What Do We Fight to Save?

Over the past three weeks, we’ve walked through the rise and unraveling of Pax Americana—not just as a foreign policy, but as a way of life.

We’ve seen how the U.S. used trade, culture, and finance to build a stable world order—and how that same system left millions of American workers behind.

We explored:

• The military, cultural, and economic foundations of Pax Americana

• The silent superpower of trade and the rise of globalization

• The slow erosion of jobs through automation

• The China Shock and sudden trade collapse in factory towns

• The political backlash that turned frustration into populism

• And the current attempt to rebuild America’s industrial core through tariffs, investment, and policy pivots

But now, as we close this series, we need to ask a deeper question:

What are we actually fighting to save?

Is it the jobs?
The stability?
The idea of a nation that once made things, paid living wages, and promised your kids would do better than you?

Or is it something even deeper—a vision of who we thought we were, and who we still want to be?

The Promise of Pax Americana

At its best, Pax Americana wasn’t just about tanks and treaties.
It was about peace through prosperity, global leadership, and the confidence that America could be both strong and fair.

It rebuilt Europe. Contained conflict. Powered innovation.
It built the middle class.

But it also:

• Ignored inequality

• Outsourced its pain

• Treated some communities as expendable

• And celebrated “efficiency” at the expense of belonging

The global economy we created delivered massive gains—for some.
But it also hollowed out the foundation of American life for many.

And no one came to explain why.

When the System Broke

Factory towns didn’t just lose paychecks. They lost:

• Purpose

• Community

• Trust in institutions

Automation and trade were part of it. But so were policy failures, corporate greed, and a political class that stopped listening.

People were told to move, retrain, or “adapt”—as if the trauma of losing an entire way of life could be fixed with a coding bootcamp.

And so, the promise of Pax Americana—global peace, domestic prosperity—began to crack.

The result?
A deep and dangerous sense of abandonment.

The Rise of Backlash—and the Call to Rebuild

That sense of loss became a political force.
People turned to leaders who promised revenge, repair, or revolution.

Some blamed immigrants.
Some blamed China.
Some blamed corporations, billionaires, or Washington itself.

But beneath all the noise was a real and righteous question:

“What happened to us?”

And now, the U.S. is trying to answer:

• With industrial policy

• With tariffs and reshoring

• With new investment in tech, energy, and infrastructure

But the truth is: we’re still debating whether we want to rebuild the old system, or imagine something new.

What Would a Just Economy Look Like?

What if this moment isn’t just about restoring what was lost, but about asking:

• What do we value?

• Who do we build for?

• What does dignity look like in a 21st-century economy?

It might mean:

• Valuing care work and education as much as construction or coding

• Building safety nets that support risk, not punish failure

• Seeing work not just as a paycheck, but as a place of meaning and belonging

• Rewriting trade and tech policy to support people, not just profit

Because maybe it was never just about jobs.
Maybe it was about identity.

What Do We Fight to Save?

This isn’t just about economics. It’s about who we are—and who we want to be.

We can’t go back. The world has changed.

But we can choose what kind of future we build.
And that starts by deciding what’s worth protecting—and what’s worth letting go.

So ask yourself, wherever you sit reading this:

What do you fight to save?

And what might it take to truly build something better?

The Golden Tickets: How Trump’s New Grift Works

The Parable of the Golden Tickets

There once was a famous showman named Don, known throughout the land for his grand promises and golden towers. One day, Don announced a new spectacle: The Palace of Freedom, a place he claimed would be the most luxurious, exclusive, and powerful gathering of patriots in history.

But the palace had no doors, no stage, and no performers. Still, Don proclaimed, “I’m offering Golden Tickets—rare, valuable, and only for the loyal. Those who buy them now may one day be granted a seat at my private banquet. Or perhaps they’ll become rich! Who knows?”

People rushed to buy them, not because they’d seen the palace, but because they trusted Don—or feared missing out. They traded their savings, their hopes, and even borrowed from friends. Don’s family quietly kept most of the tickets for themselves.

The palace never opened.

But Don held a small dinner for a few of the richest ticket holders and called it proof the dream was real. Meanwhile, he sold more tickets, opened a new booth, and claimed another miracle was just around the corner.

Some began to ask: Where is the palace? Why does the door never open?

But Don smiled and said, “The real palace is your belief in me. And the more you give, the closer you are to entering.”

And so the people kept buying, while Don kept counting.

What This Means in Real Life

This isn’t just a parable—it’s a fairly accurate description of how Donald Trump is currently using crypto, DeFi, and political branding to turn followers into revenue.

Let’s look at two real-world versions of those “Golden Tickets”:

#1 The $TRUMP Meme Coin

This is a cryptocurrency token bearing Trump’s name. It’s not backed by a product, a policy, or any clear purpose. Instead, it was marketed to Trump supporters as a kind of status symbol—and a chance to win favors. The top 220 holders were promised a dinner with Trump. The top 25 got even more.

But here’s the catch:

• Trump-affiliated companies own 80% of the coin.

• He profits directly when people buy and trade it.

• The coin’s value depends entirely on hype and loyalty, not utility.

So what are buyers really paying for? Access. Not to a useful product, but to a political celebrity.

#2 World Liberty Financial

This was pitched as a new kind of financial platform—a decentralized, Trump-backed alternative to the global system. Investors were told to buy “governance tokens,” which supposedly would let them help shape the platform’s future.

But:

• The platform still doesn’t exist in any real, functioning way.

• The Trump family took $400 million in fees from early fundraising.

• The tokens give “voting rights” over a system that doesn’t operate.

It’s the palace all over again: lots of golden tickets, but no open doors.

Why It Matters

These schemes work because they blur the lines between fandom, politics, and finance. People aren’t just supporting a candidate—they’re “investing” in their loyalty. Trump has turned belief into a business, and every new venture becomes a test of faith.

It’s not just about whether it’s legal.
It’s about whether it’s honest.

Most of the people buying in won’t get dinner with Trump. They won’t strike it rich. They’ll just be left holding tickets to a show that was never really meant to happen.

Even Republicans are questioning this grift:

“I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to charge people to come into the Capitol and take a tour.” - Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

“This is my president that we’re talking about, but I am willing to say that this gives me pause.” - Sen. Cynthia Lummis, of Wyoming

Final Thought

In the end, grifts like these aren’t about building anything real. They’re about taking just enough truth—a dinner here, a flashy coin there—to convince people the palace is coming, as long as they keep paying.

But the real palace? It’s built out of your money—and you’re never meant to get inside.

Sources and Further Reading

• Trump’s Biggest Meme-Coin Investors Get Invited to Dinner With the President – Wall Street Journal

• How Trump Turned a Dinner Invite Into a Crypto Boon Worth Millions – Washington Post

• How the Trump Family Took Over World Liberty Financial – Reuters

• Trump Campaign Funnels Donor Money Into His Own Businesses – USA Today

• Trump 2024 Campaign Merchandise and Side Hustles – Wikipedia

The Turnaround: How Democracies Fight Back

Authoritarianism can feel inevitable once it takes hold—like a tide you can’t fight. But history says otherwise.

Countries have fought back. They’ve overturned power grabs, rebuilt institutions, and reawakened civic trust. It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t fast. But it was possible.

Today, we’re looking at places that clawed their way back from the brink—and what we can learn from their strategies.

Poland: Voting the Authoritarians Out

For years, Poland was a poster child for democratic backsliding. The ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) packed courts, suppressed independent media, and used state resources to maintain its grip on power.

But in 2023, something changed.

• A broad coalition came together, uniting liberals, centrists, and even some conservatives against authoritarianism.

• Civic education campaigns helped voters understand what was at stake—not just who to vote for, but why democracy itself mattered.

• Record turnout, especially among younger voters, tipped the election.

The PiS party lost power. The opposition is now working—slowly, carefully—to undo the damage and rebuild institutional trust.

