I had no idea you were fighting cancer, as I’ve only discovered your work in the last two months. I am currently reading your book, and think that yours is one of the most important voices in the country. I’m not sure how big your followership is, but I intend to increase it. I am sending you so much gratitude. You are an incredible human being, and knowing what you are going through as you write with such power and clarity just takes my breath away. Thank you, and sending 🙏, ❤️, and ✨. Ps— more than my emojis, I know you want to know that I’m in, with sleeves rolled up. I am.
There's an old quote about being a lawyer, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law."
When we have procedure on our side and pound the procedure, ordinary people will assume it's because we don't have the facts. And pretty often, they're right. So we need to think carefully about the better future and go get the facts on our side, then pound the facts.
Jen - my cancer treatment gave me definite chemo brain -- yours seems to be sharpening your insights. Or maybe it's that the situation gets ever clearer. Thank you for giving voice to how the thicket of laws and policies has become counter-productive to Life. After my body lived through purposeful poisons, I started drafting "Integrative Democracy." This is the time to equally focus on the overall wellness of our shared public body. Only in 2018 was the Interstitium discovered by scientists who sidestepped the usual process of extracting and dehydrating tissue to look at it under the microscope (perhaps similar to the typical style of opinion polls?). There is layer of cells and fluid that holds the body all together - and most place-based communities have interstitial flows of trust and helping hands that are completely outside of the very visible bones and structures of governance, and, as you note, are grappling with how to move despite the locked up fascia of service delivery. My great wish for this next era is to invite us to stop treating everything as "talking to the other side." This obsession with political sides is the inflammation that keep the fluids in our connective tissue from flowing with more natural ease.
Thank you, dear Jennifer, for this wonderful post, which I shared on Facebook. I recently subscribed after reading your amazing book, Recoding America, which I told all my friends to read. I'm sorry about your cancer and wish you a full recovery. You are a national treasure and we can't do without you. You should be in charge of DOGE!
First, wishing you the best on the health front. I don't know how you can write so eloquently in the circumstances, but you do.
Second, this newsletter is such a comfort/lodestar for me. I've been working in the policy or policy-adjacent world, in a lot of different contexts, since I started working in the 90s. Back in the day, it was the Contract with America that had "right-thinking" classical liberals like me aghast. Even then, I couldn't help noticing that the Weekly Standard (as it then was) and other such outlets were so much more interesting than most of what the left had to offer. It seemed weird that a party supposedly commited to the idea of progress should be so reactionary and hidebound, but I assumed that I was young and stupid and missing something.
Now I'm old, experienced (but often ignorant and/or baffled), and afraid that we've put ourselves in a baby/bathwater situation. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I have long feared that the environmental review process (in which I work) has become so absurdly overbroad and unworkable that the reaction will make it difficult or impossible to put something better in place anytime soon. I appreciate your clear-eyed analysis of what's at stake and the call to us to do everything we can to help make it happen. Thank you.
When it comes to "finding something to invent" going local is one way to do it. Now's a good time to pick out some state and local issues to get involved in, or at least to follow and think about. It might give us a better sense of control, or at the very least provide some distraction from who-knows-what might end up going on in D.C.
"why would half of voters tolerate this" - the fraction is much smaller. Most believed the disinformation that Trump was good for America in his first term and Dems are worse.
"the principle of a nation governed by laws not men should have been non-negotiable"
You answered this later, that too many laws don't work. I'll add:
For most people, when principled action hasn't worked, the goals justifies abandoning them, just like in war we tolerate all sorts of horrors. The Dems were wrong to focus on positivity and not itemize what needs to be fixed, including corruption in Congress and lack of voter input. While in power, they ignored addressing other priorities. They didn't even have a ToDo list that showed it was on their radar.
"Fight for something better, something we haven’t seen yet."
I am not and never will be someone involved in determining process/procedure of federal, state or even city institutions. What's my action item? How do I become a pro-outcomes voter? Is there an Emily's List for candidates willing to prioritize bringing bureaucracy back into alignment with bettering lives?
Depending where you are, there are local chapters of YIMBY Action, and for any urban/suburban area that's been affected by the housing crunch (healthy/growing job market, but inability to get out of the way of housing providers so as to keep up with the influx of population), taking a truly pro-housing stance (not just shouting that "we need more _affordable_ housing!" while blocking construction) is an extremely strong indicator of a common-sense approach to managing growth.
Also, I would step back and look at the statement, "I am not and never will be someone involved in determining process/procedure of federal, state or even city institutions." Like, don't imagine yourself powerless! Politicians are just human beings, and while you'll need some information to figure out what local politicians are pushing in the right direction, it's certainly not impossible. And in a city level race, a tiny number of volunteers pushing out good information and talking to neighbors can make an enormous difference! My own city council district has only a four-digit number of voters. When I ran for Council in '22 I got to 45% of the vote, against a multi-term incumbent. If I'd had a couple volunteers helping me with outreach, that might well have made the difference.
(The big thing I'd do differently next time -- in 2026 -- is I need to get some help with translating my website and mailers into both simplified and traditional Chinese, because we have significant populations that speak both. I did some Spanish language outreach, both talking to people at the doors -- my Spanish is just good enough that most folks who speak Spanish but not English seem to be really happy at the idea that this gringo guy put in the effort to learn to talk to them, even if I'm a little uneven -- and I had a friend who's a native speaker who did phone-banking. But it also would've helped just to have a couple more people hitting the doors and telling people, "Hey, this guy is committed to doing what's necessary to ensure we build more housing around our transit center, which will raise local property tax and sales tax revenues, which will help fund fixing our roads and storm drains, and will avoid displacement from our neighborhood from the already-baked-in growth of YouTube and other tech companies in our town.")
Love YIMBYs! I knocked doors for a pro-housing city council candidate during the last election. But I appreciate the help framing that work within this context. Does make me feel a bit less powerless. Good luck on your next campaign!
It's good to see you writing again, and wishing you good luck with your treatment.
I found this post frustrating, perhaps just because I'm overreacting to the intentionally provocative statement that you opened with. It feels like the step from saying, "there are important problems to address" to "the status quo isn't worth defending" is setting up a false dichotomy.
I agree that it's a mistake to react to genuine threats by defending every aspect of the status quo, and I appreciate your closing notes about fighting for a better future. I also worry that your article could easily be taken as a defense of cynicism instead of hope.
I too would like to believe that there's something better on the other side and I also think that when, as you say, many people believe that the law is, "easily twisted by those in power to justify whatever it is they want to do." it's import to, in part push back and recognize the ways that existing structures do, despite their flaws, offer some measure of equality before the law and protection against the powerful.
We don't have to believe that the past (or the status quo) were perfect to think they warrant some defense in response to boundless cynicism and assault.
I share this attitude. The status quo works well for a lot of people in a lot of places in a lot of ways - just as it fails to work at other times. To say its not worth defending is over the top. Perhaps that will become clear now that people who have no respect for the rule of law are in charge.
My experience is that the fault is not entirely, and in cases not much at all, on the process or the bureaucracy. Yes, its slow sometimes, and yes it can be difficult to navigate, but sometimes its slow because property interests who are not at all confused about the process are skilled at throwing money wrenches into the works when they're not getting their way. Sometimes delay is consciously sought. Sometimes the bureaucracy outfoxes itself by trying to avoid controversy. Making things better either by trying to improve the process (which can be done, sometimes) or by invoking the commonsense of human decision makers (which exists and can sometimes untangle things, BUT can also shove some people right off the playing field - it all depends on whose commonsense) are not elixirs. The only way to really change a system is to change its purpose.
I completely agree with your sentiment. Those that think that the status quo isn’t in part worth protecting don’t fully recognize how bad things can get. Americans are understandably frustrated and reform is needed. But dramatic change can often lead to terrible outcomes. And to say america is such a terrible place now belies reality. Conservatives of the past knew the danger of revolution and it’s a lesson from history that repeats itself over and over. I hope for the best but rightly fear there is danger ahead.
There are good reasons things are the way they are. That never means they can't be improved, but the ability to improve things has to begin with an understanding of those reasons. Not with the impulse to tear it all down.
One small consideration—while I believe in your analogy, you believe it to be the “policies, processes, and procedures” which are the target of the chemo, for many in the federal work force, it feels like the individual federal workers are the target of the chemo. A great deal of callous cruelty for individual workers is intended and while I appreciate a good contrarian viewpoint as much as anyone, it might be worth reflecting that this Administration is not neutral on the question of the federal worker. As Russell Vought indicated, they intend to traumatize the federal workforce. Something to keep in mind as you write on this topic.
Fantastic piece. I'm not sure enough Dems understand this so I am singing your praises every chance I get. I wish you were DNC lead. I'm sorry to hear you're battling cancer - I wish you a speedy road to remission.
Time and time again at my agency we were told, “we’re doing this to keep you out of jail” to which I would respond - “no one went to jail from this Department in the last admin.”
That became my rallying cry, along with ‘who cares?’ And 'fuck it.' In the last few weeks of this admin we were in full 'fuck it' mode getting documents and money out of the building in record time. It all made me wonder, why didn’t we do this a long time ago?
I understand the need for input from various causes - myself included in that cause as we strove to have labor standards included in every page that came across our desks - but at some point you have to make a decision about which hits you’re willing to take and what voices are in “the peanut gallery.” At some point, you have to put your North Star into focus and stop at nothing to push it through. I'm so grateful for these pieces that make me feel like I am not alone in these frustrations.
I had no idea you were fighting cancer, as I’ve only discovered your work in the last two months. I am currently reading your book, and think that yours is one of the most important voices in the country. I’m not sure how big your followership is, but I intend to increase it. I am sending you so much gratitude. You are an incredible human being, and knowing what you are going through as you write with such power and clarity just takes my breath away. Thank you, and sending 🙏, ❤️, and ✨. Ps— more than my emojis, I know you want to know that I’m in, with sleeves rolled up. I am.
There's an old quote about being a lawyer, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law."
When we have procedure on our side and pound the procedure, ordinary people will assume it's because we don't have the facts. And pretty often, they're right. So we need to think carefully about the better future and go get the facts on our side, then pound the facts.
Wishing you the best.
Jen - my cancer treatment gave me definite chemo brain -- yours seems to be sharpening your insights. Or maybe it's that the situation gets ever clearer. Thank you for giving voice to how the thicket of laws and policies has become counter-productive to Life. After my body lived through purposeful poisons, I started drafting "Integrative Democracy." This is the time to equally focus on the overall wellness of our shared public body. Only in 2018 was the Interstitium discovered by scientists who sidestepped the usual process of extracting and dehydrating tissue to look at it under the microscope (perhaps similar to the typical style of opinion polls?). There is layer of cells and fluid that holds the body all together - and most place-based communities have interstitial flows of trust and helping hands that are completely outside of the very visible bones and structures of governance, and, as you note, are grappling with how to move despite the locked up fascia of service delivery. My great wish for this next era is to invite us to stop treating everything as "talking to the other side." This obsession with political sides is the inflammation that keep the fluids in our connective tissue from flowing with more natural ease.
Oh chemo brain is the worst! Notice I haven't written since xmas.
I love how you extend the metaphor here. and I completely agree!
Thank you, dear Jennifer, for this wonderful post, which I shared on Facebook. I recently subscribed after reading your amazing book, Recoding America, which I told all my friends to read. I'm sorry about your cancer and wish you a full recovery. You are a national treasure and we can't do without you. You should be in charge of DOGE!
You are so kind. Thank you! I fully plan to recover and to keep writing and advocating. People like you keep me going!
First, wishing you the best on the health front. I don't know how you can write so eloquently in the circumstances, but you do.
