PPI Statement on the Firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi

WASHINGTON — PPI President Will Marshall released the following statement on the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi:

“We cheer the news that President Trump has fired Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General. It was evident from the beginning that she was utterly unsuited by experience and temperament for the post and was picked only for her willingness to do the president’s bidding, no matter how virulently partisan or lawless it is.

“Which of course points to the bad news: Reportedly, the president pushed her out because she wasn’t aggressive enough in criminalizing political differences and launching spurious prosecutions of people he considers enemies or obstacles. Given the many ‘vengeance prosecutions’ by Bondi’s Department of Justice, the prospect of even more MAGA lawfare should alarm Congress.

“We can only hope that Republican Senators will not be derelict in their Constitutional duties again as they prepare to confirm her successor. The nation needs an Attorney General dedicated to defending the impartial rule of law, not bending it to the breaking point to punish Trump’s critics or reward his friends.”

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Marshall in The New York Times: It’s Not Going to Get Any Easier for Democrats After Trump

[…]

“Marshall, the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute and a key adviser to Bill Clinton as policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council, is deeply suspicious of third parties:

‘I’m skeptical of third parties, especially ones purporting to represent independents or centrists. Even if you could organize one, it would only give the Democratic establishment another excuse not to make the changes necessary to stop shrinking their coalition and start expanding it.’

Party leaders, in Marshall’s view, “need to reject progressive purity tests and develop a new reform blueprint that accommodates the moral sentiments and economic aspirations of working families.”

There is, Marshall maintained, “no deus ex machina that’s going to save the party; the change has to come from within as rank-and-file Democrats get tired of losing.

Marshall did call for a specific reform:

‘Replace the party’s primary and caucus system with ranked-choice (also called instant runoff) voting. The current system empowers well-organized activists and interest groups to elect their favorites on the basis of narrow pluralities rather than broad political appeal. Under ranked choice, nominees would have to win an outright majority. This would introduce a centrist bias into candidate selection and change the balance of power within the party.’

Jentleson, Kessler and Marshall bring a combination of extensive experience in the political trenches, years of pondering the Democratic future and a deep interest in finding solutions to improve the party’s future prospects.”

[…]

Read more in The New York Times

Marshall for The Hill: Bashing Billionaires Isn’t Helping Progressives Win the Working Class

Whether they march to the MAGA drumbeat or roost on the progressive left, populists share a need for scapegoats. To inflame public passions and convert them into votes, each side vows to stop nefarious villains from destroying America.

President Trump has built his political career upon demagogic attacks on “criminal aliens” and “radical left lunatics” who “hate America.” Progressive politicians, clearly envious of Trump’s grip on working-class voters, believe they can pry it loose by focusing their ire on billionaires instead.

That’s a long shot. Trump is the greatest of all time when it comes to mastering what author William Galston, in an illuminating new book, calls the “dark passions” shaping today’s politics — anger, fear and domination.

Trump’s populist elixir is more potent because it fuses working Americans’ cultural and economic grievances. While progressives fixate on the uneven distribution of wealth and power, non-college voters have more immediate concerns — the high cost of living — and worry that Democrats still lean too far left on social issues.

Read more in The Hill

Marshall for The Hill: Both Trump and Progressives Are Foggy on Iran

The fog of war seems to have enveloped President Trump and his minions. After two weeks of armed conflict with Iran, they have yet to offer a lucid and realistic explanation of America’s war aims.

The White House’s failure to dispatch top officials to last Sunday’s talk shows to drum up public support for the war was telling. Apparently, none could be trusted to speak for a president who himself lurches incoherently from one rationale to another.

Meanwhile, political battle lines have hardened at home. Republican lawmakers rubber stamp whatever Trump wants, while Democrats demand a halt to hostilities, pending a vote on a war powers resolution.

With American forces engaged in combat, this isn’t the best moment for a polarizing domestic fight over constitutional prerogatives. But Democrats are right to insist that the president bring his case for war before Congress for hearings, questions and debate.

Read more in The Hill

Marshall in Welt: Democrats Sense Their Chance

[…]

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, warns:
“We’re stuck thinking that mobilization is everything.”

He believes Democrats are well-positioned for the midterms because it’s a referendum on Trump—not a vote for Democrats. But the party has not reflected on why it lost in 2024.

“Many of the positions Democrats took in 2024 alienated voters because they were too far left—on immigration, crime, identity politics, and the economy,” he argues. That issue is currently overshadowed by anti-Trump sentiment but will resurface by 2028.

“The Democrats must not fail to change substantively if they ever want to win the White House again.”

[…]

Read more in Welt

Marshall for The Hill: The Midterms Aren’t Enough — Democrats Must Campaign for the White House

George Washington’s tenacity in winning our war of independence (with French help), after losing many battles, forms the dramatic arc of Ken Burn’s gripping documentary, “The American Revolution.

Looking ahead to this year’s midterm elections, Democrats should take the long view like Washington. As important as it is to win the House and possibly the Senate in November, it’s even more crucial for Democrats to take back the White House in 2028.

Taking control of the House would give heretofore impotent Democrats some ability to check President Trump’s flagrant abuses of presidential power. They could freeze funding for his outlandish decrees and probe his brazen politicization of federal law enforcement agencies and meddling in state elections.

The party out of power usually makes gains in midterm elections, and Democrats need only flip three seats to control the House. They are also riding a tailwind from Trump’s unpopular policies. By large margins, the public disapproves of his handling the economy, inflation and his signature issue, immigration.

Yet Trump’s fall doesn’t signal Democrats’ rise. Voters still trust Republicans more to address most of their top concerns. That’s why even a House and Senate sweep wouldn’t stop today’s realignment of U.S. politics along educational lines. It’s given Republicans a structural advantage because their base — non-college voters — constitute a supermajority (nearly 60 percent) and are spread more evenly across the country.

Read more in The Hill

Ainsley for Fabian Society: The Democrats’ recent success across the Atlantic show that a dogged focus on affordability can defeat the right

November’s US elections were Donald Trump’s first real electoral test since he swept to victory for the second time a year ago, and they produced plenty of results for the Republicans to be concerned about. The Democratic party did about as well as it could hope for, especially so given the party is without a central figure who could lead the opposition to Trump and crystallise to voters what the Democrats stand for.

The dynamic Zohran Mamdani attracted most of the attention this side of the Atlantic with his stunning win to become the new mayor of New York City, gaining plaudits from prominent Labour politicians including his London counterpart Sadiq Khan and members of the parliamentary Labour party. Mamdani’s campaign has been admired for its ground and social media mobilisation, especially when centre-left parties seem to be behind the populist right when it comes to commanding online attention.

The elections of two new Democrat governors in Virginia and New Jersey, however, may tell us more about what is happening in America than winning the mayoralty in a state that hasn’t voted Republican for 40 years. Abigail Spanberger took back the Virginia governorship from the Republicans, winning by 15 points, and Rep. Mikie Sherrill won by 13 points in New Jersey. At the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris won Virginia by just 5 points and New Jersey by 6 points. She won New York City by nearly 40 points.

Keep reading in Fabian Society’s Bottom Line.

Marshall in Politico: ‘Comeback Kid’ no more: Dems aren’t protecting the Clintons from Epstein scrutiny

[…]

Will Marshall, another Clinton cohort, concurred. “It would have been nice to see Dems not take part in an obvious attempt to pressure a former Democratic president to come to a MAGA show trial,” said Marshall, the founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank that served as a policy incubator during the Clinton years.

[…]

Marshall, the PPI founder, said the new cohort of Democrats steering the party to the left are asking the wrong questions.

“If you’re a Democrat today, you have to be asking yourself why we’re in the minority, why do we lack the tools to stop Trump from criminalizing our political differences? And the answer is the party is shrinking,” he said. “The dilemma isn’t how to keep moving left. It’s how to get back the voters Clinton won twice in the ‘90s.”

[…]

Kahlenberg in The Chronicle for Higher Education: Does American Studies Have a Credibility Problem?

[…]

In a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, titled “The Distortion of American Studies,” Richard D. Kahlenberg and Lief Lin accuse the field of having “embraced a worldview as slanted as Donald Trump’s.”

They arrived at this conclusion by analyzing several recent years’ worth of the journal American Quarterly, an official publication of the American Studies Association (ASA) and the leading journal in its field. Their thesis is simple, and blunt: “Instead of providing a rich and varied collection of positive, critical, and mixed accounts of America’s history, literature, and culture, American Quarterly paints a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait.”

Kahlenberg and Lin substantiate this claim quantitatively. Of the 96 essays in their sample, 77 are critical of the United States; 19 are neutral; 0 are positive. They do not object to a critical posture per se. “When writing about slavery,” for example, “it is entirely appropriate that the article be highly critical of the United States.” But they are interested in the gestalt. A field that is disproportionately concerned with American sins at the expense of American virtues will not be able to tell us much about the world — about, for instance, why so many people want to come to the United States.

[…]

Read more in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Manno for Washington Monthly: The Shrinking Space Between Home and Work

Americans often divide life into two settings: home and work. But life frequently involves the third-place informal gathering spots such as diners and coffee shops, bowling alleys and barbershops, church basements and library meeting rooms.

These third places, a term popularized by sociologist Ray Oldenburg in his 1989 book The Great Good Place, are crucibles of friendship, apprenticeships in citizenship, and the everyday practice of pluralism. It’s in keeping with the long American tradition of volunteer associations, acknowledged by observers from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam (of Bowling Alone fame). Sadly, we use them less; now, we need them most. Our New Year’s resolution for 2026 should include a simple but demanding commitment: to reinvigorate third places in our communities—and their presence in our own lives.

Read more in Washington Monthly. 

Marshall for The Hill: Trump Appeases Putin While Invading US Cities

Ukrainians are freezing and dying in the dark this winter as Russian missiles and drones relentlessly pound their power plants and other civilian targets. You’d expect Americans, who fought for eight long years to win their independence from another colonial power, would side instinctively with Ukraine.

And they do. Most — now including a majority of Republicans — favor sending more U.S. military assistance to Kyiv. Yet President Trump seems less moved than peeved by Ukraine’s stubborn resistance to Russia’s savage war of conquest and refuses its defenders weapons they desperately need to even the odds.

It seems the president values his unrequited man-crush on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin more than the trivial matter of Ukrainians’ freedom. This week, Trump made a mockery of his own “Board of Peace” for Gaza by inviting the Kremlin warlord to join.

Perhaps to impress his bellicose pal, Trump has turned to war. He’s attacked Venezuela. He threatened to bomb Iran again if it doesn’t stop killing protesters. And in a fit of pique over not winning a Nobel Peace Prize, he vowed to seize Greenland by force before backing off in a bizarre speech to world leaders Wednesday in Davos.

Read more in The Hill.

Kahlenberg in The Wall Street Journal: American-Studies Journal Articles Biased Against U.S., Analysis Says

A report by a left-of-center think tank being released Thursday reviewed three years of articles in the discipline’s flagship journal and characterized the scholarship as distorted, one-sided and “unrelentingly negative.”

“The analysis by the nonprofit Progressive Policy Institute reviewed 96 papers in American Quarterly published from 2022 through 2024. The authors determined 80% were critical of America, 20% were neutral and none was positive. American Quarterly is the flagship journal of the American-studies field.

“American Quarterly essentially erases virtually anything positive about the American experience,” the report says. “Instead of providing a rich and varied collection of positive, critical, and mixed accounts of America’s history, literature, and culture, American Quarterly paints a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait.” […]

The Progressive Policy Institute, which launched the project, is a public-policy think tank founded by centrist Democrats in 1989. It houses the American Identity Project, which tries to help schools and colleges promote a common American identity.

Richard Kahlenberg, an education analyst who has advocated against racial and legacy preferences in college admissions, leads the project. David Brooks, an author and columnist, and William Galston, an opinion columnist at The Wall Street Journal, whose opinion pages operate independently from the news department, are members of the American Identity Project’s advisory group.

“There is nothing wrong with being critical of America; I’m critical of America,” said Kahlenberg, who co-wrote the report. “But the ultimate goal of American studies is to pursue the truth about America, the good and the bad.”

Read more in The Wall Street Journal. 

Kahlenberg and Lin for The Wall Street Journal: American Studies Can’t Stand Its Subject

The 250th anniversary of America’s founding provides an opportunity to reflect on—and fight over—the country’s extraordinary story. Unfortunately, many of the serious scholars who study America—its history, literature and culture—fail to provide a balanced and nuanced account of the country’s complex tale.

On the one hand, America’s is a story of greatness: The U.S. is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Its founders created what is now the world’s longest-lasting liberal democratic constitution. The Declaration of Independence put forth revolutionary ideas about human freedom and equality that ushered in a new era for the world. At the same time, the American experience is complicated. Our history includes the mistreatment of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow, and high levels of economic inequality that persist to this day.

Yet we found only one part of this narrative presented in most of almost 100 articles we examined from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.

The journal’s scholarship paints a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait of the U.S. We found that 80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America, 20% were neutral, and none were positive. Of the 96 articles we examined, our research identified 77 as critical, focused on American racism, imperialism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Some articles went to absurd lengths to identify sins. One essay posited that thermodynamics—the science dealing with the relationship between energy, heat, work and temperature—is “an abstract settler-capitalist theory that influenced the plunder of Indigenous lands and lives.”

We were generous in tagging articles as neutral. Virtually every one of these 19 articles raised at least one critique (racism, sexism and the like), but they also typically described the ways in which members of marginalized communities were able to resist. Implicit in the articles is the sense that there may be a kernel of something good in a society that enables individuals to rise above oppression.

Read more in The Wall Street Journal.