Lesson: Unity of purpose can defeat even entrenched authoritarian governments—especially through elections.

South Korea: Legal Accountability After Scandal

South Korea’s turn came not from an election, but from a scandal.

In 2016, then-President Park Geun-hye was implicated in a massive corruption scheme. Rather than shrug it off, millions of South Koreans took to the streets in peaceful candlelight protests.

• The pressure worked: Park was impeached, removed from office, and eventually imprisoned.

• New elections ushered in reform-minded leadership.

• The country strengthened anti-corruption laws and transparency mechanisms in response.

It wasn’t a perfect fix—but it was proof that a mobilized population, paired with legal institutions, could demand real consequences.

Lesson: Peaceful protest and legal mechanisms, when working together, can deliver accountability—even at the highest levels.

Slovakia: Fighting Back with Facts

In Slovakia, journalists were under siege—especially after the 2018 assassination of investigative reporter Ján Kuciak.

Rather than succumb to fear or censorship:

• The media doubled down, continuing to expose corruption and criminal networks tied to politicians.

• Public outrage turned into political action. Protest movements formed, elections were held, and new leadership emerged.

• Transparency reforms followed, alongside greater protection for journalists.

Slovakia remains a work in progress—but it turned a moment of national trauma into democratic renewal.

Lesson: A free press, even under fire, can rally the public and shift the political tide.

The Common Thread: People Made It Happen

These turnarounds weren’t top-down miracles. They were bottom-up demands for change—driven by voters, journalists, students, civil servants, and protestors.

They happened because:

• People stayed engaged, even when it felt hopeless.

• They built coalitions wider than their own politics.

• They refused to normalize authoritarian tactics.

That’s what makes the difference. Not just outrage—but organized, sustained civic resistance.

Could It Happen Here?

It already is.

The United States still has independent courts, free media, grassroots movements, and the power of the vote. We’re not past the point of no return—but we’re close enough to see it.

What these countries show us is that even battered democracies can fight back—if enough people recognize what’s happening and act while they still can.

Tomorrow: What You Can Do

Tomorrow, we close the series with something practical: a list of things you—yes, you—can do to help stop the spread of authoritarianism.

Voting is just the beginning. There’s more you can do—and more people ready to do it alongside you than you might think.

If you’ve been with this series all week, thank you. Don’t miss the finale.

Trump Pardons Fraudsters

The Washington Post

Liz Oyer, the Justice Department’s recently fired pardon attorney, made a staggering claim on social media this week: President Donald Trump’s pardons of people convicted of white-collar crimes have cost Americans $1 billion.

Let that sink in. A president, convicted of business fraud, is now championing fraudsters all over the country by pardoning them.

This is not okay. This is not normal.

The pardon system is broken, and was never designed to be wielded by an immoral actor.

Can We Rebuild? Industrial Policy, Tariffs, and the 2025 Pivot

After decades of offshoring, deindustrialization, and policy neglect, something strange is happening in Washington:

People are talking about factories again.

From chip plants in Arizona to tariff hikes in 2025, the United States is trying to rebuild its economic engine—and reclaim the middle-class jobs it once exported away.

But the big question remains:

Are we actually rebuilding something new?
Or just slapping fresh paint on the same broken machine?

The Return of Industrial Policy

For decades, industrial policy was a dirty word in U.S. politics—seen as top-down meddling that picked winners and losers.

Now? It’s back in fashion. In fact, it might be the only thing both parties agree on.

Key efforts include:

• The CHIPS and Science Act: Investing billions in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.

• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): Funding clean energy infrastructure, battery factories, and domestic production of green tech.

• Infrastructure law: Repairing roads, ports, and bridges to support a more resilient economy.

• “Buy American” rules: Prioritizing U.S.-made goods in federal contracts.

All of this amounts to a quiet revolution in U.S. economic strategy—one that puts place-based, job-focused investment front and center again.

The 2025 Tariff Pivot

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s return in 2025 has brought tariffs and economic emergency powers back into the spotlight.

What’s new:

• Broad executive authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, citing “economic security.”

• New import restrictions targeting China, Mexico, and even some allies.

• Expansion of the “America First” agenda through supply chain reshoring mandates and targeted tax breaks.

To supporters, this is long-overdue muscle-flexing—finally putting American workers first after decades of being “sold out.”

To critics, it risks:

• Retaliation

• Price increases

• The erosion of global alliances built through trade

Either way, it’s a sharp break from the laissez-faire consensus of the post-Cold War era.

Can These Policies Actually Rebuild the Middle Class?

That’s the trillion-dollar question.

Potential strengths:

• Reinvesting in regions left behind by globalization.

• Creating new industrial hubs around green energy and advanced manufacturing.

• Breaking dependence on unstable foreign supply chains.

Major challenges:

• Most new jobs require specialized training or degrees.

• Many factories are heavily automated, meaning fewer hires.

• Without long-term investment in workers, new plants may not lift local economies the way old ones did.

In short: rebuilding the supply side without rebuilding the people side won’t be enough.

Are We Repeating Old Mistakes?

There’s a danger in industrial nostalgia.

We talk about bringing jobs back, but:

• Are we recreating mass employment—or capital-intensive, robot-run plants?

• Are we investing in communities—or offering one-time tax incentives?

• Are we fixing the system—or just shifting which corporations get favored?

America once built the blueprint for postwar prosperity.
But do we still remember how?

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll close out the series with a bigger question:

If this system isn’t working for everyone—what are we fighting to save?

Because rebuilding is one thing. But reimagining? That’s what real recovery might require.

Holding the Line: What’s Resisting So Far

Authoritarianism spreads when people give up—when institutions crumble, when watchdogs stay silent, when citizens look away. But that’s not the whole story.

Because even now, in the midst of a coordinated effort to concentrate power and dismantle democratic norms, some people, some systems, and some truths are holding the line.

Today’s post is about them—the remaining firewalls that are still doing their job, even as the pressure mounts.

Local and State Election Officials

In 2020, and again in 2024, many local and state election officials—Republicans and Democrats alike—refused to bend to pressure.

They certified results, rejected fake slates of electors, and told the truth even when it made them targets. Some lost their jobs. Some got death threats. But they kept going.

• Brad Raffensperger (R-GA) famously rebuffed Trump’s demand to “find 11,780 votes.”

• County officials in Arizona refused to decertify their own elections despite national pressure.

In an increasingly federalized world, local courage matters more than ever.

Journalists, Whistleblowers, and Investigators

While authoritarian movements try to silence or co-opt the media, independent journalism hasn’t stopped digging.

From ProPublica and The Washington Post to local watchdogs and freelance investigators, journalists continue to expose:

• Political corruption

• Civil rights violations

• Secretive executive actions

• Threats to immigrants, minorities, and whistleblowers

Even under threat of lawsuits, bans, or worse, the press continues to be a critical line of defense.

Some Courts Are Still Independent

Despite growing politicization, many judges have ruled against authoritarian overreach:

• Courts blocked Trump-era immigration bans, voter suppression efforts, and attempts to overturn election results.

• Even some conservative judges have issued decisions protecting the rule of law.

That independence is fragile—but real. It’s a reason to fight for judicial integrity, not to give up on it.

Inspectors General and Career Civil Servants

Many of the people inside government—the ones you never hear about—are still doing their jobs. Quietly. Relentlessly.

Even after waves of firings, some inspectors general, agency attorneys, and career analysts have leaked wrongdoing, resisted illegal orders, or flagged abuses of power.

Authoritarians want these people gone for a reason: they are some of democracy’s last honest brokers.

Civic Movements and Local Organizing

Change doesn’t just come from Congress or courts. It comes from below.

In the past few years, we’ve seen:

• Grassroots movements to protect voting rights

• Mutual aid networks in response to state neglect

• Community defense organizations against political violence

• Local school board candidates running against book bans and censorship

Even as national institutions struggle, civic energy at the local level is rising—and that’s where much of the fight for democracy will be won or lost.

