US president Donald Trump, Axios reports, “is edging closer than ever to invoking the Insurrection Act, driven by a vision of executive power free from the guardrails, governors and generals who stifled him in 2020.”

“The people causing the problems are professional agitators,” he says. “They’re insurrectionists.”

He’s not wrong. He’s a professional agitator, he’s an “insurrectionist,” and he’s causing the problems.

On June 6, members of the public confronted members of the “Immigration and Customs Enforcement” gang in Los Angeles in the act of abducting 44 people. The gang members responded to the attempted rescue  with “flash bang” grenades. On the following day, the gang escalated to tear gas and pepper balls  in nearby Paramount.

If one side was “rioting,” both were.

At that point, Trump announced he was “federalizing” 2,000 California National Guard members — to protect the ICE gangbangers from the public, not vice versa. He’s since added 700 US Marines to the Federal Gang Member Protection Task Force.

What are Trump and co-conspirators like ICE shot-caller Tom Homan, “Homeland Security” secretary Kristi Noem, and Pentagon honcho Pete Hegseth trying to accomplish in Los Angeles?

They’re hoping for a “Reichstag fire” incident they can use as an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act … not to put down an “insurrection,” but to complete the “insurrection” Trump unsuccessfully attempted in 2020-21 and resumed on his return to office.

And if they can get a Horst Wessel out of the deal, they’ll happily accept. Wessel was a German thug who engaged in similar street fighting, on a similar side. After he was killed (supposedly for his political activity, but more likely over his side gig as a pimp), he became a convenient martyr and the Nazi party adopted a song he wrote as its anthem. When, not if, an ICE thug finishes his or her shift in a body bag instead of over beer and sportsball, we’ll never hear the end of it.

Personally, I’d rather it didn’t come to that.

On the other hand, California governor Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit over Trump’s actions is weak tea. The courts have already demonstrated their deference to Trump’s lawlessness; when they don’t he just whines and tries to ignore them.

The better answer to the occupation of LA is to greet it with institutional boycotts and individual ostracism.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should cut off all services to facilities used by the occupation forces. Make them truck in their own water and generators if they insist on staying.

Local institutions should refuse service to those affiliated with the occupation forces.

“No, that bottle of water / cheeseburger / latte isn’t for sale … at least not to you.”

“No, you can’t use the restroom.”

“No, this church does not serve communion to those in an unrepentant state of mortal sin.”

“We reserve the right to refuse service.”

“Out. Now.”

Residents shouldn’t offer them anything but the cold shoulder.

When your opponent has heavier weapons than you, nonviolent methods work better than “rioting.” Don’t give Trump the excuse he’s after.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Is it time to create a new political party in America,” Elon Musk asks in a Twitte … er, “X” … poll, “that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” As of this writing, 80.4% of respondents say “yes,” which seems to track well with whatever his definition of “the middle” might be.

He’s far from the first to suggest, or even try to organize, a “third” party, but the idea as he frames it is likely doomed.

America’s historical byways are strewn with the wreckage of “third” parties. Darcy G. Richardson’s book series on the phenomenon, “Others,” ably and engagingly documents that history, but there’s just so much of it that he’s only reached the era of the Great Depression after multiple volumes.

Why the long history of failure — the last “third” party to rise to power in the United States was the Republican Party, which replaced the Whigs in the 1850s, mostly over the issue of slavery?

Part of it is about how American elections work. They’re “first past the post plurality” elections, for single-representative districts. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat, everyone else loses.

Duverger’s Law tells us that in such a situation, a maximum of two parties will win substantial power as fear of “vote-splitting” keeps voters stuck to perceived “lesser evils” that “can win.” Some parliamentary systems allow small parties to gain a few seats and hopefully grow; ours locks those small parties completely out.

But wait! What about “the 80% “in the middle?” Why don’t they just rise up and throw the Republican and Democratic bums out?

Because “the 80% in the middle” don’t really exist as a  coalition or constituency with shared interests and positions, that’s why.

The large percentages of voters who describe themselves as “moderates” or “centrists” mean different things by those words.

One “moderate” or “centrist” supports robust Medicaid funding AND opposes subsidies for electrical vehicles.

Two doors down, another “moderate” or “centrist” wants Medicaid cuts AND wants that tax credit for his Tesla (looking at you, Elon).

Two MORE doors down, third and fourth “moderates” or “centrists” in the same household love, or hate, both Medicaid AND EV subsidies.

Keep going down the street and adding issues to the mix. There’s no especially large group that both feels the same way on all the issues and places the same level of importance on all the issues.

Those “moderates” and “centrists” end up picking the “major” parties that offer them the most, disagree with them the least, and might actually win.

The most “successful” third parties are 1) small and 2) ideological. Their supporters agree on a few principles, fight hard, lose almost every election, and occasionally move the needle on an issue with the public and the “major” parties (if you support same-sex marriage and/or legal marijuana, thank a Libertarian).

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. That’s the story of “third parties” in America. Politics, for us, is the occasional new dress and unlimited drinks at the wedding reception. Elon won’t catch the bouquet either.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs the National Labor Relations Act on July 5, 1935. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (right) looks on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Sixteen million workers were represented by unions in 2024,” Jim Miller writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune . “However, there were millions more who would have joined a union but couldn’t.”

Miller goes on to lament the failure of “pro-union” legislation in Congress, as well as the Trump administration’s attacks on unions in general and  government employee unions in particular. But, unfortunately, his op-ed goes of the rails with that very first sentence.

There’s nothing to stop you from joining a union, whether you’re employed in a unionized workplace or not. There’s no law against it, and although some unions have their own exclusionary rules — the American Federation of Teachers (Miller’s organization) only offers “associate” membership for students, workers whose employers don’t contract with AFT, etc. —  if a particular union won’t accept your membership application, chances are good that another (for example, Industrial Workers of the World) will.

You’re also never required to join a union. Don’t want to be a union member? Don’t take a job in a union workplace. “Problem” solved.

As to getting your employer to enter into a labor contract with the union of your choice, that’s a different matter.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the government controls the process. A certain number of workers have to  request an election. If a majority of employees vote yes, all of the employees HAVE to join the union, or find somewhere else to work, and the employer HAS to “negotiate in good faith” toward a contract.

The NLRA wasn’t written to benefit union workers. They were doing just fine already. The NLRA benefits two groups:

First, union bosses. If you can require 100 people to pay dues because 51 of  them said yes, the money rolls in … and under the NLRA, you only have to worry that the workers will go on strike (and draw down the union’s relief funds) between contracts.

Second, employers. The NLRA forbids “wildcat” strikes (that is, striking while a contract is in effect), as well as boycotts and “sympathy strikes” (Workplace A going on strike and workers at Workplace B refusing, in solidarity, to unload trucks from Workplace A).

Union bosses got a more reliable source of revenue; employers got workplaces that wouldn’t shut down over labor disputes other than at contract expirations.

Workers? Well, they got screwed.

From the late 19th century until the 1930s, union membership and  workplace unionization increased organically and unions fought hard for their members.

Once the NLRA went into effect, the numbers went up, plateaued, then began shrinking. And no wonder. Why would union officials fight hard for workers if that might result in strikes costing them dues revenues? Better to invest their time into “organizing” new workplaces with new dues-payers.

The Taft-Hartley “right to work” amendments only made things worse, allowing states to forbid both employers and unions from entering into “exclusive” labor contracts.

Can unions make a comeback? Sure — but only if the NLRA, including Taft-Hartley, is repealed and government gets its nose out of labor matters.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY