. Over nine days, I did events in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Austin, and Tulsa — and stopped at many places in between. I remain awed by the beauty of our country and inspired by the resilience of its people, but my soul aches at a fate so undeserved.

I have a lot to say about recent events. But I can’t write and tour at once. That is why I am offering you this Exhausted Guilt-Ridden Discount:

Pro-GOP media and supporters have long committed themselves to a view of politics as a zero-sum battle between the fantasy of an “Us” and a hobgoblin of “Them.” This rhetorical strategy goes at least as far back as McCarthyism, but Limbaugh was relentlessly attached to it, as is Fox News. They aren’t alone in this (I first became familiar with this way of thinking about politics when arguing with Stalinists, Libertarians, and pro-PETA folks many, many years ago). It’s working better for the GOP than it is for critics of the GOP, or Dems, or various groups for various reasons.

The extensive “Notes on the Crises Investigative Journalism Source Wish List” can be found here. All listed items are important to me. As always, Sources can contact me over email or over signal (a secure and encrypted text messaging app) — linked here. My Signal username is “NathanTankus.01” and you can find me by searching for my username. I will speak to sources on whatever terms they require (i.e. off the record, Deep Background, on Background etc.)

Introduction

Shifting mindsets for social change is a long game, but short-term policy change must be a part of that calculus, as it can make or break the long-term potential of any culture change effort.

Here’s how we can think about the short and long term in advocacy playbooks.

The Long and the Short of It

Mindset shifts are long games that require short-term wins along the way. Mindset shifts both enable and result from changes in behavior, policy, institutions, and structures.

That means enduring, sustainable social change requires attention to short-term policy wins while always keeping a steady eye on long-term goals. It’s not a question of short-term wins or long-term gains; the short term and the long game must be mutually reinforcing.

It’s tempting to focus on the short-term policy-change layup—a win is a win—and early victories can certainly help catalyze mindset shifts and policy change.

Short-term policy gains without a mindset shift strategy risk backsliding and may not be sustainable. Without a long-term focus, we run the risk of decisive, even dangerous, defeat.