The “Fighting Oligarchy” Tour: Mobilizing a Mass Movement

In the face of rising authoritarianism, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have launched the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour—a nationwide series of rallies aimed at confronting the influence of billionaires and corporate power in American politics. Since its inception in February 2025, the tour has drawn substantial crowds, including 36,000 attendees in Los Angeles and over 9,000 in Missoula, Montana.   

The tour’s message centers on combating economic inequality, advocating for policies like universal healthcare, and encouraging grassroots political engagement. By bringing these issues to the forefront, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are galvanizing a movement that challenges the status quo and seeks to empower everyday Americans in the democratic process.

https://berniesanders.com/oligarchy/

Why This Matters

Democracy isn’t a permanent condition. It’s a set of practices, norms, and systems—and people—that have to be defended and rebuilt every day.

What’s holding the line isn’t perfect. It’s not always fast. But it exists. And that’s the difference between a struggling democracy and a collapsed one.

The danger isn’t just that authoritarianism is spreading. It’s that we’ll stop noticing the people resisting it—and stop supporting them when they need us most.

Tomorrow: How Other Countries Fought Back

We’re not the first country to face this kind of erosion. In tomorrow’s post, we’ll look at how countries like Poland and South Korea clawed their way back from the brink—and what we can learn from them.

If today’s post gave you any hope, share it. Apathy is how authoritarianism wins. But hope that moves? That’s how it loses.

Backlash: The Politics of the Broken Deal

Trade used to be a wonky subject.
It lived in white papers, congressional committees, and business schools.
It was the language of economists—not campaign trail slogans.

But sometime in the 2000s, all that changed.

Because for millions of American workers, the promise of Pax Americana—that global trade would lift all boats—turned out to be a broken deal. And when the jobs disappeared, and no one showed up with a map back, anger filled the vacuum.

That anger didn’t stay quiet. It turned into politics. It turned into backlash.

From Policy to Identity

What began as economic pain—plant closures, job loss, wage stagnation—evolved into something deeper and more personal.

Because for many, it wasn’t just a paycheck that vanished.
It was:

• Status

• Stability

• Dignity

• A sense of belonging in a country they felt slipping away

And when they heard elites on TV call it “creative destruction” or suggest they “learn to code,” it didn’t just sting—it enraged.

The Rise of Economic Nationalism

Into that rage stepped a new political narrative:

“The globalists sold you out.”
“Trade deals killed your town.”
“We’ll bring your jobs back.”

And it landed.

From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, and eventually to Donald Trump, the idea that America had made a bad trade—literally and figuratively—became a bipartisan grievance.

Suddenly, trade wasn’t just a policy issue.
It was a litmus test for loyalty:

• To your community

• To your country

• To the people left behind

“Bring Our Jobs Back”

What was once a marginal slogan became a mainstream demand:

• Tariffs on China

• Buy American rules

• Reviving U.S. manufacturing

• Opposition to new trade agreements

Presidents, senators, and candidates from both parties embraced a pro-worker, anti-trade establishment message.

Even Joe Biden—running on the opposite end of Trump—leaned into industrial policy and reshoring in his own way.

Because the anger never really went away. And politicians learned: ignore it at your peril.

Why It Hit So Hard

Job loss alone doesn’t always cause political upheaval. But when it’s paired with:

• Cultural change

• Geographic isolation

• Media echo chambers

• Generational decline

…it becomes something more powerful: an identity crisis.

People weren’t just asking “Where’s my job?”
They were asking:

“What happened to my town?”
“Why does my country feel like it forgot me?”
“Who am I in this new economy?”

And no trade deal could answer that.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll explore how the U.S. has tried to respond—through industrial policy, tariffs, and the reassertion of economic nationalism.

Because if the old deal is dead, the question now is:

Can we build a new one?

The Seven Moves to Autocracy

Authoritarianism doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not chaos—it’s strategy.

Whether it’s Orbán in Hungary, Erdoğan in Turkey, Modi in India, or Trump in the United States, the pattern is shockingly consistent. These regimes don’t all look the same, but they follow a shared logic: consolidate power, suppress dissent, and make it harder for anyone to fight back.

Today we break down the authoritarian playbook—the seven core moves that appear again and again across countries, eras, and ideologies.

1. Discredit Independent Media

The first move is always to attack the press.

Authoritarians know that truth is a threat. So they flood the zone with lies, label journalists as enemies, and elevate partisan outlets as the only “trusted” sources. Over time, people stop believing anything—except what their leader says.

• Hungary: Independent media was defunded, then bought up by Orbán allies.

• U.S.: Trump branded the press “the enemy of the people” and boosted propaganda networks while suing or barring access to others.

2. Undermine the Courts

Next, they go after the judiciary—because courts can block authoritarian power.

That’s why strongmen pack courts with loyalists, remove or intimidate independent judges, and weaken judicial review. If the courts won’t play along, they’re sidelined or dismantled.

• Turkey: Thousands of judges were purged after the 2016 coup.

• U.S.: Trump now pressures courts via loyal legal groups and allies, with ongoing threats to independent judges. Even one was arrested and charged with obstruction.

3. Rig or Rewrite the Rules of Elections

Authoritarians often win elections—but then they change the rules to keep winning.

This might mean gerrymandering, restricting voter access, purging voter rolls, or even rewriting constitutions.

• Hungary: Electoral districts were redrawn to all but guarantee Fidesz wins.

• U.S.: Dozens of states have passed laws restricting mail-in voting, early voting, and voter registration—especially targeting urban and minority voters.

4. Target Minorities and Scapegoats

To maintain power, autocrats need enemies—and they usually target marginalized groups.

Fear is a powerful unifier. Leaders accuse outsiders or minority groups of threatening the nation’s values, safety, or identity. This justifies crackdowns and rallies the base.

• India: Muslims have been systematically vilified under Modi’s government.

• U.S.: Migrants, LGBTQ+ people, and people of color are repeatedly framed as threats to American “greatness” or “purity.”

5. Consolidate Executive Power

As institutions are weakened, authoritarian leaders pull more power into the executive branch.

They appoint loyalists, fire watchdogs, ignore norms, and test the limits of their authority. Over time, checks and balances are turned into formalities—or destroyed entirely.

• Brazil: Bolsonaro used the military to threaten oversight bodies.

• U.S.: Trump’s revival of Schedule F aims to purge the civil service and install a loyalist state.

6. Normalize Political Violence

The longer this goes on, the more dangerous the rhetoric becomes.

Authoritarian leaders stoke anger, hint at violence, and tolerate armed intimidation—until violence isn’t just a byproduct, but a tool.

• Turkey: Protesters and opposition figures have been violently suppressed.

• U.S.: January 6 was not an aberration—it was a test. And political violence has only become more acceptable among Trump’s base since then.

7. Use the Law to Punish Dissent

Finally, the system is turned into a weapon.

Dissenters are investigated. Critics are charged. Laws are selectively enforced to punish enemies and protect allies. At this stage, it’s no longer about winning power—it’s about eliminating resistance.

• Russia and Turkey: Anti-terrorism laws are used to imprison journalists.

• U.S.: The DOJ has been politicized, whistleblowers threatened, and investigations against Trump critics launched under flimsy pretexts.

This Is Not a Cycle—It’s a Sequence

These steps don’t always happen in the same order. But once the process starts, each move builds on the last. What begins as rhetoric becomes policy. What starts as a workaround becomes the new normal. And by the time institutions realize they’re being dismantled, it’s too late to stop it from the inside.

Authoritarianism is not just about strongmen—it’s about systems.
It’s about creating conditions where democracy becomes impossible without a fight.

