0:10
Run, Don't Walk to These S'mores Bars.
Over the past five years here on Substack, I have shared over 300 recipes with you. That’s 2 to 3 cookbooks worth. If each recipe was printed on an 8 1/2 x 11-inch sheet of paper and laid to end, that would get you .00002% of the way to the moon.
Arithmetic gymnastics, however, is not what this is all about. This is meant to be a confession and hopefully, absolution, because at the end of May I realized I’d never shared with you one of my most popular recipes: s’mores bars.
The bars are made up of layers of graham cracker-infused shortbread and covered in layers of chocolate and marshmallows. The result is a gooey dessert that offers all the flavors of a s’mores without the need for a fire or bug spray.
I bring these s’mores bars to potlucks, teacher toasts and block parties, where they tend to disappear with much oo-ing and ahh-ing. If my kids had to rank their favorite desserts of mine, these would be in the top 3.
I recently gave a batch to my neighbor to take on the Girl Scout camping trip she was going on with her daughter. The second night they were there, the campsite was inundated with rain and tornado warnings. All activities were cancelled for the night and the kids and caregivers were packed into a small room to wait out the storm. The group had been looking forward to a campfire, sing-a-long and, of course, s’mores. My neighbor suddenly remembered the package I’d sent her off with and shared them with the crowd—saving the day with these no-fuss, no-fire-needed s’mores.
Shrinkflation: This recipe was born about 8 years ago. Since then, Hershey bars and graham crackers have gotten smaller, which I realized while re-testing the recipe over the last month. Where I once called for a pack of 6 Hershey bars, 7 are now required. And prices for the bars have nearly doubled.
As you should do with all recipes, read it carefully before beginning. Part of the graham cracker mixture is set aside to make the crumb topping, and I don’t want you to confuse which is which.
I use Hershey bars for the classic s’mores taste, but feel free to use the semisweet or dark chocolate bar of your choice.
Makes 24 squares
3 cups (330 grams) graham cracker crumbs (@3 full sleeves of Honey Maid graham crackers or similar) (set aside 1 cup/140 grams for the topping)
1/2 cup (60 grams) all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
10 tablespoons (142 grams) unsalted butter, room temperature
1/3 cup (66 grams) granulated sugar
1/3 cup (71 grams) brown sugar
1 large egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
7 1.55 ounce (312 grams) Hershey bars
2 1/4 cup (115 grams) mini marshmallows
For the crumble topping
2 tablespoons (28 grams) butter, room temperature
1/3 cup (71 grams) brown sugar
1/4 teaspoon salt
Heat the oven to 350°F/180°C. Grease a 13 x 9-inch (23 x 33 cm) pan and line it with a large piece of parchment that hangs over the edge of the pan by about 1 inch (2.5 cm). The parchment paper will act as a sling to help you lift the s’mores bars from the pan after they’re baked to make cutting them easier.
In a medium bowl, whisk together all the graham cracker crumbs, the flour and 1 teaspoon salt until combined. Set aside 1 cup (140 grams) of this mixture in a smaller bowl. The mixture in the smaller bowl will be turned into the crumb topping mixture later.
With a hand- or in a stand mixer, beat together the 10 tablespoons (142 grams) butter, 1/3 cup white sugar and 1/3 cup brown sugar, until light and fluffy. Add the egg and vanilla and mix until blended Add the larger bowl (2 cups worth) of graham-flour mixture and stir until blended. Press this mixture evenly across the bottom of the prepared pan. Break up the chocolate bars and distribute them evenly over the crust. Top with mini marshmallows.
Make the crumb topping: To the crumb topping mixture you set aside earlier, add 2 tablespoons butter, 1/3 cup brown sugar and the 1/4 teaspoon salt. Mix together with your fingers (or a fork if you’re feeling dainty) until clumps of crumble form. Sprinkle the mixture over the top of the pan and bake for 20-25 minutes until the marshmallows are golden brown. Place on a cooling rack. I typically cut these into about 2-inch squares for a potluck or buffet.