Second, this newsletter is such a comfort/lodestar for me. I've been working in the policy or policy-adjacent world, in a lot of different contexts, since I started working in the 90s. Back in the day, it was the Contract with America that had "right-thinking" classical liberals like me aghast. Even then, I couldn't help noticing that the Weekly Standard (as it then was) and other such outlets were so much more interesting than most of what the left had to offer. It seemed weird that a party supposedly commited to the idea of progress should be so reactionary and hidebound, but I assumed that I was young and stupid and missing something.
Now I'm old, experienced (but often ignorant and/or baffled), and afraid that we've put ourselves in a baby/bathwater situation. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I have long feared that the environmental review process (in which I work) has become so absurdly overbroad and unworkable that the reaction will make it difficult or impossible to put something better in place anytime soon. I appreciate your clear-eyed analysis of what's at stake and the call to us to do everything we can to help make it happen. Thank you.
When it comes to "finding something to invent" going local is one way to do it. Now's a good time to pick out some state and local issues to get involved in, or at least to follow and think about. It might give us a better sense of control, or at the very least provide some distraction from who-knows-what might end up going on in D.C.
Completely agree!
Really incredible article and wishing you all the best with your cancer treatments!
Thank you for this, and more importantly, good luck on your journey.
Wonderful article. I hope you have a full recovery.
Nice article. Wishing you all the best Jennifer.
Thank you, Conor.
"why would half of voters tolerate this" - the fraction is much smaller. Most believed the disinformation that Trump was good for America in his first term and Dems are worse.
"the principle of a nation governed by laws not men should have been non-negotiable"
You answered this later, that too many laws don't work. I'll add:
For most people, when principled action hasn't worked, the goals justifies abandoning them, just like in war we tolerate all sorts of horrors. The Dems were wrong to focus on positivity and not itemize what needs to be fixed, including corruption in Congress and lack of voter input. While in power, they ignored addressing other priorities. They didn't even have a ToDo list that showed it was on their radar.
"Fight for something better, something we haven’t seen yet."
PeopleCount.org, and PeopleCount.org/hi.htm
Thanks so much for your work and efforts. Best wishes for a full recovery.
I am not and never will be someone involved in determining process/procedure of federal, state or even city institutions. What's my action item? How do I become a pro-outcomes voter? Is there an Emily's List for candidates willing to prioritize bringing bureaucracy back into alignment with bettering lives?
There very much needs to be! I think some folks are working on it but it's still early stages.
Depending where you are, there are local chapters of YIMBY Action, and for any urban/suburban area that's been affected by the housing crunch (healthy/growing job market, but inability to get out of the way of housing providers so as to keep up with the influx of population), taking a truly pro-housing stance (not just shouting that "we need more _affordable_ housing!" while blocking construction) is an extremely strong indicator of a common-sense approach to managing growth.
Also, I would step back and look at the statement, "I am not and never will be someone involved in determining process/procedure of federal, state or even city institutions." Like, don't imagine yourself powerless! Politicians are just human beings, and while you'll need some information to figure out what local politicians are pushing in the right direction, it's certainly not impossible. And in a city level race, a tiny number of volunteers pushing out good information and talking to neighbors can make an enormous difference! My own city council district has only a four-digit number of voters. When I ran for Council in '22 I got to 45% of the vote, against a multi-term incumbent. If I'd had a couple volunteers helping me with outreach, that might well have made the difference.
(The big thing I'd do differently next time -- in 2026 -- is I need to get some help with translating my website and mailers into both simplified and traditional Chinese, because we have significant populations that speak both. I did some Spanish language outreach, both talking to people at the doors -- my Spanish is just good enough that most folks who speak Spanish but not English seem to be really happy at the idea that this gringo guy put in the effort to learn to talk to them, even if I'm a little uneven -- and I had a friend who's a native speaker who did phone-banking. But it also would've helped just to have a couple more people hitting the doors and telling people, "Hey, this guy is committed to doing what's necessary to ensure we build more housing around our transit center, which will raise local property tax and sales tax revenues, which will help fund fixing our roads and storm drains, and will avoid displacement from our neighborhood from the already-baked-in growth of YouTube and other tech companies in our town.")
Love YIMBYs! I knocked doors for a pro-housing city council candidate during the last election. But I appreciate the help framing that work within this context. Does make me feel a bit less powerless. Good luck on your next campaign!
Thank you and may you be well soon!
Thank you!
It's good to see you writing again, and wishing you good luck with your treatment.
I found this post frustrating, perhaps just because I'm overreacting to the intentionally provocative statement that you opened with. It feels like the step from saying, "there are important problems to address" to "the status quo isn't worth defending" is setting up a false dichotomy.
I agree that it's a mistake to react to genuine threats by defending every aspect of the status quo, and I appreciate your closing notes about fighting for a better future. I also worry that your article could easily be taken as a defense of cynicism instead of hope.
I too would like to believe that there's something better on the other side and I also think that when, as you say, many people believe that the law is, "easily twisted by those in power to justify whatever it is they want to do." it's import to, in part push back and recognize the ways that existing structures do, despite their flaws, offer some measure of equality before the law and protection against the powerful.
We don't have to believe that the past (or the status quo) were perfect to think they warrant some defense in response to boundless cynicism and assault.
I share this attitude. The status quo works well for a lot of people in a lot of places in a lot of ways - just as it fails to work at other times. To say its not worth defending is over the top. Perhaps that will become clear now that people who have no respect for the rule of law are in charge.
My experience is that the fault is not entirely, and in cases not much at all, on the process or the bureaucracy. Yes, its slow sometimes, and yes it can be difficult to navigate, but sometimes its slow because property interests who are not at all confused about the process are skilled at throwing money wrenches into the works when they're not getting their way. Sometimes delay is consciously sought. Sometimes the bureaucracy outfoxes itself by trying to avoid controversy. Making things better either by trying to improve the process (which can be done, sometimes) or by invoking the commonsense of human decision makers (which exists and can sometimes untangle things, BUT can also shove some people right off the playing field - it all depends on whose commonsense) are not elixirs. The only way to really change a system is to change its purpose.
I completely agree with your sentiment. Those that think that the status quo isn’t in part worth protecting don’t fully recognize how bad things can get. Americans are understandably frustrated and reform is needed. But dramatic change can often lead to terrible outcomes. And to say america is such a terrible place now belies reality. Conservatives of the past knew the danger of revolution and it’s a lesson from history that repeats itself over and over. I hope for the best but rightly fear there is danger ahead.
Two weeks later, I am really, really missing the status quo.
I had a lot of issues with this piece when I first read it. It's aged very badly.
There are good reasons things are the way they are. That never means they can't be improved, but the ability to improve things has to begin with an understanding of those reasons. Not with the impulse to tear it all down.
One small consideration—while I believe in your analogy, you believe it to be the “policies, processes, and procedures” which are the target of the chemo, for many in the federal work force, it feels like the individual federal workers are the target of the chemo. A great deal of callous cruelty for individual workers is intended and while I appreciate a good contrarian viewpoint as much as anyone, it might be worth reflecting that this Administration is not neutral on the question of the federal worker. As Russell Vought indicated, they intend to traumatize the federal workforce. Something to keep in mind as you write on this topic.
Fantastic piece. I'm not sure enough Dems understand this so I am singing your praises every chance I get. I wish you were DNC lead. I'm sorry to hear you're battling cancer - I wish you a speedy road to remission.
Time and time again at my agency we were told, “we’re doing this to keep you out of jail” to which I would respond - “no one went to jail from this Department in the last admin.”
That became my rallying cry, along with ‘who cares?’ And 'fuck it.' In the last few weeks of this admin we were in full 'fuck it' mode getting documents and money out of the building in record time. It all made me wonder, why didn’t we do this a long time ago?
I understand the need for input from various causes - myself included in that cause as we strove to have labor standards included in every page that came across our desks - but at some point you have to make a decision about which hits you’re willing to take and what voices are in “the peanut gallery.” At some point, you have to put your North Star into focus and stop at nothing to push it through. I'm so grateful for these pieces that make me feel like I am not alone in these frustrations.