Tomorrow: What’s Still Working—and Why It Matters

Not everything has collapsed. Yet. In tomorrow’s post, we’ll look at what institutions, officials, and civic efforts are still holding the line—and why they might be the last firewall between democracy and something far darker.

If you’ve stayed with the series so far, thank you. Please share this post with someone who still believes “it can’t happen here.” Because it already is.

Collateral Damage: How the American Worker Got Left Behind

By the early 2000s, the U.S. had built a global trade system that promised peace and prosperity. But back home, in factory towns and rural communities, that prosperity was falling apart.

Automation was reshaping industries. Trade was hollowing out entire regions. And the people who lost their jobs weren’t just losing paychecks—they were losing their identity, their status, and their place in the national story.

And when they looked to Washington for help?

All they found was paperwork and platitudes.

The Fix That Failed: Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)

In theory, the U.S. had a plan to deal with the fallout of globalization. It was called Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA.

The idea:

• If your job was lost to foreign competition, you’d qualify for support.

• That meant retraining, extended unemployment benefits, maybe relocation aid.

In practice:

• The program was hard to access.

• Underfunded and poorly managed.

• Often didn’t lead to new, better jobs.

Many workers were told to retrain in fields that didn’t pay enough—or didn’t exist locally. Some were expected to leave behind homes, families, and decades of roots.

TAA helped a few. But for most, it was a dead end.

America vs. the Rest

The U.S. wasn’t the only country hit by trade and automation.

But here’s what makes America different:

We handled it worse.

Other nations—like Germany, Denmark, and Canada—paired globalization with:

• Robust worker protections

• Free or low-cost retraining

• Wage insurance and universal health care

• Stronger unions and labor representation

They cushioned the blow.
America let people fall.

More Than Economic Loss

Losing a job is devastating. But what many American workers lost in the 2000s was bigger:

• A sense of purpose

• Community cohesion

• Intergenerational opportunity

They were told the economy was growing.
That trade deals made everyone richer.
That robots were just “creative destruction.”

But in places like Dayton, Toledo, and Erie, people saw:

• Rising suicides

• Opioid addiction

• Shrinking schools and shuttered main streets

They didn’t just lose jobs.
They lost trust—in politicians, economists, and even the American Dream.

The Political Fallout

By the 2010s, that disillusionment boiled over into something more volatile.

Anger. Resentment.
A turn toward economic nationalism, populism, and deep mistrust of elites.

Many workers didn’t become anti-trade because of theory.
They became anti-trade because the system betrayed them—and no one came to fix it.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how this backlash exploded into politics—how trade policy became personal, and how tariffs, slogans, and political realignment reshaped America’s economic identity.

Because when people feel abandoned, they don’t just check a different box on a form.

They vote to burn the whole system down.

Modern Authoritarianism in America: How the Playbook Is Being Used Now

The United States doesn’t look like Hungary. Or Turkey. Or India.

We have a different history, a different constitution, and stronger institutions—at least, we used to.

But modern authoritarianism is adaptable. It doesn’t require tanks or crownings. It works within the system—until it breaks the system. And right now, the U.S. is no longer just flirting with these tactics. We’ve elected a leader who is actively using them.

This isn’t speculation. It’s happening.

The Playbook Comes Home

Over the past decade, MAGA Republicans and their allies have adopted, echoed, or imported nearly every step of the authoritarian playbook:

• Discredit the press: “Fake news.” “Enemy of the people.” Mainstream journalists are vilified, while loyal media personalities become propaganda arms.

• Weaken the courts: Judicial appointments are politicized. Judges who rule against the administration are attacked personally. Independent oversight is dismissed as “deep state” sabotage.

• Undermine elections: Lies about 2020 have become doctrine in GOP circles. Voting rights have been rolled back in key states. Election workers face threats and harassment.

• Target minorities and scapegoats: From anti-immigrant rhetoric to attacks on trans people, the strategy remains the same: blame a marginalized group to rally political power.

• Centralize executive power: Trump has publicly vowed to fire thousands of civil servants, expand presidential authority, and use the military for domestic enforcement.

These aren’t isolated policies—they’re all connected. It’s the playbook. And it’s being followed.

What’s Happening Now (2025): The Authoritarian Turn

Since returning to office, Trump’s second-term agenda has been even more openly authoritarian. Just a few examples:

• Civil Service Purges: Trump has revived and expanded Schedule F, allowing him to fire tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them with loyalists. (Reuters)

• Retaliation Against Political Opponents: The administration has moved to strip security clearances from perceived enemies, including officials connected to previous investigations. (Axios)

• Destruction of Oversight: Trump has removed at least 17 inspectors general—watchdogs tasked with exposing fraud and abuse across federal agencies. (Wikipedia)

• Adopting Foreign Models: He has praised El Salvador’s authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele and his mass-incarceration tactics. His team is now reportedly exploring similar strategies for the U.S. (The Guardian)

• Suppressing DEI and Civil Rights Programs: The newly created Department of Government Efficiency has suspended or eliminated diversity initiatives across federal agencies, targeting staff and scrubbing content. (Wikipedia)

These are not partisan policies. They are steps toward authoritarian rule.

It’s Still “Legal” — Until It Isn’t

One of the most dangerous myths in American politics is that if something’s legal, it must be okay.

But authoritarians don’t always start by breaking laws—they bend them until they break, using the appearance of legality to justify actions that would otherwise be unthinkable. Once the guardrails are gone, new norms are established. And once enough people accept those norms, the system can be rewritten—or ignored entirely.

We’re already seeing this happen.

Take the Alien Enemies Act—a relic from 1798, originally intended for times of declared war. Today, it’s being used in peacetime to detain immigrants—including those with legal status or work authorization—and in at least one case, to deport them to foreign prisons outside U.S. jurisdiction.
By moving these individuals beyond the reach of our courts, the executive branch is deliberately bypassing due process, while claiming full legal authority to do so.

Another example: Schedule F, which reclassifies civil servants so they can be fired for political reasons. It’s technically within the president’s administrative powers—but it collapses the distinction between professional governance and partisan loyalty. This isn’t reform. It’s regime change by HR policy.

And when inspectors general—independent watchdogs—are mass-fired, the message is clear: oversight is only tolerated when it’s convenient. That’s not how checks and balances work. That’s how autocracies remove them.

These are not just policy shifts. They are systemic tests—trial runs to see how far the law can be pushed before anyone pushes back.

This Is the Pattern — and the Plan

This is no longer about warning signs. It’s about recognizing that the transition is happening. American authoritarianism has its own flavor—louder, more theatrical, and steeped in culture war—but it follows the same logic: consolidate power, silence dissent, change the rules, punish enemies.

The real question isn’t whether it’s happening. It’s whether we will face it in time.

Next: Breaking Down the Playbook, Step by Step

Tomorrow, we’ll lay out the seven key steps of the modern authoritarian strategy—so you can see how each part connects and why it’s so effective.

If you’re finding this series useful, please share it. Authoritarianism thrives in confusion and silence. Let’s break that.

The China Shock: When Trade Policy Hit Like a Freight Train

Yesterday, we explored how automation quietly eroded manufacturing jobs over decades.

Today, we turn to something faster, sharper, and far more sudden—a shock that hit American workers and communities like a freight train:

Trade liberalization with China.

While automation was a slow tide, the China Shock was a tsunami—and it swept away entire industries, seemingly overnight.

NAFTA and the Opening Shot

Before China, there was NAFTA—the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1994.

NAFTA removed trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Supporters said it would boost efficiency and create jobs. Critics warned it would incentivize companies to move production to where labor was cheaper.

Both were right.

NAFTA accelerated offshoring, particularly in:

• Auto parts

• Textiles

• Electronics assembly

Tens of thousands of jobs, especially in the U.S. Midwest and South, were moved to Mexico. But NAFTA was just the warm-up.

The China Shock: WTO and the Aftermath

In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO)—with strong backing from the U.S.