These can be made a day ahead and kept in an airtight tin. They keep fresh on the counter for at least a week, but I doubt very much if they’ll last that long. If you won’t be feeding a crowd, wrap slabs of the s’mores bars in a layer of plastic wrap and then aluminum foil and freeze for up to 3 months. Defrost on the counter.
5:08
John Bolton May Be Headed to Prison
For a bureaucrat, John Bolton cuts a pretty memorable figure. An überhawk who helped architect George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq, Bolton also flamed out of Donald Trump’s first administration, wrote a bestselling memoir with a title inspired by the musical Hamilton, and sports a trademark walrus mustache. Now the former top Republican official can add another distinction to his résumé: felon. Bolton pleaded guilty this morning to mishandling classified government information. On the surface, this looks like yet another instance of a Trump antagonist falling victim to a politicized Justice Department. But the story isn’t quite that simple.
Rewind. What exactly did Bolton do?
Last year, a federal grand jury indicted Bolton on 18 counts. Prosecutors accused him of sharing national defense information with people—reportedly his wife and daughter—who helped him with his aforementioned memoir, The Room Where It Happened. The charges collectively threatened Bolton with decades in prison, and he initially fought them. But after striking a plea deal, he admitted to one count of illegally retaining classified information. Under the deal, he’ll pay a $2.25 million fine and face up to five years behind bars.
OK, but Bolton is a powerful guy. Is he really going to prison?
According to the New York Times, court documents suggest he will. But Bolton isn’t scheduled to be sentenced until October, and the judge in the case—a Barack Obama appointee—could impose a more lenient punishment. And you’re right: This would be a rare case of a former top government official actually doing time.
Remind me why Trump doesn’t like him?
Bolton is one of the many people hired in the president’s first term who ended up on bad terms with the boss. Brought on in 2018 as Trump’s third national security adviser, Bolton departed just 17 months later over Trump’s conciliatory approach to Afghanistan, North Korea, and (irony of ironies!) Iran. But their breakup was messier than most. In the memoir that ended up at the center of his criminal case, Bolton claimed that Trump offered to halt investigations to help “dictators he liked,” begged China to meddle in the 2020 election to help him win, and was a “stunningly uninformed” man whose own aides privately mocked him.
So is this just another case of Trump using the Justice Department to punish his enemies?
I won’t deny it: The optics aren’t great. Bolton is part of a growing list of Trump critics the administration has targeted. Others include former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and E. Jean Carroll, a writer whom Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming. But two things can be true, and Bolton’s isn’t a simple case of presidential pique. The investigation into his retention of classified documents reportedly began in 2020 but intensified during the Biden administration and has been helmed by veteran prosecutors rather than political hacks. And in pleading guilty, Bolton admitted to having committed a crime. “I’m sorry for it,” he told the judge.
But wait, didn’t Trump also keep government documents he wasn’t supposed to?
Yes, and it’s yet another strange irony of this case. After the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago in 2022, federal prosecutors accused Trump of taking sensitive documents from the White House. It was one of four criminal probes Trump faced after leaving office. But then a particularly toadyish Trump-appointed judge named Aileen Cannon effectively undermined the prosecution. So while Bolton may be headed to prison, Trump is sitting pretty in the very building from which he allegedly stole documents. Wonders never cease!
That’s enough politics for today. It’s about to be Friday night, a perfect time for a movie—either at home or in theaters. But don’t waste your evening on a bad film: Let Slate’s exceptional culture team guide you through what to watch, what to consider, and what to skip (but also read about and cackle).
Here are some can’t-miss theater picks: If you’re looking for family fare, Toy Story 5 is heartbreaking and poignant. If you’re down for films that are both terrifying and artful, we have a horror trio: Obsession, Backrooms, and Leviticus. If you want to go out on a limb, Disclosure Day was not everyone’s favorite, but it’s worthy of your consideration. But if you do go out, watch out for one beloved theater chain’s terrible new feature.
