Christopher Schroeder

Category: politics

  • The Bigger Political Problem

    Each day seems to bring more alarming news about the current Trump administration.

    Recent reports offer more details about Trump’s Board of Peace proposal, which he announced last week, for conflict in Gaza. Among others are the one billion dollars permanent member fee, his permanent appointment as its leader, and the inclusion of the Russian leader who continues to attack Ukraine.

    The American people also learned last week that the DOJ is investigating the widow of Renee Good, who was killed by federal officers conducting potentially illegal detentions in a large American city. This investigation and others, such as the governor of that state and the mayor of that city, have led to the resignations of federal prosecutors there and elsewhere.

    We also learned last week that the same DOJ is investigating the Fed Board Chairman in an attempt to exert control over interest rates ahead of an upcoming election. Even this possibility according to many, such as bank CEOs, could have negative economic consequences.

    These are just several of the latest offenses committed by the current American presidential administration, and the American president who campaigned against global entanglements for example and prosecutorial politicization, which he criticized in others. Since then, his administration has made gaslighting into an art form.

    The damage to American democracy alarms many both in the United States and around the world, including some who wonder whether some might be permanent. The greater concern in my opinion is the legitimization of this president by our fellow Americans.

    These 2024 election voters aren’t the majority of Americans. Only sixty-four percent voted, and less than fifty percent of these voted for Trump. Nonetheless, these people, and their concerns and the conditions that generated these, will persist long after this administration is gone.

    Their concerns and conditions should also alarm, and need to be acknowledged and addressed by, anyone who cares about democracy. Otherwise, we risk misunderstanding the interest and goals of our fellow Americans, and returning to these destructive conditions in the future.

    Such a response needn’t entail authorizing their actions or even endorsing their concerns. Rather, it can recognize these while challenging underlying assumptions or foundational principles, and offering alternative perspectives. Still, it must include explicit recognition if the damage is to be repaired and a better future is to be constructed.

    Part of this process will obviously include rebuilding trust. That will be challenging enough when it involves the federal, state, and perhaps even local governments. For me, it will be even more so when it pertains to my fellow Americans.

    This obligation according to some might be greater for those who legitimized this political and social destruction, which makes sense. At the same time, the greater good might require us to meet them halfway no matter how righteous our distrust might be if only to prioritize the future of our nation over political or personal grievance.

    Such an approach is one I’m hoping to hear from anyone who wants my vote, and wants to lead us, in the future.

  • Ample Abundance

    Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (2025) in their recent co-authored book offer an assessment of and an alternative for the American political state of affairs.

    Klein and Thompson criticize both Republicans and Democrats for different and similar reasons. Conservatives for example cannot acknowledge the limits of markets for example and call for small government while embracing large policies. Liberals for instance privilege process over outcomes and embrace political solutions but reject these for their own communities.

    Both more importantly misunderstand the economy and endorse scarcity. A better approach they argue is less concerned with the size of government or the politics of identity and more with capacity and outcomes, and assumes abundance.

    This underlying assumption arises from their observations that substantial changes have slowed and that big ideas are harder to generate. These and other conditions they suggest reflects a general failure to build, invent, and even dream of solutions, which lie at the center of their abundance approach.

    Their perspective as some have noted (e.g., Kazis 2025 or Teachout 2025) is short on specifics. However, such a criticism misunderstands the purpose of this book, which is to critique conventionally liberal perspective, and the larger context in which this exists.

    In this more limited goal, their book seems sufficient. Such an opinion seems validated by others who have used their account to organize regional and national events. Its usefulness even extends to politicians elsewhere, which is an additional endorsement.

    Anything that attempts in other words to account for the sclerotic political present and offer an alternative, and hopeful, future is enough return on the time invested in reading it.

  • Neocons Anyone?

    I’m unsure whether America needs to bring back the neocons as David Brooks (2025) argues, but I think he is right to highlight a missing ethical aspect to conservative politics today, which could serve as a corrective to the current Republican party.

    I realize that these values needn’t necessarily come from neoconservatives who came together as he suggests in the 1970s and later supported the Iraq War (18-29). At the same time, I think that the current conservative party offers little to convince voters that they have moral values, such as “basic decency” or “showing up on time, working hard, being there for your neighbor, listening with curiosity, respecting traditions” that Brooks recommends (21).

    Too many politicians prioritize party over principles, which reflects the value of retaining power at all costs rather than supporting the best for our communities and country. Without clear shared principles, conservative politicians will never get my vote, or even convince me to consider their perspectives even though I believe that a viable conservative party is essential to a functioning democracy.

    My objection to Brooks however is the absence of any accountability or even accounting for current political conditions. Such an aspect would include not only a president who adds partisan plaques beneath former presidents’ photos for example but also a partisan Supreme Court that promotes outcomes that are inconsistent not only with the U.S. Constitution but also some justices’ previously espoused beliefs.

    This aspect isn’t as important for consequences although those have their place in any justice that attempts to restore trust. Rather, it is a practical component to convince at least some of us that any effort to rebuild what current conservatives have dismantled and destroyed is worth the time and effort that doing so would require.

    Otherwise, we might sit out at least until we can be convinced that what has recently happened — everyone knew after his first term what Trump 2.0 could be — won’t happen again at least until those of us who have lived through it are no longer around to remember how destructive this time has been.