This was supposed to be a win-win:

• China would embrace global norms.

• U.S. companies would access a vast new market.

• Chinese imports would lower prices for American consumers.

But the result was far more one-sided.

Over the next decade:

• Chinese exports to the U.S. surged.

• Dozens of U.S. manufacturing sectors were wiped out, including furniture, toys, shoes, apparel, and electronics.

• Millions of jobs vanished, concentrated in the Rust Belt and rural South.

This became known as the China Shock—a term popularized by economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson.

Their findings?

• The influx of Chinese imports caused up to 2.4 million U.S. job losses from 1999 to 2011.

• The impact was localized and intense. Some towns lost a third or more of their manufacturing base.

• And the people most affected never fully recovered.

Why It Hit So Hard

Unlike automation, which reshaped industries gradually, the China Shock hit fast and hit deep:

• No warning for workers or towns.

• No plan for retraining or transition.

• No real accountability for the political and business elites who pushed the policy.

And because China’s labor costs were so low, U.S. firms didn’t just lay off a few workers—they closed entire plants.

Sectors That Got Slammed

Some of the hardest-hit industries:

• Furniture: North Carolina lost tens of thousands of jobs almost overnight.

• Textiles: Southern states like South Carolina and Alabama were devastated.

• Electronics and appliances: Once made in Indiana and Ohio, now mostly built in Asia.

This wasn’t just about numbers. It was about identity—about communities built around factories that vanished in a single generation.

Trade vs. Technology—A False Choice?

Economists still debate how much job loss was caused by trade vs. automation.

But here’s the thing: it’s not either/or.

Automation was the background hum.
China was the earthquake.

And the U.S. government?
It pushed for these policies—then left communities to pick up the pieces on their own.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll examine those “solutions” politicians offered:

• Trade Adjustment Assistance

• Retraining programs

• Job transition policies

Spoiler: most didn’t work.

Because the problem wasn’t just job loss.
It was a system that prioritized efficiency over people—and profits over place.

Militarization Without Martial Law

Why Trump’s New Executive Order Demands Our Attention

On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens." At first glance, the order frames itself as a straightforward effort to "support the police" and "enhance public safety." However, a closer look reveals something much more serious: this order dramatically shifts the balance of power between civilian governments and armed forces within the United States.

This executive order is not a declaration of martial law. Yet it builds the infrastructure that could enable martial law-like conditions if future emergencies are declared. This post will break down what the order actually does, compare it to historical patterns where democracies slid into authoritarianism, identify early warning signs we should all watch for, sketch a hypothetical timeline based on historical precedents, and offer a clear, empowering plan of action to defend democracy peacefully and effectively.

The goal is not to stoke fear. It is to raise awareness — and remind every American that vigilance, knowledge, and civic action are the best antidotes to authoritarianism.

Breaking Down the Executive Order

The executive order signed by President Trump does four major things:

1. Legal Protection for Police Officers:

• Provides federal legal support and private-sector resources to defend officers facing lawsuits over their conduct.

2. Militarization of Local Law Enforcement:

• Directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to expand transfers of military equipment, training, and even personnel to local police departments.

3. Weakening Civilian Oversight:

• Orders the Department of Justice to review and potentially rescind "consent decrees" that monitor abusive police departments, under the rationale that they "obstruct law enforcement."

4. Targeting State and Local Officials:

• Instructs the Attorney General to sue or otherwise punish officials who "obstruct" criminal enforcement or who allegedly engage in "discriminatory" DEI practices that hinder policing.

The language is careful. The order does not call for martial law, suspend elections, or outright federalize the police. But it erodes critical safeguards that prevent the armed enforcement apparatus of the state from becoming an unaccountable tool of political power.

Historical Lessons — When Democracies Erode

History offers clear warnings about how seemingly "normal" expansions of security powers can lead to democratic breakdowns.

Turkey (1980):

• Before the 1980 coup, the Turkish government ramped up militarization and allowed the military to "assist" policing. After months of rising violence, the military seized power, arrested tens of thousands, and suspended elections.

Poland (1981):

• General Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law to crush the growing Solidarity labor movement. Preparations involved legal shielding for security forces and demonizing activists as "dangerous to public order."

South Korea (2024):

• President Yoon Suk Yeol avoided declaring martial law outright but achieved similar control through mass militarization of police, expanded surveillance, and the targeting of protesters under "domestic threat" labels.

The pattern is clear: Militarization + emergency framing + weakened civilian oversight = a pathway to authoritarian rule — often without needing to formally declare martial law.

Early Warning Signs to Watch For

Here are key red flags based on historical patterns:

• National Emergency Declarations: Especially around crime, immigration, or protests.

• Federalization of Local Police: Local law enforcement subordinated to DOJ or DHS control.

• Targeted Arrests: Civil society leaders, activists, and journalists detained under vague pretexts.

• Surveillance Expansion: New domestic intelligence programs targeting political activity.

• Demonization of Groups: Immigrants, labor unions, or civil rights groups framed as security threats.

• Election Disruptions: Postponements, restrictions, or delegitimization of elections.

Not all of these would occur at once, but several happening together would be a major alarm bell.

A Hypothetical Timeline — How It Could Play Out

Month 0:

• Executive order signed. Public debate remains polarized.

Months 1-2:

• Major "crisis" (real or exaggerated) leads to a declared "national emergency."

• Federal task forces embedded in local police.

Months 2-3:

• Targeted arrests of organizers and activists.

• Dissolution of remaining federal oversight on police departments.

Months 3-4:

• Open militarization of city policing.

• Restricted zones and curfews introduced.

Months 4-5:

• State officials resisting federal power face lawsuits, loss of funding, or federal force deployment.

Months 5-6:

• Efforts to delay elections or restrict voting framed as "necessary security measures."

This hypothetical sequence is not inevitable — but it is drawn directly from real-world examples.

How We Can Stop It

Strengthen Local Democracy:

• Pressure local officials to reject federal overreach.

• Demand police accountability at the local level.

Support Independent Journalism:

• Subscribe to and share reporting from independent, investigative outlets.

Build Civic Networks:

• Connect with community groups, unions, churches, and activist networks.

• Prepare nonviolent rapid response strategies.

Defend Civil Liberties Legally:

• Support organizations filing lawsuits against unconstitutional actions.

• Demand transparency through FOIA requests and public records.

Protect Electoral Integrity:

• Volunteer for election protection programs.

• Advocate for robust, transparent election procedures.

Stay Calm, Stay Committed:

• Authoritarian regimes thrive on chaos and fear.

• Organized, peaceful, principled resistance is historically the most effective counter.

Conclusion

Trump’s 2025 executive order is not a coup. It is not a declaration of martial law. But it is a loud, flashing warning light.

We cannot afford to look away. By staying informed, strengthening our democratic institutions, building resilient communities, and defending civil liberties early and often, we can ensure that America’s future remains free, open, and democratic.

The time to act is not after authoritarianism becomes obvious. It’s now, while we still have the freedom to organize, speak, and vote.

Modern Authoritarianism Abroad: What Hungary, Turkey, and India Teach Us

Modern authoritarianism doesn’t rise in secret. It happens in plain sight.

Democracies across the globe have voted themselves into crisis—choosing strongmen who promise to restore pride, clean up corruption, or defend tradition. What follows is a pattern: leaders consolidate power, weaken oversight, attack critics, and change the rules to stay in control.

If it feels like what’s happening in the U.S. is unprecedented, it’s not. It’s familiar.
Today, we’re looking at three countries—Hungary, Turkey, and India—where democracies were dismantled not with a coup, but with applause.

Hungary: The Blueprint for Democratic Backsliding

In 2010, Viktor Orbán returned to power in Hungary with a supermajority and a message: Hungary would be “illiberal”—a democracy in name, but not in substance.

He moved fast.

• Rewrote the constitution to cement Fidesz party dominance

• Packed the courts with loyalists and curtailed judicial review

• Cracked down on independent media, cutting off funding and licensing to critical outlets

• Demonized immigrants and minorities as threats to “Christian civilization”

• Redrew electoral districts and changed voting laws to ensure continued power

Orbán didn’t hide it—he called it a new model of governance. Other leaders took notes.

Turkey: Purges and Presidential Power

Turkey’s slide began earlier, but accelerated dramatically after a failed coup attempt in 2016. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used the crisis to declare a state of emergency, giving himself sweeping powers.

What followed:

• Over 100,000 civil servants, teachers, and judges were purged

• Thousands of journalists and academics were arrested

• Media outlets were shut down or bought by government allies

• The constitution was rewritten via referendum to expand presidential powers and eliminate checks

• Elections were increasingly tilted, with opposition voices silenced or criminalized

Turkey still holds elections—but they’re no longer free or fair in any meaningful way.

India: Majoritarian Nationalism and Institutional Erosion

India, the world’s largest democracy, has seen democratic backsliding under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP. Unlike the other two, India remains more pluralistic—but the warning signs are mounting.

Modi’s government has:

• Used religious nationalism to target minorities, particularly Muslims

• Pressured media and journalists, including through arrests and tax raids

• Weakened the independence of courts and electoral bodies

• Silenced dissent using sedition and anti-terrorism laws

• Created a chilling effect where open criticism of the government can lead to harassment, job loss, or imprisonment

The danger in India isn’t a dictatorship tomorrow—it’s the normalization of authoritarian tactics.

Why These Cases Matter

None of these countries became authoritarian overnight.
All of them held elections. All of them had constitutions.
And in each case, democracy was eroded step by step—through legal means, aided by fear, distraction, and public fatigue.

These examples matter because they show how democracy dies with a legal pad, not a gun.And they offer a chilling preview of what can happen when institutions are too weak—or too captured—to resist.

The Authoritarian International: CPAC and the New Global Right

These aren’t isolated cases. What we’re seeing isn’t just a coincidence—it’s a shared strategy.

Over the last few years, global right-wing movements have begun to collaborate openly, and CPAC—the Conservative Political Action Conference—has become their meeting ground. Originally a U.S. political event, CPAC has expanded internationally, hosting gatherings in Hungary, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, and elsewhere, inviting authoritarian-aligned leaders to share their vision.

• Viktor Orbán has been featured as a keynote speaker at CPAC, where he laid out his model of “illiberal democracy” and called for international cooperation among nationalists. In his speech, Orbán stated: “We must take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. We must find friends and allies in one another and coordinate the movement of our troops.” 

• Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, who sought to overturn his own election loss, has appeared at CPAC and continues to enjoy MAGA support.

• American conservatives, including GOP lawmakers and MAGA-aligned figures, have praised these leaders, echoed their talking points, and adopted their tactics—on immigration, press suppression, election integrity rhetoric, and more.

CPAC is no longer just a place to talk about tax cuts and gun rights—it’s become a hub for authoritarian ideologues to share tools, language, and strategy.

The MAGA movement isn’t just mimicking these regimes—it’s learning from them.
And in many cases, it’s helping export the model right back out to the world.

Coming Up: The Playbook Comes to America

Tomorrow, we’ll turn the lens back home.
The United States may have stronger institutions than Hungary or Turkey—but the same tactics are already being used here. And the guardrails are weaker than many Americans think.

Stay with the series. If you haven’t already, subscribe or share with someone who needs this context.

The Robot Slow Burn: How Automation Changed the Game

In the story of America’s vanishing factory jobs, trade usually gets the headlines. It’s easy to blame a closed plant on a company moving production overseas.

But there’s another story—quieter, slower, and harder to point at. It didn’t happen with a bang, but with a hum.

That story is automation.

Because even as manufacturing jobs disappeared, something strange happened: U.S. manufacturing output went up.

We didn’t stop making things.
We just stopped needing as many people to make them.

Do More with Less: The Productivity Revolution

Since the 1970s, American manufacturing has seen steady gains in productivity:

• Fewer workers produced more goods.

• Machines replaced repetitive human labor.

• Computers ran systems that once took teams of operators.

By the 2000s, it took far fewer people to build a car or cut steel than it did a generation earlier. And that trend hasn’t slowed.

For example:

• In automotive factories, robotics now handle welding, painting, and assembly-line work.

• In steel production, sensors and automation optimize smelting and cutting with minimal labor.

• In electronics, computer-guided systems assemble devices with extreme precision, 24/7.

These weren’t bad decisions.
They were smart business moves—if your goal was efficiency.

But for workers? It meant fewer jobs… or none at all.

The Disappearing Job—Not the Disappearing Industry

One of the biggest misconceptions is that U.S. manufacturing is “dead.”
It’s not.

We still make:

• Aircraft and advanced vehicles

• Industrial machinery

• Semiconductors

• Food, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals

What’s changed is who gets to participate in making those things:

• Today’s factory jobs require technical skills, not just physical labor.

• High-paying blue-collar jobs have shifted to high-tech plants concentrated in fewer locations.

• Routine, repetitive roles are increasingly handled by machines.

Automation hasn’t killed American industry—it’s just made it less accessible to the workers who used to rely on it.

The Slow Burn vs. the Sudden Shock

Unlike trade shocks, which hit fast and hard (like when China entered the WTO), automation was a gradual burn:

• It spread over decades.

• It was uneven—hitting some regions and sectors harder than others.

• It often went unnoticed, because there was no dramatic exit. Just fewer people getting hired.

And because it didn’t make headlines, there was less urgency to respond.

Not Just Technology—But Choices

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Automation isn’t some neutral force of nature.
It’s shaped by corporate decisions, government policy, and social values.

We could have:

• Invested in retraining and education for displaced workers.

• Slowed the rollout in communities without other job options.

• Spread the gains from productivity more evenly.

But instead, most of the gains went to:

• Investors

• Executives

• Shareholders

Workers were told to “learn to code” or move somewhere else.
Many couldn’t.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll shift from the slow burn of robots to the shockwave of offshoring—how trade deals and global supply chains accelerated job losses in very specific places, very fast.

Because while automation eroded the floor, trade sometimes pulled it out from under people entirely.

Modern Authoritarianism: How Democracies Die Step by Step

You don’t wake up one morning to find yourself in a dictatorship. That’s the oldest myth in the book.

In the modern world, authoritarianism doesn’t kick down the front door. It slips in quietly—through elections, headlines, executive orders, and court decisions. It looks like patriotism. It sounds like law and order. And by the time people realize what’s happening, it can be too late.

This week, in our Modern Authoritarianism series, we’re breaking down the Authoritarian Playbook—how democracies around the world have been slowly hollowed out from the inside, and how those same moves are unfolding here in the United States.

But before we talk about what’s happening, we need to talk about how it happens.

Authoritarianism in the 21st Century: A Different Kind of Coup

When people hear the word authoritarian, they picture tanks in the streets. Gulags. Military takeovers.

But the modern version is more subtle. It uses democratic systems to destroy democracy itself.

You vote for a strongman, and he promises to drain the swamp. He attacks the press, undermines the courts, and rewrites the rules. He tells you the other side is corrupt, dangerous, even treasonous. He wraps it all in flags and faith. And he does it all legally—at first.

This isn’t just theory. It’s happened in Hungary. Turkey. India. Brazil. Venezuela. In each case, the warning signs were there. In each case, the playbook worked.

The Seven-Step Playbook

Most authoritarian shifts follow a recognizable pattern—some faster, some slower, but the moves are shockingly consistent:

1. Discredit the press

2. Weaken the courts

3. Undermine elections

4. Target minorities and scapegoats

5. Centralize power and rewrite rules

6. Foster political violence

7. Use the law to punish dissent

This week, we’ll walk through how these steps have played out abroad—and how they’re playing out right now in America.

Why Authoritarianism Always Fails the People

It’s easy to think: Well, maybe a strongman would fix things. Maybe we need someone to clean house, get tough, take control. That’s how it always starts.

But authoritarian governments don’t fix corruption—they bury it.
They don’t bring order—they create fear.
And they don’t protect people like you—they protect themselves.

Here’s what actually happens when authoritarianism takes hold:

• Corruption gets worse, not better.
  Autocrats don’t drain the swamp—they fill it with loyalists. Bribery, nepotism, and abuse of power flourish behind closed doors with no independent press or courts to stop it.

• Instability increases.
  Crackdowns at home spark unrest. Foreign allies become wary. Authoritarians often pick fights abroad to distract from problems at home, dragging nations into conflict or isolation.

• Wealth is siphoned upward.
  The people at the top consolidate economic control. Oligarchs thrive. Ordinary citizens are left with fewer rights, fewer protections, and rising costs—while dissent becomes dangerous.

• Everyone becomes more vulnerable.
  Once checks and balances are gone, no one is safe. Today’s “enemies” might be your neighbors. Tomorrow, they could come for you. Authoritarian power protects no one but itself.

These regimes promise strength—but they deliver fear. They sell simplicity—but real solutions require accountability. Every country that’s gone down this road has paid a steep price, often for generations.

Why This Matters Now

We’re no longer speculating about what might happen—we’re living it.

The United States has elected a man who openly praised dictators, vowed to jail his political enemies, and declared he would be a “dictator on day one.” Now in office again, he’s following through. From purging civil servants to politicizing federal agencies, the authoritarian playbook isn’t a warning anymore—it’s a reality.

We’ll explore exactly how in the coming days. But this isn’t just about one man.

It’s about a movement that wants to roll back rights, silence critics, and concentrate power. And it’s testing whether America’s institutions—our courts, our press, our elections—can hold the line.

History suggests we shouldn’t assume they will.

What You’ll Get This Week

This series isn’t about fear. It’s about clarity.
Each post in Modern Authoritarianism will focus on a specific part of the authoritarian playbook:

• Day 2: What Hungary, Turkey, and India can teach us

• Day 3: How the playbook is being used in the U.S.

• Day 4: A step-by-step breakdown of the tactics

• Day 5: What’s still resisting—and why it matters

• Day 6: How other countries have fought back

• Day 7: What you can do to help defend democracy

If You’re New Here

This blog exists to ask hard questions and explore real answers. I don’t do doom. I do history, systems, and how we fight for better.

If that sounds like your vibe, subscribe or share this series with someone who needs to see it.

Day 2 drops tomorrow.
Until then, keep your eyes open. That’s where resistance begins.

The Great Disappearance: Where Did the Manufacturing Jobs Go?

At the dawn of the 21st century, America was still the world’s largest economy, and its factory towns were still humming—sort of. Steel was still forged. Cars were still built. Goods were still stamped “Made in the USA.”

Then, seemingly overnight, it all began to vanish.

Since the year 2000, the U.S. has lost nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs. That’s not a typo. It’s a transformation—a rupture. Entire regions, once defined by steady union wages and industrial pride, now struggle with unemployment, opioid abuse, and economic despair.

But here’s the thing: there wasn’t just one cause.

Was it trade?
Was it automation?
Was it politics? Policy? Indifference?

Yes. All of the above.

This week, we dive into the fallout from Pax Americana—not in Baghdad or Beijing, but in Buffalo, Akron, Flint, and Youngstown. Because while the U.S. was busy building peace and prosperity abroad, something was breaking back home.

The Vanishing Factory Floor

Let’s start with the numbers:

• Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs.

• In that same period, manufacturing as a share of total U.S. employment fell from 13% to just 9%—and it kept dropping.

• Entire industries—furniture, textiles, electronics—were gutted.

What once felt permanent—the union job with benefits, the factory shift that paid the mortgage—was gone. And it hasn’t really come back.

What Happened?

We’re often told it was trade deals:

• NAFTA in the 1990s.

• China’s entry into the WTO in 2001.

• Offshoring and outsourcing that moved production to Mexico, China, and beyond.

And yes—trade was a major factor. Economists call it the China Shock: when Chinese imports surged, U.S. manufacturing collapsed in regions that couldn’t compete.

But that’s only part of the story.

The other culprit? Automation.

Robots Don’t Unionize

Even as factories closed in the U.S., manufacturing output actually went up.

Why? Because we replaced people with machines:

• One robot could do the work of five welders.

• Computer-controlled systems replaced human operators.

• Entire production lines became fully automated.

This wasn’t new—it had been happening for decades. But in the 2000s, it accelerated. Technology made production more efficient, but it reduced the need for human labor.

So even the factories that stayed?
They hired fewer people.

And Then There Was Policy

Here’s what made it worse: the U.S. failed to prepare or protect its workers.

• Trade Adjustment Assistance programs were underfunded, confusing, and limited.

• Retraining programs often didn’t match available jobs.

• Other countries—like Germany—paired trade with worker protections and industrial strategy. America didn’t.

We left communities to figure it out alone.

So Which Was It—Trade or Tech?

Both.

• Automation explains the slow erosion of jobs over decades.

• Trade shocks explain the sudden collapse in certain regions and industries.

• Policy failure explains why it hit so hard—and why recovery never came.

This wasn’t a natural disaster. It was a man-made crisis, driven by choices.

What Comes Next

The rest of this week will unpack this fallout:

• Tomorrow, we’ll dig into the slow burn of automation.

• Then the shockwave of offshoring.

• And finally, how politicians tried (and mostly failed) to fix it.

Because if Pax Americana promised peace and prosperity, we need to ask: for whom?

Interdependence vs. Independence: Did Trade Really Prevent War?

One of the big promises of Pax Americana was that free trade would keep the peace.

This idea, often called liberal peace theory, says that countries tied together by economic interdependence are less likely to go to war. Why? Because war is bad for business—and countries with shared markets, supply chains, and investments have too much to lose.

And for decades, it seemed to hold up:

• No world wars since 1945.

• A massive drop in direct conflicts between major powers.

• Trade grew exponentially. So did global GDP.

But now, more than 75 years later, the cracks are showing.
So it’s worth asking: Did trade really prevent war—or just change the way conflict happens?

The Theory: Peace Through Trade

After WWII, the U.S. built a system that:

• Encouraged countries to trade with each other (and especially with the U.S.)

• Tied global markets together

• Created shared economic incentives

The logic was elegant: if your economy depends on your enemy, you can’t afford to fight them.

And to some extent, it worked:

• Germany and France went from centuries of war to peaceful neighbors.

• Japan and the U.S. became allies through trade.

• China and the U.S. became deeply linked despite deep political differences.

The Cracks in the System

But peace didn’t always mean harmony—and trade didn’t always stop violence.

Proxy wars

The Cold War didn’t lead to direct U.S.-Soviet war, but it did fuel bloody conflicts in:

• Vietnam

• Korea

• Latin America

• Africa

Trade didn’t stop war—it outsourced it to other regions.

Exploitation and inequality

Interdependence also meant dependency.
Many countries remained locked in resource-export roles, reliant on U.S. or Western markets.

That created resentment, unrest, and long-term instability.

Strategic backfires

• China grew into a strategic rival—powered by the very trade system the U.S. built.

• Russia traded freely with the West—until it didn’t.

• Sanctions became a tool of war-by-other-means, punishing civilians while elites adapted.

The Domestic Cost: A Tradeoff Too Far?

Here’s the twist: even as global conflict declined, internal tension in the U.S. grew.

• Entire industries hollowed out by offshoring.

• Middle-class jobs replaced with low-wage service work.

• Entire regions left behind by a system that was supposed to bring prosperity.

Trade may have stabilized the world—but it came with a bill.

And too often, American workers were the ones stuck paying it.

What Comes Next

Next week, we’ll turn the lens inward.

We’ll look at how this grand strategy—meant to spread peace, grow economies, and lift all boats—ended up capsizing industries and communities right here at home.

Because if Pax Americana was built on trade, the cracks in that system started showing not in Europe or Asia—but in places like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Friend or Market? Case Studies in Strategic Trade

By the late 20th century, U.S. trade policy had evolved into more than a tool for prosperity. It became a litmus test for political alignment.

If you played by Washington’s rules, you got access to the world’s largest consumer market, investment, and economic growth.

If you didn’t, you faced sanctions, embargoes, and exclusion.

Let’s look at how different countries experienced the American-led trade order—not just as economic participants, but as players in a larger geopolitical game.

Japan & South Korea: Allies by Access

After WWII and the Korean War, both Japan and South Korea were devastated. The U.S. stepped in with a clear strategy:

• Security guarantees (bases, treaties, and military aid)

• Massive economic support

• Access to U.S. markets to rebuild export-driven economies

These nations weren’t just helped—they were transformed:

• Japan became an industrial powerhouse by the 1980s.

• South Korea went from dictatorship to democracy, powered by manufacturing and trade.

In return, they aligned closely with U.S. interests throughout the Cold War.

Trade was the glue that held the alliance together.

China: From Outsider to Factory of the World

In the 1970s, China was still closed off from the global economy.

Then came Nixon’s visit in 1972, a historic opening. Over the next few decades, China:

• Gradually opened its economy

• Attracted foreign investment

• Was admitted to the WTO in 2001, with U.S. support

The result? China became the world’s manufacturing hub, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty—and deeply tying its fate to the global (and American) economy.

But it wasn’t just economics.
The U.S. believed that trade would lead to reform, liberalization, even democracy.

Spoiler: It didn’t.

But it did create a powerful competitor embedded in the very system America built.

Cuba, Iran, North Korea: The Cold Trade

Then there were the countries that didn’t play ball.

• Cuba: Sanctioned since 1960 after nationalizing U.S. property and aligning with the USSR.

• Iran: Cut off after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis.

• North Korea: A rogue state, heavily sanctioned and diplomatically isolated for decades.

These nations became examples—not just adversaries.
They showed the world what happened when you stepped outside the Pax framework: no trade, no aid, no access.

In a system built on prosperity, exclusion became punishment.

Trade as Political Pressure

U.S. trade policy wasn’t just about money—it was a foreign policy tool.

It rewarded alignment with:

• Open markets

• Liberal democracy

• U.S. geopolitical interests

And punished those who challenged the system, even if their people paid the price.

This wasn’t free trade.
It was strategic trade—a way to shape behavior, contain threats, and reward loyalty.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll wrap up Week 2 by asking:

Did all this trade really keep the peace—or just shift the pain elsewhere?

Because while trade tied the world together, it also left deep imbalances. And some of the biggest costs were felt not overseas—but right here at home.

Made in America, Sold to the World: Trade as Economic Diplomacy

When we talk about Pax Americana, we often focus on the military alliances, trade deals, and financial systems that kept the world in orbit around the U.S.

But just as important—maybe more—was something subtler, shinier, and often shrink-wrapped.

America didn’t just export products. It exported a way of life.

From Big Macs to microchips, from blockbuster movies to business software, the U.S. used trade not only to sell goods, but to spread influence, values, and identity.

Trade became diplomacy by other means—and American corporations became its ambassadors.

When Business Became Foreign Policy

Starting in the postwar boom and accelerating into the 1980s and ’90s, U.S. trade policy worked hand-in-hand with American companies to crack open foreign markets.

Sometimes through:

• Bilateral trade deals

• GATT/WTO mechanisms

• Or just raw economic pressure: “Buy our goods, or risk losing access.”

The U.S. government often acted as deal-maker-in-chief—lobbying for airlines to buy Boeing jets, pushing telecoms to adopt American standards, or supporting franchises entering new regions.

In effect, U.S. companies became informal agents of foreign policy—delivering capitalism in a cup, a car, or a credit card.

Consumer Culture as Soft Power

Think about the icons of late 20th-century global expansion:

• McDonald’s in Moscow (1990): A line around the block symbolized the collapse of the Soviet dream—and the rise of fast-food democracy.

• Coca-Cola in every corner store: A sugary emblem of freedom (or imperialism, depending on whom you asked).

• Hollywood blockbusters: Painting American life as loud, fast, and full of possibility.

These weren’t just brands. They were symbols—of prosperity, modernity, and American dominance.

To many, they represented progress.
To others, cultural invasion.

Either way, they worked.

Globalization, Made in the U.S.A.

As free trade expanded, so did the reach of U.S. companies:

• Microsoft and IBM built the world’s digital infrastructure.

• Nike and Levi’s clothed a global youth culture.

• Walmart, Starbucks, and Apple became everywhere.

These companies didn’t just sell things—they shaped norms, expectations, and even languages (ever heard “Google it” in another country?).

This was globalization—with an American accent.

Brands as Ambassadors

U.S. trade policy wasn’t just about shipping containers—it was about ideological packaging.

Buy American goods, and you buy into:

• Consumer choice

• Individualism

• Aspirational identity

That made American brands powerful tools of soft power—and sometimes, of political leverage.

Trade wasn’t neutral. It was a tool for shaping the global order, one Happy Meal at a time.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at case studies—countries that leaned into trade with the U.S. and those that resisted.

Because for all its global reach, Pax Americana wasn’t universal—and not everyone was happy living in a mall built by America.

From GATT to the WTO: Writing the Rules of Global Trade

If Pax Americana was a global game, then the U.S. helped write the rulebook—and one of the biggest chapters was trade.

From the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, the U.S. didn’t just participate in global trade.
It shaped how it worked, who got to play, and what the rules would be.

And while it was pitched as a win-win system of free trade for all, the reality was more complicated.

GATT: The First Draft

GATT was born in the aftermath of WWII, alongside the U.S.-led financial order created at Bretton Woods.

Its goal was simple in theory:

Lower tariffs. Reduce trade barriers. Grow the global economy.

In practice, GATT was a gentlemen’s agreement between major Western powers—especially the U.S.—to open up markets on their terms.

For decades, it helped expand trade and connect economies. But it also locked in advantages for countries that already had power, capital, and industrial might.

WTO: Globalizing the Game

By the 1990s, the world had changed. The Cold War was over. New economies were rising. And trade was more complex than ever.

Enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), launched in 1995.

Unlike GATT, the WTO had enforcement power. Countries could bring disputes to a global court. Rulings were binding. Compliance became mandatory.

And guess who helped design the system?

That’s right: the U.S., alongside European allies and a few emerging markets. They created the rules to protect:

• Intellectual property

• Corporate rights

• Global supply chains

But not necessarily workers, climate, or local industries.

Free Trade, American Style

The idea behind all this was that free trade brings peace and prosperity.
Open markets = more cooperation = less war.

And for many countries, it worked—especially export powerhouses like Germany, Japan, and (eventually) China.

But the U.S. also used the system to enforce its values:

• Free-market capitalism

• Deregulation

• Intellectual property protection

• Corporate-friendly dispute mechanisms

If you wanted access to the U.S. market, you had to play by its rules.

The Fairness Question

On paper, free trade sounds fair. But in practice:

• Wealthy countries kept subsidies that protected their farmers and industries.

• Poorer nations often struggled to compete and had little say in rule-making.

• Labor rights and environmental standards were usually left out of trade deals entirely.

For many, the system didn’t feel like a level playing field—it felt like a stacked deck.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll explore how U.S. companies used this system to expand globally—and how economic diplomacy became a powerful (and sometimes controversial) foreign policy tool.

Because trade wasn’t just about tariffs and treaties.
It was about shaping the world in America’s image—one container ship at a time.