We also have some great options for staying home: You can now rent Project Hail Mary, a sci-fi film that works for genre and non-genre fans alike. The charming, tearjerking Sheep Detectives (in which the sheep ... are the detectives) is now streaming on Prime Video. And if you’re up for a rom-com, there’s Voicemails for Isabelle, which is big on Netflix.
And we have some great reads about movies that, to put it mildly, missed the mark: Supergirl is a “super-bummer,” according to Slate’s Dana Stevens.
10:32
The Reiders’ With Benefits Member’s Only Exclusive - June 23 | The Joy Reid Show LIVE!
So there was a discussion about James Talarico's campaign and whether he needs help from Jasmine Crockett to win over Black voters. The question is who should make the first move - should Crockett offer her support or should Talarico ask for her help. This is important because Talarico needs Black voters to win in November.
The conversation seems to be centered around the idea that Talarico needs to humble himself and ask for Crockett's help in order to gain the support of Black voters. It's not clear what the outcome of this discussion was, but it's clear that Crockett's support could be crucial for Talarico's campaign.
It's worth noting that this conversation was part of a larger discussion about the importance of independent media and speaking truth to power. The idea is that independent media outlets can provide honest analysis and discussion without being influenced by corporate interests.
This episode was part of a premium subscription service, which supports independent media ventures and allows for real and honest talk and analysis. The service is available to those who want to join and support independent media.
The discussion about Talarico's campaign and his need for Black voters is likely to continue, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the coming months. For now, it seems that Crockett's support could be a key factor in Talarico's success.
Overall, the conversation was about the importance of independent media and the role that key figures like Crockett can play in supporting campaigns like Talarico's.
12:23
Supreme Failures | The Joy Reid Show LIVE!
Joy Reid’s show highlighted the Thomas Roberts Supreme Court’s recent push on women’s rights, voting rights and the TPS decision, noting the court’s drive to overturn lingering 20th‑century precedents. She framed it as a broader pattern of judicial activism that’s reshaping constitutional protections.
She then turned to Tsuru for Solidarity’s Leadership Council, sharing their social‑media handles and urging listeners to follow the campaign and join Saturday’s activities for more details. The segment also plugged Melissa Murray’s new book on the Constitution and Elie Mystal’s recent releases.
Finally, Reid pointed listeners toward the Independence Day, Frederick Douglass and upcoming Freedom Summer collections, and asked the audience to consider subscribing to keep the independent coverage flowing.
13:22
In Conversation with Joy- Ann Reid
[Transcript edited for clarity, flow and length]
Mary Trump: I sat down with the phenomenal Joy Ann Reid, and we talked about many things, including algae ridden reflecting pools as a metaphor and the fact that what’s happening with Donald right now is a difference of degree, not kind. We also discussed the ways in which his increasing decline is revealing who he has been all along. I hope you’ll check it out.
Joy Ann Reid: Mary L. Trump is an American psychologist and author. Her first book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man, which came out in 2020, sold nearly a million copies on its first day of publication, including to me. She is also the author of two other amazing New York Times bestsellers, The Reckoning and the memoir Who Could Ever Love You. She writes The Good in Us, a bestselling newsletter on Substack, and is the founder of Mary Trump Media and the Mary Trump Media YouTube channel.
Mary Trump, it’s so good to have you. Welcome to your debut on The Joy Ann Reid Show.
Mary Trump: Joy Ann Reid, I can’t believe it took so long. It’s so good to see you. I want that shirt also. I’m going to have to get one because it’s awesome.
This is such a pleasure for me. I’ve been following everything you’ve been doing, and it truly is an honor to be here.
Joy Ann Reid: Thank you. Before we even get into the substance of our conversation. I’ve been interviewing Mary L. Trump since 2016, but we only met in person for the first time last week at the amazing Jane Fonda event, Rise Up and Sing. It was wonderful finally getting the chance to meet you in person, along with your beautiful wife. We had such a great time.
Mary Trump: We really did.
Joy Ann Reid: Let’s talk about what’s happening now. Congressman Ted Lieu recently implied that your Uncle Donald is actually ill. His ankles are very swollen, and he’s got strange marks on his hands, including what almost looks like a bite mark on one of them. To your knowledge, is he physically ill?
Mary Trump: I don’t have any more insight into that than anybody else, but I have eyes in my head. I don’t think we can pretend anymore that everything is fine.
I also have to say that it’s great to hear Ted Lieu talking like that because I think you, I, and others have been saying for years that this is exactly how people need to confront Donald Trump on a daily basis. Until recently, though, people continued to pull their punches.
To be honest, as concerning as his physical appearance is, and this is not an ad hominem attack, I’m simply describing observable facts. His ankles are swollen. His hands look terrible. They’re bruised. He is incapable of staying awake. He struggles to focus on anything. His newest habit seems to be telling people that nobody is interested in what they’re talking about, which apparently only happens when they aren’t talking about him.
All of those are troubling signs regarding his physical condition. Some of them, such as the hypersomnia and the increasing lack of impulse control, can also be signs of cognitive decline.
As many people know, Alzheimer’s disease runs in my family. Hopefully it skips my generation, but it is part of our family history. I see similarities between my grandfather’s behavior and Donald’s behavior. My grandfather, of course, was Donald’s father.
What we’re dealing with is a perfect storm of psychological, emotional, physical, and cognitive decline because, on top of everything else, Donald has lived for decades with severe, untreated psychiatric disorders.
Joy Ann Reid: We’ve had Dr. John Gartner on the show talking about narcissistic personality disorder, something you’ve discussed as well. Beyond narcissism, as a psychologist, what else do you see?
Mary Trump: Technically, diagnosis is a process. Donald isn’t my patient, and a proper diagnosis would require an extensive battery of tests. There’s certainly a great deal of comorbidity, meaning we’re not talking about just one condition.
More importantly, though, I think we’re past the point where the precise diagnosis matters. What matters is how he is behaving, and his behavior is becoming increasingly alarming.
I hear former allies saying they don’t recognize him anymore. That’s nonsense.
What’s happening is that this perfect storm of decline is revealing who Donald has always been. He’s losing control, not only of himself but also of the narrative he’s spent decades constructing about himself.
That’s what we’re seeing. We cannot allow people to excuse his behavior by pretending this is somehow new. Nor can we allow anybody in this corrupt fascist Republican Party to pretend Donald alone is the problem because they’ve known exactly who he is all along.
Tom Tillis may be waking up to the reality the rest of us have been living with, but he also helped create this reality.
Joy Ann Reid: He did. All of them did.
18:45
No One on the Right Is Rethinking Foreign Policy.
The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World is always on the lookout for nascent political and policy developments. After all, that’s what keeps the lights on around here! What’s changing in the politics of foreign policy? What’s new? In what way does any particular incipient trend affect world politics?
Of course, it’s not just the hard-working staff here who cares about the new and the trendy. The entire commentariat is devoted to examining current events and, where possible, developing a concise theory or narrative to describe what is happening and why. Because that is what an awful lot of readers want: guideposts to better understand this crazy world we live in. Heck, if you’re reading these words, it is likely because you are either: a) a member of my family;1 or b) looking for a way to navigate our crazy, complex, chaotic world of international relations.
The danger, however, is that this desire to highlight exciting new trends can cause pundits to confuse noise with signal. In other words, what might seem like something new is in fact not anything terribly new, but rather a different manifestation of something old.
And that leads me to a rather annoying New York Times front-pager by Anton Troianovski. The headline is, “From ‘Terrible People’ to ‘Smart People’: The Trump-Led Right Rethinks Iran.” Here’s the gist:
For decades, the idea that Iran’s regime represented the worst of the world’s worst stood as a pillar of Republican foreign policy.
But in recent months, and especially as the Trump administration has defended its preliminary peace deal, a different perspective has been taking hold in parts of the American right: Iran as a pragmatic country that the United States can, and must, learn to live with.
The stark shift has been led by President Trump, who called Iran’s leaders “strong people, smart people” last week, but it goes well beyond him. Vice President JD Vance has emerged as its main proponent. Conservatives who long had an isolationist streak have been energized. Even some longtime hawks have changed their tone.
