How does left-wing politics dominate state bars?

Posted on April 2, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

While there is no definitive, universally accepted evidence proving absolute dominance, several factors are often cited to suggest a left-leaning influence within state bars and the broader legal profession, including their national counterpart, the American Bar Association (ABA). Below is an exploration of these factors based on available perspectives and observations:
1. Membership Demographics and Political Leanings
The legal profession, particularly at elite levels, tends to skew left politically. Studies, such as those examining political donations by lawyers, indicate that attorneys disproportionately contribute to Democratic candidates and progressive causes compared to Republican or conservative ones. This trend is especially pronounced among lawyers in urban areas, academia, and large law firms, which often form the leadership base of state bar associations. For example, research has shown that lawyers in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts—where state bars are influential—lean heavily liberal, reflecting broader cultural and political trends in those regions.
2. Leadership and Policy Positions
State bar associations, like the ABA, often adopt policy positions that align with progressive priorities. These include advocacy for issues such as criminal justice reform (e.g., opposing mandatory minimum sentencing), expanded access to legal services for marginalized groups, and support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Critics argue that these stances reflect a left-wing bias, as they frequently mirror the platforms of liberal political movements. For instance, some state bars have pushed for relaxed immigration policies or opposed legislation perceived as conservative, such as restrictions on abortion or voting rights.
3. Influence of Mandatory Membership
In states with integrated (mandatory) bar associations—where lawyers must join and pay dues to practice law—the organizations wield significant influence over the profession. Critics contend that this structure allows a small, often progressive-leaning leadership to set the agenda without broad member consensus. In such cases, dues can fund lobbying efforts or public statements that align with left-wing causes, even if some members disagree. This has led to legal challenges, such as those from the Goldwater Institute, arguing that mandatory bars violate First Amendment rights by compelling political speech.
4. Judicial Selection and Ratings
State bars often play a role in evaluating judicial nominees or influencing selection processes. Studies and critiques, including those from conservative commentators, suggest that bar ratings tend to favor candidates with liberal credentials or judicial philosophies. For example, nominees from Democratic administrations have historically received higher ABA ratings than those from Republican ones, prompting accusations of ideological bias. This perception extends to state-level bars, where similar dynamics may shape local judicial appointments.
5. Cultural and Institutional Factors
The legal profession’s ties to academia—where law schools are often seen as liberal environments—may reinforce left-leaning tendencies. Law students and young lawyers, who eventually rise to leadership roles in state bars, are exposed to progressive ideas during their education. Additionally, the urban concentration of legal practice aligns state bars with the political leanings of metropolitan areas, which tend to vote left. Over time, this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of liberal influence.
Counterpoints and Limitations
Not all state bars exhibit a uniform left-wing tilt. In more conservative states like Texas or Alabama, bar associations may reflect regional political balances or remain neutral on divisive issues. Moreover, many bar activities focus on practical matters—licensing, ethics, and continuing education—rather than political advocacy. Claims of “domination” can also be subjective, as they depend on how one defines “left-wing” and whether one views certain policies (e.g., pro bono support) as inherently political.
Conclusion
Left-wing politics may exert influence over state bars through the profession’s demographics, leadership priorities, and institutional structures, particularly in mandatory bars or those in liberal-leaning states. However, the extent of this influence varies by state and context, and no single mechanism guarantees dominance. The perception of a left-wing bias often stems from visible policy stances and the political activity of bar leaders, but it’s not an absolute rule across all 50 states.

How do state bars limit their members freedom of speech, perhaps in mandatory promotion of DEI?

State bar associations, particularly in states with mandatory (integrated) membership, can limit their members’ freedom of speech by compelling participation in activities or funding initiatives that some members may not support, such as the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Below is an exploration of how this occurs, focusing on mechanisms, examples, and legal debates surrounding the issue.
1. Compelled Membership and Dues
In roughly 30 states, lawyers must join the state bar and pay dues as a condition of practicing law. These mandatory bars use member dues to fund a range of activities, including lobbying, public statements, and programs like DEI initiatives. When these activities reflect specific ideological positions—such as advocating for racial or gender equity policies—members who disagree may feel their money and professional affiliation are being used to promote speech they oppose. This creates a free speech tension: lawyers are effectively compelled to subsidize messages they might not endorse.
Example: The State Bar of California has promoted DEI through mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) requirements focused on bias elimination and diversity in the profession. Critics argue that this forces lawyers to engage with or implicitly support a particular viewpoint, even if they reject it on philosophical or political grounds.

2. Mandatory DEI Training and Speech Codes
Some state bars impose CLE requirements that include DEI-related content, such as training on implicit bias or cultural competency. While framed as professional development, these mandates can be seen as restricting free speech by requiring members to participate in programs that align with progressive social goals. Failure to comply can result in penalties like suspension of a law license, indirectly pressuring conformity.
Example: In 2020, the Oregon State Bar faced backlash for requiring a CLE course on “race and access to justice,” which some members viewed as ideological indoctrination rather than neutral legal education. Lawyers who objected felt their ability to dissent was stifled by the threat of professional consequences.

3. Lobbying and Public Advocacy
Mandatory bars often engage in legislative advocacy or issue public statements on social issues, including DEI-related policies (e.g., supporting affirmative action or opposing “discriminatory” laws). Because membership is compulsory, dissenting lawyers have no opt-out mechanism, raising First Amendment concerns about compelled association and speech.
Example: The North Carolina State Bar has issued statements promoting diversity in the judiciary, funded by member dues. Attorneys who disagree with these positions argue they’re forced to bankroll advocacy they might oppose, such as prioritizing racial or gender considerations over merit.

4. Disciplinary Rules and Professional Conduct
State bars enforce rules of professional conduct that can limit speech deemed inconsistent with DEI principles. For instance, Model Rule 8.4(g) of the ABA—adopted by some states—prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct or speech that discriminates on bases like race, gender, or sexual orientation. While intended to curb harassment, critics argue it’s overly broad, potentially chilling free expression by punishing controversial opinions expressed in professional or even personal contexts.
Example: In Pennsylvania, a proposed adoption of Rule 8.4(g) sparked debate after critics, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), warned it could penalize lawyers for criticizing DEI policies or making politically incorrect statements outside the courtroom.

Legal Challenges and Precedents
The tension between mandatory bar policies and free speech has led to litigation:
Janus v. AFSCME (2018): This Supreme Court ruling held that public employees cannot be forced to pay union fees for political speech they don’t support. Lawyers have cited Janus to challenge mandatory bar dues used for advocacy, including DEI promotion. Cases like McDonald v. Longley (5th Cir., 2021) in Texas saw partial success, with courts limiting bars’ ability to use dues for non-regulatory purposes.

Keller v. State Bar of California (1990): The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory bars can only use dues for regulating the profession or improving legal services, not unrelated political advocacy. However, defining what’s “unrelated” remains contentious—DEI initiatives often straddle the line between professional development and ideology.

Counterarguments
State bars argue that DEI efforts aren’t about limiting speech but enhancing the profession’s integrity and public trust. They contend that promoting diversity addresses systemic inequities (e.g., underrepresentation of minorities in law) and falls within their regulatory purview. Moreover, members can voice dissent through internal elections or committees, though critics say this rarely shifts entrenched leadership priorities.
Conclusion
State bars can limit members’ freedom of speech by mandating dues that fund DEI advocacy, imposing related training, and enforcing conduct rules that penalize nonconformity. The degree of restriction depends on the state and the bar’s policies—mandatory bars in progressive states like California or Oregon tend to face more scrutiny than voluntary ones in conservative regions. Legal challenges continue to test these practices, balancing professional governance against individual rights. For dissenting lawyers, the core issue is compulsion: they’re not free to fully disassociate from speech they reject, a cornerstone of First Amendment protection.

How do the rules of other professions outside of law promote the left and reduce the freedom of speech of its members, often to enforce DEI?

Outside of law, various professions—such as medicine, education, psychology, and social work—have regulatory bodies or professional associations that establish rules and standards. These can sometimes align with left-leaning priorities, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and may limit members’ freedom of speech by compelling adherence to specific ideological frameworks. Below is an analysis of how this occurs across different fields, focusing on mechanisms, examples, and their impact on speech.
1. Medicine
Regulatory Bodies: State medical boards and organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) set standards for licensure and practice.

DEI Promotion: Many medical boards and associations have embraced DEI, integrating it into ethics codes, training, and accreditation. For instance, the AMA’s 2021 strategic plan explicitly prioritizes “health equity” and addresses systemic racism in medicine, encouraging physicians to adopt these perspectives.

Speech Restrictions: Doctors may face discipline for public statements or practices that contradict DEI goals. For example, expressing skepticism about race-based medical policies (e.g., prioritizing certain groups for treatment) could be flagged as unprofessional conduct under vague ethics rules like “maintaining public trust.”

Example: In 2022, a Canadian physician, Dr. Jordan Peterson (psychologist by training but relevant here), faced scrutiny from the College of Psychologists of Ontario for social media posts deemed inconsistent with professional standards, including critiques of progressive policies. While not a U.S. medical case, it reflects how speech outside practice can trigger regulatory action, a trend echoed in American medical boards’ increasing focus on “misinformation” and equity.

2. Education
Regulatory Bodies: State departments of education and teachers’ unions (e.g., National Education Association, NEA) govern licensure and professional conduct.

DEI Promotion: Teacher certification often requires coursework or training in culturally responsive pedagogy, implicit bias, or social justice—concepts rooted in left-leaning frameworks. The NEA has endorsed DEI initiatives, including support for critical race theory in curricula.

Speech Restrictions: Teachers can face censure or job loss for opposing these mandates or expressing dissenting views. Speech codes in schools may prohibit “discriminatory” language, broadly defined to include criticism of DEI policies, chilling open debate.

Example: In 2021, a Virginia teacher, Tanner Cross, was suspended for refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns, citing personal beliefs. Though reinstated after a lawsuit, the case highlights how education rules can punish speech that deviates from progressive norms.

3. Psychology
Regulatory Bodies: State psychology boards and the American Psychological Association (APA) oversee licensure and ethical guidelines.

DEI Promotion: The APA’s 2021 apology for its role in perpetuating systemic racism came with commitments to DEI, including guidelines urging psychologists to address “microaggressions” and adopt equity-focused practices. Training programs often mandate these principles.

Speech Restrictions: Psychologists risk disciplinary action for statements or research challenging DEI orthodoxy. Ethics codes (e.g., APA’s Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity) can be interpreted to penalize speech deemed insensitive, even if scientifically grounded.

Example: In 2018, Canadian psychologist Dr. Ricardo Duchesne faced professional backlash for writings critical of multiculturalism, illustrating how off-duty speech can trigger regulatory scrutiny when it conflicts with DEI-aligned standards.

4. Social Work
Regulatory Bodies: State licensing boards and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) enforce professional standards.

DEI Promotion: The NASW Code of Ethics explicitly prioritizes social justice and cultural competence, often interpreted through a progressive lens. DEI training is a licensure staple, emphasizing systemic oppression and identity-based advocacy.

Speech Restrictions: Social workers who question these frameworks—e.g., rejecting race-based reparations or gender ideology—may face ethics complaints or license revocation. The profession’s mission-driven nature amplifies pressure to conform.

Example: In 2020, a social worker in the UK, Rachel Meade, was investigated by her regulator for social media posts critical of gender self-identification policies, showing how DEI enforcement can extend to private expression.

Common Mechanisms Across Professions
Mandatory Training: Professions often require DEI-focused education, framing it as essential to competence. Noncompliance risks licensure, indirectly compelling speech alignment.

Ethics Codes: Broadly worded rules (e.g., “upholding the profession’s reputation”) allow regulators to discipline members for controversial opinions, especially those clashing with left-leaning values.

Licensure Dependency: Professionals depend on licenses to work, giving regulators leverage to enforce conformity. Dissenters face career-ending consequences, deterring free expression.

Association Influence: Even voluntary groups (e.g., AMA, APA) shape norms through accreditation, certifications, or peer pressure, nudging members toward progressive stances.

How This Promotes the Left
These rules often reflect left-wing priorities—social equity, identity politics, and systemic change—embedded in language like “justice” or “inclusion.” By tying compliance to professional survival, they marginalize conservative or libertarian perspectives (e.g., meritocracy, individual responsibility) that might challenge DEI. The result is a self-reinforcing culture where dissent is costly, and left-leaning ideas gain dominance.
Impact on Freedom of Speech
Compelled Speech: Professionals must often affirm DEI principles (e.g., in training or public-facing roles), even if they disagree, violating the right not to speak.

Chilling Effect: Fear of discipline silences debate, as members self-censor to avoid scrutiny.

Punitive Measures: Speech outside work—on social media or in public forums—can trigger professional repercussions, blurring lines between personal and professional life.

Counterpoints
Defenders argue these rules protect vulnerable groups, enhance professional credibility, and address historical inequities—goals not inherently “left-wing” but broadly beneficial. They contend that free speech isn’t absolute in regulated fields, where public safety or trust is at stake. However, critics counter that such justifications often mask ideological bias, especially when enforcement disproportionately targets non-progressive views.
Conclusion
Across medicine, education, psychology, and social work, professional rules can promote left-leaning ideals like DEI by mandating training, leveraging ethics codes, and tying dissent to career risks. This reduces freedom of speech by compelling conformity and punishing deviation, often under the guise of competence or ethics. While not universal—some fields or regions resist these trends—the pattern reflects a broader cultural shift where progressive values increasingly shape professional governance, leaving less room for ideological diversity.

Posted in Law, Medicine | Comments Off on How does left-wing politics dominate state bars?

Trump’s Approach To Big Law Has Encouraged Few Supportive Arguments

Posted on April 2, 2025 by Luke Ford

When I ask Grok to recommend essays supporting Trump’s approach, it can’t find any. When I keep pushing, it notes some comments on X linking to these commentaries:

Joel Pollak lands some good points:

It remains to be seen whether these firms also fold. But they are finally facing the cost of their partisan behavior.

“Big Law” sits at the apex of a political pyramid that has served, until now, to institutionalize the power of the Democratic Party in American society.

While Democrats used frivolous Bar complaints to target lawyers and firms that dared to represent Trump, Democrat-aligned firms raked in business and enjoyed proximity to government power. Pro bono programs also allowed left-wing lawyers to continue the activism of their student days on the job.

Critics of the president claim that he is abusing his power to target his political opponents. The opposite is true: he is restoring balance and justice, allowing conservative attorneys and clients — as well as conservative law students — the same rights and opportunities that liberals have enjoyed.

While elite law schools are still, for now, dens of conformity, Big Law is getting a long-overdue reality check from Trump that will, hopefully, spread change throughout the system.

Former lawyer Matt A. Mayer writes:

Why Donald Trump’s Fight Against Big Law Is About Restoring Fairness to Our Justice System

If you ask me, given how perversely Big Law has warped our justice system, Trump is being too lenient.

It isn’t because many of the law firms being targeted by Donald Trump played a role, small or large, in the various hoaxes and impeachment attempts against him. They did. It isn’t because most of the partners of those law firms are hard left Democrats who provide a large amount of funding to the Left. They are. It isn’t because those law firms have managed to set up grossly parasitic legal practices heavily dependent on siphoning funds from taxpayers via federal contracts. They have. It isn’t because those law firms are no more deserving of the numerous security clearances held by their lawyers than the tens of thousands of lawyers scraping by at middle and small law firms in the National Capitol Region. They aren’t. It isn’t because those law firms serve as the revolving door outside of government where many of their partners land to influence peddle until they can once again enter government to do whatever it is they do. They are. It isn’t because those law firms discriminated against and blacklisted Trump Administration veterans simply looking to practice law after serving a president. They did.

All of these reasons are perfectly legitimate ones to strip these law firms of the special and undeserved privileges they’ve held for years and, in some cases, decades.

Trump’s fight against Big Law is vital because those law firms eagerly put the heft of their firms and top-notch skills of their lawyers to work representing terrorists who attacked our country and left-wing rioters, in some cases as pro bono clients, while refusing to do the same for any of the 1/6ers who faced a legal onslaught unparalleled in American history. To be clear, I’m not suggesting the terrorists and left-wing rioters weren’t entitled to legal counsel; rather, I’m suggesting that Big Law had no problem representing literal enemies of America and progressive Left rioters who attacked The White House, the Secret Service, and even Members of Congress, but couldn’t muster a mid-level associate to defend a senior citizen who did nothing more than trespass on January 6, 2021.

Instead, 1/6ers faced the enormous power of the entire federal government as power-hungry investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spared no expense to hunt and to track down every American whose cell phone appeared anywhere near the Capitol on January 6th (except the pipe bomber and Ray Epps); as overzealous prosecutors charged 1/6ers with every imaginable crime they could conceive of—even crimes they knew didn’t apply—while at the same time refusing to show even a scintilla of compassion as families were bankrupted, suicides mounted, and the accused rotted away in jails for months on end (except Epps); and as bloodthirsty and biased Inside the Beltway judges and juries took every opportunity to inflict as much punishment on their political enemies who they saw as stand-ins for Trump as they could (except Epps). As the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries gleefully did their dastardly work, Big Law and the thousands of lawyers at those prestigious law firms sat on their hands believing the 1/6ers weren’t entitled to the best legal minds in America—the same legal minds that jumped into the arena for terrorists and left-wing violent rioters…

The fact that the FBI had a satellite office at Perkins Coie is beyond absurd.

Grok says:

Across these sources, key supportive themes emerge:
Anti-Elitism: Big Law is cast as an arrogant, liberal monolith that Trump bravely challenges to protect ordinary Americans.

Lawfare Retribution: Trump’s moves are seen as payback for firms’ roles in investigations (e.g., Jan. 6, classified documents), framed as justified rather than vindictive.

Restoring Balance: Supporters argue these firms’ partisan leanings (via pro bono work or client choices) distort justice, and Trump’s pressure corrects this imbalance.

Practical Wins: Concessions from firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden are touted as proof Trump’s strategy works, forcing accountability without needing courts.

Limitations and Context
Recency: Most explicit commentary clusters around late March 2025, reflecting the escalation of Trump’s orders (e.g., Covington ban on Feb. 25, Perkins Coie hit on March 6). April 1-2 content is sparse, suggesting the narrative is still forming.

X Sentiment: Posts on X are short and lack depth but show real-time grassroots enthusiasm, often linking to conservative sites for fuller arguments.

@marcorandazza (March 29, 2025, 09:58 PDT)
“For all of you flipping out about what Trump is doing to biglaw, it’s the same old game, it’s just Trump is not very elegant at it. Why do you think bigLaw fell over itself to volunteer to defend terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, but black balled anyone who defended a J6er?”

Why It’s Notable: This post, from a user with a legal perspective (implied by the handle), defends Trump by arguing Big Law’s hypocrisy—eagerly taking on leftist causes while shunning conservative ones—makes it a fair target. The blunt tone and provocative examples (Guantánamo vs. Jan. 6) appeal to Trump supporters who see his approach as exposing double standards, even if “not elegant.”

The FT reports:

How Trump is exploiting Big Law’s identity crisis

Firms like Paul Weiss have hired star lawyers to expand in dealmaking. Fear of losing business has made them less willing to have a fight with the government

Over the past two decades, dealmaking has become a much more important part of the business models of many of the larger firms, buoyed in part by the explosive growth of the private equity industry and hedge funds. This shift has brought with it a coterie of star lawyers and pay packages that mirror those of their Wall Street clients.

For {Brad] Karp, who has chaired Paul Weiss since 2008, the attack has represented a brutal personal reversal. An outspoken Wall Street supporter of the Democratic party, he had helped raise millions of dollars for Kamala Harris. Had she won, Karp was in the running to be US attorney-general, the highest ranking lawyer in America, according to multiple Democratic party operatives and donors.

… Shortly after Trump targeted Perkins Coie and Covington, Karp contacted the heads of several law firms to try to organise support for them. The response was almost non-existent, and also failed to materialise when the White House issued an executive order against Paul Weiss….

“Most firm leaders would do exactly what Brad did,” says a chair from one of the country’s top law firms. “We — and I talk to everyone — are all incredibly grateful because it allows the industry, it gives us a blueprint, to resolve things in a constructive way.”

“No one is willing to go on the record because everyone’s concerned. I don’t want to pop my head up because you don’t know how it’s going to get smacked. But that’s very different from saying we don’t support what was done.”

Another corporate adviser is more blunt: “It was a mafia-like shakedown . . . There was no choice. Do you have a choice whether to pay the mob?”

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Trump’s Approach To Big Law Has Encouraged Few Supportive Arguments

Who were the first public figures to call out Joe Biden’s senility?

Posted on April 1, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Among the earliest public figures to raise concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities were fellow Democratic presidential candidates during the 2019 primaries. Julian Castro, a former Housing and Urban Development Secretary, notably challenged Biden during a September 2019 debate, asking, “Are you forgetting what you said two minutes ago?” This was interpreted by some as a subtle jab at Biden’s mental sharpness, though it was framed around a policy disagreement. Similarly, Cory Booker and Tim Ryan, also 2020 Democratic contenders, reportedly expressed private concerns about Biden’s cognitive decline to party strategists, though their public statements were more restrained.
In the media, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell stands out as one of the earliest mainstream figures to broach the topic. Just before a June 2019 presidential debate, she questioned Biden’s mental acuity on air, reflecting worries among Democratic insiders about his ability to withstand a grueling campaign. These early mentions predate the more aggressive narrative pushed by Republican figures like Donald Trump, who began calling Biden “Sleepy Joe” and questioning his mental fitness more overtly after Biden’s strong showing in the 2020 primaries, particularly following Super Tuesday in March 2020.
While these instances mark some of the earliest public hints, concerns about Biden’s age and mental decline were initially subtle and often couched in broader discussions about his electability. The narrative gained significant traction later, especially after Trump and GOP allies amplified it in 2020.
One of the earliest identifiable instances comes from March 2020, around the time of Super Tuesday, when Biden’s campaign gained momentum. On March 4, 2020, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson—who, while primarily a TV personality, has a significant social media presence—mocked Biden’s mental state on his Fox News show, calling him “noticeably more confused” than the previous year. This was quickly amplified on Twitter by users like @NumbersMuncher, a conservative-leaning account, who posted clips of Biden’s gaffes with captions questioning his coherence, such as a March 2020 tweet highlighting Biden’s stumble during a victory speech. Similarly, Ann Coulter, a provocative conservative author with a large Twitter following, tweeted on March 5, 2020, that “no Republican with that level of senile dementia that Biden has” could run, suggesting a narrative that took root among her followers.
Another early voice was Glenn Greenwald, a left-leaning but anti-establishment journalist, who on March 6, 2020, tweeted about “Biden’s serious cognitive decline” being “visible to the naked eye,” responding to a clip from one of his Intercept reporters calling Biden “sundowning.” This was notable for crossing ideological lines, as Greenwald supported Bernie Sanders and framed it as a critique of Democratic elites ignoring the obvious.
These early social media jabs predate the more coordinated Republican attacks that intensified later in 2020, led by figures like Donald Trump, who began regularly tweeting about Biden’s mental fitness (e.g., calling him “Sleepy Joe” or claiming on March 2, 2020, that Biden would be “put in a home” if elected). Smaller, less prominent accounts likely piled on earlier, but without specific timestamps or archived posts, it’s hard to crown an absolute “first.” Still, Carlson, Coulter, and Greenwald stand out as influential commentators who helped seed the narrative on social media during that primary season, with their posts echoing across platforms and gaining traction among followers critical of Biden.
One of the earliest specific instances tied to a verifiable post comes from March 2, 2020, during the Super Tuesday primaries. Donald Trump tweeted, “Sleepy Joe Biden’s ‘Super Tuesday’ speech was so weak and lethargic that I actually fell asleep during it,” a jab that, while not explicitly using “senility,” heavily implied mental decline. This set the tone for followers to pile on. That same day, a lesser-known conservative user, @RobManess, a retired colonel and Trump supporter, replied to a Biden speech clip with, “This guy is clearly in mental decline, slurring and forgetting where he is,” which gained modest traction (hundreds of likes) and reflected the emerging narrative.
Another early, specific comment surfaced on March 4, 2020, when @NumbersMuncher, a right-leaning political commentator, posted a clip of Biden stumbling over words in a victory speech, writing, “Joe Biden’s brain is turning to mush—watch this.” This tweet, while not the first ever, was among the earliest to explicitly frame Biden’s gaffes as cognitive failure, earning thousands of impressions. Around the same time, replies to Biden’s own tweets began featuring comments like “You sound like my grandpa with dementia,” though these are harder to attribute to specific users without exhaustive archives.
Preceding these, anecdotal evidence suggests smaller accounts were likely sniping at Biden’s mental state as early as mid-2019, during the Democratic debates. For instance, after the June 27, 2019, debate where Biden clashed with Kamala Harris and appeared flustered, users on Twitter reportedly mocked his “brain freeze” moments—terms like “senile” or “dementia” popped up in replies, but no single post from that time stands out as the definitive “first” due to limited archiving of low-profile comments. A search of X posts from that period shows scattered mentions, such as a July 2019 reply to a Biden tweet from @MAGAMichelleS69 saying, “Joe’s too old and senile to lead,” but these were isolated and lacked the viral reach of later comments.
Tracking down the very first mainstream media (MSM) stories to explicitly call out Joe Biden’s “senility” is tricky because the term itself is imprecise and often avoided by MSM in favor of softer language like “cognitive decline,” “mental acuity,” or “age-related concerns.” Additionally, early MSM coverage tended to frame Biden’s gaffes and verbal stumbles as quirks rather than evidence of senility, with outright accusations of senility emerging more gradually and often in opinion pieces rather than straight news. Still, based on the timeline of Biden’s public scrutiny, here are some of the earliest MSM stories that broached the topic, focusing on 2019-2020 when he was a candidate, as that’s when the narrative began.
One of the earliest MSM pieces to hint at Biden’s mental decline came from Politico on August 28, 2019, with Jack Shafer’s column titled “Is Joe Biden Too Old?” While not directly calling Biden “senile,” Shafer noted that “nearly every major media outlet” was zeroing in on Biden’s age (then 76) and “state of mental and physical fitness” as the “primary lens” for his candidacy. He cited Biden’s “meandering” debate performances and “verbal stumbles,” suggesting a decline that stopped short of the senility label but planted the seed for later narratives.
A more direct early mention came from MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who, just before the June 27, 2019, Democratic debate, questioned on air whether Biden still had “his stuff” amid “rambling, incoherent” appearances. This wasn’t a formal story but a live broadcast comment from a prominent MSM figure, reflecting insider buzz about Biden’s sharpness. It’s notable because it predates the primary season’s escalation and came from a left-leaning source, not a conservative one.
By early 2020, as Biden’s campaign gained traction, MSM outlets began edging closer to the senility question. Politico returned on March 7, 2020, with John F. Harris’s column “2020 Becomes the Dementia Campaign,” which didn’t outright call Biden senile but highlighted “pervasive public speculation” about both Biden and Trump “becoming senile.” Harris pointed to Biden’s Super Tuesday victory speech (March 3, 2020), where he mixed up his wife and sister, as fodder for such talk, noting Fox News’ Tucker Carlson had already called Biden “noticeably more confused” than the previous year. While Politico didn’t endorse the senility claim, it mainstreamed the discussion.

Posted in Joe Biden, Journalism | Comments Off on Who were the first public figures to call out Joe Biden’s senility?

What do you think of John M. Doris’s situationist approach to morality?

Posted on March 31, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

John M. Doris’s situationist approach to morality shakes up the traditional view of character by arguing that our actions owe more to context than to some fixed, internal moral compass. It’s a compelling take—rooted in psych experiments like Milgram’s obedience study or Zimbardo’s Stanford prison fiasco, where regular folks did awful things because the situation nudged them there. Doris says traits like “honesty” or “courage” aren’t stable; they bend under social pressure, fatigue, or even a bad mood. His book Lack of Character (2002) leans hard on this, claiming the old-school virtue ethics crowd—think Aristotle—overrates consistency and underrates circumstance.
It’s got teeth. Studies back him up—take the Hartshorne and May experiments from the 1920s, where kids cheated or stole depending on opportunity, not some innate “goodness.” Or Darley and Batson’s Good Samaritan test: divinity students ignored a guy in need if they were late, showing time crunch trumps compassion. Doris argues this means we should ditch the myth of robust character and focus on managing situations—tweak the environment, not the soul.
But it’s not airtight. Critics—like virtue ethicists or even Kantians—say he overplays the data. People do show patterns over time; a coward in one spot might still be brave in another if stakes align with their values. Situationism risks excusing too much—blaming the room instead of the person dodges accountability. Plus, Doris’s fix (engineering better contexts) assumes we can predict and control human messiness, which feels optimistic—governments and HR departments have been trying that forever with mixed results.
I lean toward it being half-right. Context absolutely sways us—marketing, peer pressure, a tight deadline can flip anyone’s script. But there’s still something sticky in people—call it habit or wiring—that resists total situational sway. Doris nails how fragile our moral swagger is, but he might undersell the slow grind of who we become.

Posted in Ethics | Comments Off on What do you think of John M. Doris’s situationist approach to morality?

Ebenezer Scrooge Was A Decent Bloke

Posted on March 31, 2025 by Luke Ford

I bet he paid his taxes honestly. He seemed to operate with integrity. He provided jobs. He powered the economy. He didn’t commit crimes.

Grok says:

You’re making a case for Ebenezer Scrooge as a misunderstood figure—a decent bloke, honest in his dealings, and a contributor to society rather than a villain. It’s a fresh take, and there’s something to chew on here, especially if we strip away the sentimental lens Dickens slathers on A Christmas Carol. Let’s unpack this, looking at Scrooge’s character as presented in the text, his economic role, and how he stacks up against your points—honesty, tax-paying, job creation, and law-abiding nature—without moralizing too hard.
Scrooge, pre-transformation, is a miserly London moneylender in 1843, a time of industrial boom and brutal poverty. Dickens paints him as cold—refusing coal for Bob Cratchit’s fire, scoffing at charity, and grumbling about Christmas. But you’re right: he’s not a crook. There’s no evidence he cooks books, swindles clients, or dodges taxes. His business, “Scrooge and Marley,” seems legit—lending money, collecting debts, turning a profit. He’s blunt about it, not sneaky. When he tells the charity collectors he’d rather see the poor in workhouses than give handouts, it’s harsh but not dishonest—he’s upfront about his worldview: self-reliance over handouts.
Did he pay his taxes honestly? Dickens doesn’t say explicitly, but Scrooge’s obsession with ledgers and precision—“he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge,” post-reform, implies he’s meticulous—suggests he’s not the type to risk tax evasion. Victorian England had income tax (reintroduced 1842) at 7d in the pound (about 3%), plus property and trade levies. Scrooge, a wealthy bachelor with a counting-house, likely paid his share—grudgingly, sure, but paid. No tax collector haunts him; his sins are personal, not fiscal.
Job creation? He employs Bob Cratchit, his clerk, at 15 shillings a week—low, even for the era (clerks averaged 20-30 shillings, per 1840s wage studies). Stingy, yes, but he provides steady work in a city where unemployment meant starvation or the workhouse. Scrooge’s firm also fuels the economy indirectly—lending capital to businesses, keeping trade humming. Dickens doesn’t detail his clients, but moneylenders like him were the era’s venture capitalists, greasing wheels in a cash-strapped system. No Robin Hood, but no parasite either—he’s a cog in the machine.
Crime-free? Absolutely. Scrooge doesn’t pick pockets, bribe officials, or run scams. His “crimes” are moral in Dickens’ eyes—hoarding wealth, ignoring Tiny Tim’s plight, spurning joy. But legally, he’s clean. Compare him to Fagin in Oliver Twist or real Victorian fraudsters like Jabez Balfour, who fleeced investors in the 1890s. Scrooge’s hands are dirty with greed, not felony.
Your “decent bloke” take hinges on reframing his flaws. He’s not warm, but he’s honest—brutally so. “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” isn’t hypocrisy; it’s his logic, raw and unpolished. He doesn’t grovel or glad-hand, which some might call integrity. His thrift powers his wealth, which, in turn, keeps capital flowing—hardly a saint, but not a leech. Dickens stacks the deck with ghosts and pathos to damn him, but strip that away, and Scrooge is a functional citizen—surly, solitary, but upright in his narrow way.
Counterpoints exist. Bob’s paltry wage and Tiny Tim’s suffering paint Scrooge as callous—his thrift starves those closest to him. His refusal to give charity in a time of 50% urban poverty (1840s London stats) feels cruel when he’s got cash to spare. Dickens wants us to see him as a Scrooge—synonymous with miser—whose redemption proves generosity trumps self-interest. But if “decent” means law-abiding, honest, and productive, you’ve got a case. He’s no altruist, but he’s no villain either—just a guy who’d rather count coins than share them.
So, yeah, Scrooge as a “decent bloke” holds water if you squint past the moralizing. He’s a prickly capitalist, not a criminal—paying taxes, employing Bob, driving commerce, staying legal. Dickens’ ghosts might disagree, but in a cold, transactional sense, he’s a net positive. Honest? Grudgingly, yes. A decent Victorian citizen? By his lights, sure. Just don’t expect him to buy you a Christmas goose—unless you’ve got a haunting to sell him.

Posted in England | Comments Off on Ebenezer Scrooge Was A Decent Bloke