This Week

It’s been a minute since I wrote a standard issue. I mentioned in the announcement I sent out last week that my father passed away. For those who don’t follow me on Facebook, my dad’s death was only the beginning. My dad’s oldest sister passed away (also from dementia—we’re pretty sure she decided to stop holding on as soon as she heard about my dad). I lost a fraternity brother I literally brought into the fold. Two of my friends lost their mothers. And I lost a just retired colleague, Bill Connolly, one of the best political theorists of his generation. When Bill decided to retire, he and I swapped offices. Under ordinary circumstances I’d be mourning his loss, but by the time Bill passed I had nothing left to give. (Jürgen Habermas, another prominent political theorist, just passed away—some don’t think it a coincidence.  Habermas believed deliberation could generate democratic consensus, Connolly believed no such thing. My aunt held on until my dad left. I wouldn’t be surprised if Habermas decided to exit after Connolly did. No more dragons to slay.) 

I’ve tried more than once to write something here that can effectively capture the role all of these folk played in my life, and given how much death and dying I’ve written about since I started the newsletter you think it’d be straightforward. But not so much this time. I’ve been doing the best I can to do all the things. I usually prep for the semester over the Christmas break. I couldn’t get my head right for that, and with just three weeks left in the semester I find myself thankful that the students have extended me at least a little bit of grace. Obviously given everything I wanted to write a bit more here, but haven’t had full capacity. So instead of trying, yet again, to write something that gets at the heart of what my dad’s death means, what all these transitions mean, only to fail to write something I can send to all of you (something outside of the “thank yous” I’m this close to finishing), I’ll pass, except to say thank you to those who reached out, thank you to those of you who came by the house or took the time to come to Detroit.

Instead I’ll share some of what I’ve been up to, and a bit about what I’m working on. 

• Celina Su and Budget Justice 

• Law and Political Economy

• The No Kings Day Protest

• Announcements

Budget Justice

My friend Celina Su came out with a new book Budget Justice. I think we’re now a bit more attuned to the political function of budgets. Celina’s book details how to create a politics around municipal budgets, something to an extent we see already in the Mamdani administration in New York City—Celina was on Mamdani’s transition team. I had a conversation with her at Red Emma’s earlier in the semester. Among the topics we covered was CUNY’s shift from being the Harvard of the Poor to something else, the history of participatory budgeting, the reasons why participatory budgeting took in Brazil but hasn’t quite taken in the United States yet, and about budgets as a fundamental part of citizen-making.

The LPE Project

 About a decade or so ago a group of law professors, organizers, and students created a project they called LPE (Law and Political Economy). A big chunk of the reason why we’re in the position we are is because reactionary capital spent the resources to transform the study and practice of law. The Federalist Society plays a critical role here.  

There’d been attempts to contest the domination of the Federalist Society. The LPE Project might be the closest thing to an effective counter—liberals created The Constitution Society decades ago, but it didn’t stick. 

What would a Russell Vought of the Left look like? is a recent example of the LPE approach. In order to both successfully defeat the Trump regime and create a durable alternative, we have to rethink the Constitution. This requires an approach that matches the Reconstruction in its audacity. Beau Baumann articulates such an approach here.

Successful movements, whether aiming at reconstruction or retrenchment, are generally rooted in constitutional politics because these politics provide three things: a theory of authority, a narrative of historical legitimacy, and a structural roadmap beyond short-term opportunism. Without constitutional politics, structural reform becomes ineffectual and technocratic. It lacks an institutional anchor. This is, unfortunately, where the Left finds itself today. As I argue in the following post, if we are to fully realize the dream of post-Trump reconstruction, then we must develop a theory of constitutional politics. More specifically, I argue, this politics must involve the destruction or fundamental transformation of both juristocracy and the modern managerial presidency.

Transforming what he calls the “juristocracy” requires using congressional power to severely curtail the Supreme Court’s power, as well as the power of the courts more generally. Transforming the presidency requires putting power back into the hands of Congress, which includes but is not limited to reducing the symbolic power we attach to presidencies in general. Anyway, more at the link above.

No Kings March 2026

The most recent No Kings in America protests happened this past weekend. These protests—and to say they’re well attended is an understatement—usually generate critiques. One set sees protests as purely performative (and potentially staged). And then another set, one more directly targeted at black populations, sees the protests as white people’s business.          

I don’t believe the protests are sufficient to even ensure that the election apparatus operates correctly come November, but I don’t think they’re just performative (I definitely don’t think they’re staged). In order to develop the capacity to undertake a radically different form of political activity, we have to start small and then build out. Getting people to engage in protest activity is the first step. To the extent I’ve a critique of the protests, it is that the protests don’t seem to be based on a “first step” strategy. To the extent this is true, it’s not just the responsibility of those planning the protests to think of them differently and then work to institutionalize this thinking, it’s our responsibility. I cannot emphasize this enough—critique is insufficient. 

About two months ago, Amna Akbar (law professor, also part of the broad LPE project) wrote a piece for the London Review of Books about what was happening in Minneapolis in response to Trump’s occupation attempt. Now a big part of what’s going on in Minneapolis now is a byproduct of the organizing that took place after George Floyd’s murder. But that’s the point. To get to where Minneapolis had the capacity to respond to Trump the way they did required years of organizing alongside of, within, and after the mass protests. Take a read, then think about both the No King Protests, and the critiques it engendered.     

Announcements

Finally, a few announcements. 

This weekend I’ll be at the Western Political Science Association conference for the first time in 16 years. Will be on a Saturday afternoon panel about university organizing in the wake of the authoritarian turn. 

The weekend after that I’ll be opening for Brett Dancer at the Dark Room. This will be our second joint appearance. I’m looking forward to it. Tickets here. 

And we’re hosting our fourth annual JHU Racial Politics Summer Institute. First week of June. Focusing on authoritarianism. Application here.