It is too soon to say whether the change will last. Many Republicans have retained their hard-line stance, and Mr. Trump has periodically threatened to restart the war. Some of the shifting language among Republicans could be the familiar Trump-era scramble to stay aligned with a mercurial president.
But interviews show that the right-wing pivot away from traditional Republican hawkishness on Iran is driven by factors that go beyond Mr. Trump’s desire to disentangle himself from the fighting. There is a generational shift in the party away from uncompromising support for Iran’s archenemy, Israel, and even some grudging admiration for the Iranian regime’s ability to withstand weeks of fierce bombardment.
Yeah, I’m not buying this, like, at all. If I had been tasked with writing this story, it would have been condensed into the following:
For decades, Republicans have been extremely hawkish on Iran. As President Trump has tried to sell a cease-fire that accomplished almost none of the stated aims of Operation Epic Fury, however, he has sounded more optimistic about the autocratic, theocratic regime. And in the familiar Trump-era scramble to stay aligned with a mercurial president, most of the GOP is following the president’s tune.
Because let’s be honest: that is all that is really going on here. Donald Trump has shifted his foreign policy cues from hawkishness to dovishness on Iran, and his followers are responding to this cue. I guarantee you that if Trump reverses course yet again and starts threatening to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, most of his MAGA base will follow him back towards militarism.
Why do I know this? Because the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World has been paying attention over the past calendar year. During this time, the Trump administration sounded increasingly hawkish about the use of military force. And guess what? Almost all of MAGA supported Trump’s half-assed neoconservative adventures!
This is mostly because — to repeat a theme — most Americans do not care about foreign policy. Which means they are happy to parrot whatever Trump says about the world. What GOP pollster and strategist Patrick Ruffini told Politico back in February still holds true today:
I have to laugh at the idea of foreign policy being decisive for a large segment of voters. I think you could probably say that, to the extent that Trump had some non-intervention rhetoric, there might be some backlash among some of the podcast bros, or among the Tucker Carlson universe. But that is practically a non-entity when it comes to the actual electorate and especially this group that is floating between the two political parties.
23:59
Happy Anniversary To Me!
As a general rule, the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World does not talk a lot about the proprietor’s day job at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Sure, I occasionally muse about my myriad administrative responsibilities, but in my head, my day job is my day job and this is… something else.
This month, however, is a pretty big work anniversary for me, and it is worth devoting one newsletter to why it makes me happy.
In the spring of 2006 I was not in the best headspace. The University of Chicago had denied me tenure the previous fall. Even though I knew I was moving to the Fletcher School in relatively short order, for the next nine months I had to live in the academic fishbowl that was/is Hyde Park. It was not a fun experience. And both the Fletcher School and Tufts University were, at the time, somewhat unknown entities to me.
In the summer of 2006, however, I published a short essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education about, well, blogging. It was the first essay I had published with my Fletcher tagline. Now, essays like this in non-peer-reviewed venues went studiously uncommented on by my U of C colleagues. Times have changed since 2006, but twenty years ago — at least in Hyde Park — the notion that a junior scholar would publish anything in a non-academic venue was thought to be disreputable. And I implicitly assumed that this reflected a wider professorial consensus.
So I was surprised to receive an email from the Tufts University provost the day my Chronicle essay ran. He thanked me for writing it and expressed great pleasure at my move to Tufts. And that was the moment when I realized I might have found my found my intellectual and professional home.1
My first semester at Fletcher confirmed this instinct. The warmth and enthusiasm I received from my colleagues and students from the moment of my arrival eased my transition from a political science department to an international affairs school.
This month marks my twenty-year anniversary of starting at Fletcher. It’s been a productive time and place for me! I have developed at least five new courses, including some on timely and unusual topics. This coming academic year I’ll be teaching a brand new course on ethics in international affairs that seems super-relevant.2
Beyond the classroom, the combination of tenure and Fletcher has radically enhanced my writing productivity. I have written five books and edited two more, and published more than 55 articles. That does not include the op-eds and blogging for Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, and now Drezner’s World.
In other words, it’s been a pretty awesome twenty years. And I’m now a distinguished professor and a dean!
If this all sounds self-congratulatory, well, guilty as charged — but really it is me trying to express my gratitude to Fletcher for providing such a vibrant home for me to play with ideas every day. The Fletcher community is dedicated to the proposition that even in a complex, fragmented world, it is possible to make a difference through people and ideas. And every day I engage with Fletcher students, I am continually reminded of how much of a difference that proposition can make.
So as Fletcher retools its degree names, I look forward to matching the enthusiasm and curiosity of my colleagues, my staff, and my students.
Here’s to another twenty years!
1
Given that I spent the first ten years of academic career living and working in all four continental time zones, this was a pretty big deal!
27:51
In defense of anonymity, the guard dog of free expression
Among social media commenters, columnists, and even heads of state, it’s a typical refrain: If we just rid ourselves of that pesky internet anonymity and pseudonymity, we will have a cleaner, better, happier world. Anonymity, the common sentiment goes, is the weapon of the evil and the cruel.
Despite some prevalent misconceptions, anonymity is not an invention of social media, email, or the internet age. The American founding fathers, for example, took great advantage of pseudonymous and anonymous expression, as have denizens of Rome for hundreds of years on the city’s “talking statues.”
Opposition to anonymity is not new either — far from it. Nearly 400 years ago the British Parliament sought to attack anonymous speech in the 1643 Printing Ordinance, one of a number of related attacks on the right to free press, to ensure all printers were licensed — and known by name to the Crown. Fast forward a few centuries. In the past year, the Trump administration has attempted to use oversight-free administrative subpoenas to unmask online critics of federal policy.
There are some figures, politicians especially, who advocate an end to anonymity with ill intent and the specific desire to curb public criticism. Look back through history, one week ago or one millennium ago, and you’ll find frequent attempts by the powerful to diminish the right to anonymous speech as a means to attack political speech. The reason is simple: Without the protection anonymity offers, critics may be far less likely to risk the punishment that may accompany challenging power.
This piece, though, is intended as a reply to good faith advocates who sincerely believe that the information environment and public discourse would markedly improve if we necessitated the use of “real names” online. (Here’s one recent piece, for example, supporting a real names requirement because “much of the worst content is produced by anons.”)
But they are wrong, for two major reasons. First, the notion that anonymity is largely to blame for ugliness online is not particularly well supported. South Korea actually legislated “real names” rules in the early 2000s, with various developments culminating in a 2008 law requiring real names from commenters on sites with 100,000 daily visitors. The results were not what supporters expected. Research found little to no evidence that the requirements made a difference in the amount of cruel and ugly comments posted and “consensus across these studies was that the real name registration policy did not deter wild and unfounded positions from being promoted online.”
Not only that, but South Korean websites became “prime targets for hacking both from in and outside of the country” and “a series of high-profile cyberattacks made it clear that the real-name system was untenable,” including one hack affecting 35 million people — over half of the country’s population. (These are exactly some of the privacy concerns that FIRE has raised about burgeoning age and identity verification schemes internationally and in the U.S., which will also diminish anonymous speech.) Four years later, the Korean Constitutional Court overturned the law on free speech grounds.
“Real name” supporters are wrong for another big reason, too. Anonymity and pseudonymity are not weapons trained upon the vulnerable.
31:33
J. Edgar Hoover and the war on dissent
This year, the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary. To commemorate the occasion, FIRE is proud to present the limited series “Figures of Speech,” looking at the heroes and villains of free speech in American history. We began with Joseph McCarthy, the senator who scared America silent. Then we looked at Thomas Paine, American history’s winter soldier, and Woodrow Wilson, our worst president for free speech. Today we turn to J. Edgar Hoover and the story of how he used the FBI to wage war on dissent.
In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. received a suspicious package. Inside was an audio recording and a letter denouncing him as “a complete fraud and a great Liability to all of us Negroes.” The letter accused King of “countless acts of adultery and immoral conduct lower than that of a beast,” before ending with a chilling message: “King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days.”
The package had not come from a disillusioned admirer. It came from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. King suspected as much and understood the ultimatum as an invitation to kill himself before his private life was exposed.
The episode was part of the FBI’s broader campaign of surveillance and harassment against King, which included wiretapping his home and offices and planting hidden microphones in his hotel rooms. Whether the bureau hoped King would take his own life or merely withdraw from public life, it was attempting to silence the nation’s leading voice for racial equality.
This was J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.
For nearly half a century, Hoover shaped the bureau in his own image, transforming it from a small, scandal-plagued agency into one of the most respected and powerful institutions in America. But Hoover’s greatest ambition was never simply to catch criminals. He believed the FBI should protect the nation not just from gun-toting bank robbers, but from idea-toting dissidents. Under his leadership, the bureau amassed countless intelligence files on Americans, secretly recorded perceived enemies, infiltrated political organizations, and covertly disrupted movements deemed a threat to the social and political order. Hoover’s long, relentless campaign to snuff out dissent made him one of the most formidable enemies of free speech in American history.
Hoover entered the Justice Department in 1917 at the age of 23, just as the United States’ entry into World War I triggered a massive crackdown on dissent. The censorship fever that gripped the nation only spiked after the war ended, as the Russian Revolution, labor unrest, and a wave of anarchist bombings contributed to heightened public anxiety about communist influence.
The First Red Scare enabled Hoover to develop his skills in collecting and managing vast amounts of information on the government’s undesirables. He used a system of index cards to keep tabs on suspected radicals and helped coordinate the Palmer Raids, a brutal campaign to arrest and deport immigrants with alleged radical beliefs or associations. Authorities swept up thousands in the raids, often without warrants or any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The backlash to this notorious assault on civil liberties taught Hoover not that political repression was wrong, but that it had to be done with more professionalism and less overt lawlessness.
Hoover rose to become director of the FBI (then called the Bureau of Investigation) in 1924. After firing the previous director, Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone warned that “a secret police system may be a menace to free government and free institutions.” Unfortunately, the man he just appointed would spend the next 48 years proving him right.
Hoover’s reign wasn’t all bad. He modernized the FBI through forensic science techniques, fingerprint databases, crime statistics, centralized training, and strict hiring standards (perhaps too strict, insisting the FBI reject all “long hairs, beards, mustaches, pear-shaped heads, [and] truck drivers”). But the same bureaucratic machinery that made the FBI successful at fighting crime also made it disturbingly effective at monitoring Americans’ speech.
World War II gave Hoover the opportunity to increase his institutional power and establish the FBI as a permanent domestic intelligence agency. As fears of Nazi espionage and sabotage mounted, President Franklin D. Roosevelt granted the bureau sweeping new authority, including secret approval for warrantless wiretapping. Hoover interpreted “subversion” broadly, targeting not only foreign agents but also communists, labor activists, isolationists, and others he viewed as impediments to the war effort. The FBI’s wartime expansion of personnel, resources, and surveillance capabilities laid the foundation for its increasingly aggressive attacks on free speech.
During the Cold War, concerns about communism again took center stage. To be sure, Hoover was not chasing an entirely imaginary threat.
37:00
CNN IS MELTING DOWN AS PROGRESSIVES TAKE OVER
In a huge week for the progressive left, Zohran Mamdani-backed candidates swept New York elections, signaling high tide for progressives across the country like the Hasan Piker-backed Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.
And CNN is freaking out.
Dana Bash thinks its 1939-Germany-all-over-again, Scott Jennings warns Jews to be afraid for their lives when “those people” (meaning Muslims) vote in elections, and Erin Burnett is enraged that the new left won’t allow space for genociders in the “big tent” party.
Every AIPAC-owned Israel-activist host and pundit on the channel seems to be more tone deaf and racist than the next, each trying to corner progressives with the dumbest takes we’ve heard. It’s a sure sign that Israel’s hold on US voters is finally slipping.
And it gets more ridiculous:
