In Warrantless ICE Construction Site Raid an American Citizen was Arrested and Detained Three Times

To read more about this story follow this link.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 24, 2026- The man pictured here is Leo Garcia Venegas. He is an American citizen who was arrested in warrantless immigration raids on construction sites in southern Alabama.  There was no reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant other than that he looks Hispanic. He has been detained and handcuffed three times by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, even though he had a valid REAL ID on all three occasions.  

This is not the only case of this happening. One example is that a North Carolina man who was arrested last year by immigration officers despite having a valid REAL ID, then dumped on the side of the road once the officers confirmed he was a U.S. citizen.

It is unknown how often this occurs. I would assume most people just accept it and don't file a lawsuit to get justice.  Many may be ill-equipped to seek justice, lacking the will or the finances. One has to assume that somewhere an American citizen is sitting in some African or Central American prison and no one knows where he is. 

From the comments I see on Facebook and other sites and from hearing MAGA-types express their glee at the cruelty of Trump's immigration policy, I assume many Americans do not care if the occasional American is picked up and detained. Many of those who like this kind of cruelty claim to love America and have made an icon out to the Constitution, but if it is other people whose 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated, they are okay with it. 

If you are okay with this type of thing happening, you should do some soul-searching. You should definitely stop claiming to love the Constitution; you don't. I am sure there are some people who celebrate this type of illegal, stormtrooper-type behavior who do love America. They love in a blood-and-soil manner, but do not love the creedal nation that is America, and the America that was that shining city on a hill. 

Top Stories

How Much More Should Americans Pay Per Year to Boost Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs.

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Sept, 24, 2026- There is absolutely no reason to pay more for “policies aimed at bringing manufacturing home.”

The goal should not be to make Americans pay more so that politicians can say they brought manufacturing home. The goal should be to make the United States such an attractive place to invest that businesses choose to manufacture here because it makes economic sense.

That means removing the barriers that make production expensive: excessive regulation and permitting delays, restrictive zoning, inadequate infrastructure, high energy costs, occupational licensing barriers, distortions in the tax code, expensive healthcare, and policies that discourage capital investment. It means allowing businesses to build, hire, invest, innovate and expand without having to obtain a subsidy or protection from government.

That is very different from tariffs, subsidies and industrial policy. Those policies attempt to make domestic production artificially attractive by making foreign goods more expensive or transferring costs to taxpayers. The result is that Americans pay more for the privilege of producing something here.

A better objective is simple: make America more productive. If producing a good in America is the most economically efficient choice, capital will come here without being bribed. And if producing something elsewhere is more efficient, Americans should be able to benefit from that lower-cost production while American capital and workers move toward the activities where they are most productive.

Manufacturing can grow substantially without trying to recreate the manufacturing economy of the 1950s. In fact, the more important measure is not how many people we employ in factories, but how much productive capacity we can create with the labor and capital available to us.

The question should therefore not be, “How much are Americans willing to pay to bring manufacturing home?”

It should be, “What can we remove that is preventing Americans from profitably producing more at home?”

That approach does not require Americans to pay more. It is intended to make them richer.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

Top Stories

The Constitution won twice this week

by Rod Williams, Sept. 23, 2026 - If not for the Federal Courts, including the US Supreme Court, Donald Trump's authoritarian project would be much further along. The courts have frustrated Trump's trampling of the Constitution. While Congress has folded and will endorse and excuse any Trump excess, the Courts have held the line.

Some criticize the Courts for not doing more. When the Courts rule in a way someone doesn't like, they are often quick to denounce the Courts. They think the courts should be advancing policies which are popular, or with which they agree. I don't. The Courts are not a policy-making body, and they should not be. They are to call balls and strikes, not follow the polls or public opinion. I am much more concerned about process than policy. I do not want the Courts to be making policy. 

Traditionally, it has been liberals who believe the Courts should interpret the Constitution in light of current political values and should advance the cause of "social justice."  Liberals have believed in a "living Constitution." Conservatives, on the other hand, have traditionally been "originalists" or "textualists," and have believed the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the founders intended. Now, however, many conservatives believe the Court should always vote with Trump. They seem to believe the Constitution should be interpreted to let Trump do whatever he wants.

We should be thankful for the Courts curtailing Trump's worst instincts and thankful to those who represented the plaintiffs in bringing suits. There are two organizations that I proudly support with my financial giving that are beating the Trump administration in the Courts.  One is FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and the other is the Institute for Justice. 

I have been a supporter of these two organizations for years. I was supporting them before the era of Trump. Before Trump, they were usually fighting liberals and defending against constitutional violations perpetrated by liberal governments or universities and were considered conservative organizations. These two organizations now find themselves most often defending victims of Trump's constitutional violations. The organizations have not changed; the perpetrator of constitutional violations is now primarily the Trump administration. These organizations are consistently defending the Constitution, regardless of the political identity of the offender.

I know in the age of Trump many feel powerless in standing up to Trump. There are things one can do to make a difference, and one is to support the organizations that are battling Trump in the Courts. Please consider making a contribution to these two exemplary organizations.

Below is an email letter I received today from the Institute for Justice, detailing two recent victories for the Constitution and defeats for Donald Trump and those doing his bidding.

 Dear Mr. Williams,

As you know, we have a very busy fall here at IJ with our three upcoming Supreme Court arguments. But I am happy to report that we’ve already had a double win this week: two major victories defending the Fourth Amendment and holding government agents accountable when they violate our constitutional rights.

The first victory came in Alabama, where IJ defended Leonardo Garcia Venegas, an American citizen who was detained by federal immigration agents while working at construction sites—not once or even twice, but three times.

Twice last year, officers entered Leo’s private job sites without warrants, detained him, and refused to accept his REAL ID. Earlier this year, they followed him home and, despite his attempts to show his ID again, tackled, handcuffed, shackled, and locked him in the back of a car.

This week, a federal judge ordered immigration officers to stop conducting warrantless raids of construction sites, stop detaining people without individualized suspicion, and immediately release workers who present evidence of legality, including REAL IDs.

The second victory came from the 5th Circuit, where IJ client Mario Rosales challenged a traffic stop that never should have happened.

In 2022, Mario and his girlfriend, Gracie, were pulled over on a false pretext of not using a turn signal by officers fishing for evidence of crime. Officers detained Mario, questioned him, and frisked him without justification. The Constitution protects against this stop-first-justify-later form of policing.

Last year, Mario achieved a major victory when a federal district court ruled against the officers and the city of Alexandria, Louisiana, allowing Mario and Gracie’s lawsuit to proceed. But (of course), the officers appealed on the grounds of qualified immunity, arguing their search and detainment of Mario and Gracie was not clearly unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the 5th Circuit ruled that Mario can move forward with his claims and denied qualified immunity on the core Fourth Amendment violations at issue in his case.

These victories matter far beyond Leo and Mario. They reinforce that government officials can’t ignore constitutional limits simply because they find them inconvenient.

It’s been a very good week for liberty so far! Many thanks for your support 

Scott

Top Stories

Independent Gubernatorial Candidate David Hatley Pledges to Donate $1 Million to Charity if Marsha Blackburn Agrees to Debate

 

Top Stories

The President’s Ban on Journalists Is Disgraceful and Illegal

by Dan Greenberg, CATO Institute, Sept. 22, 2026 - President Trump’s White House has repeatedly attempted to deny journalists access to presidential press conferences. This time, the White House has excluded several journalists because their coverage was allegedly “one-sided” and “negative.” Such efforts by the White House are illegal; they have failed in the past, and they will fail in the future.

The reasons the Trump White House has given in the past for its attempts to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to cover it have varied, but all of them have one thing in common: they cannot be reconciled with the law. Jim Acosta’s press pass was revoked because he continued to ask questions and refused to yield his microphone to another journalist. Brian Karem’s press pass was revoked essentially because he made remarks that were understood as rude and confrontational. The Associated Press was excluded because it used the label “Gulf of Mexico,” rather than “Gulf of America.” 

But these justifications for exclusion—like the more recent White House complaints about negative news coverage—fail, because they are empty and unworkable under the law.

To be sure, the president may choose to selectively exclude journalists from relatively small or secluded spaces, even if they are spaces where presidential communication occurs—for example, the Oval Office, Air Force One, or Mar-a-Lago. But there is no lawful basis to keep politically disfavored journalists out of places like the Brady Briefing Room, where major press conferences are held, and the journalists who are suing for access there – CNN, MS NOW, and Politico – will shortly prevail. These journalists are just as entitled as anyone else with a White House press pass to attend press conferences​at such locations.

The right of journalists to attend press conferences in White House briefing rooms is something like the right of the public to use an unmarked dirt path on private property: after those with control of the property have historically allowed the public access to it, then such public access can become legally protected. Of course, the analogy is not perfect; more technically, once the White House opens up some particular room to journalists generally, that room becomes a non-public forum—and the exclusion of journalists from such fora on the basis of viewpoint is impermissible. (Getting a press pass to the White House involves clearing other hurdles—a background check, a residency requirement, congressional media approval, and so forth; the holder of a White House press pass thus acquires certain privileges that cannot be arbitrarily stripped away.) 

But to repeat: The standards that govern the universal access that such a non-public forum must provide are quite different from those that govern (say) a president’s practice of beckoning a few reporters into the Oval Office or calling up a favored journalist on the phone. In these latter categories, the White House has every right to pick and choose who the president talks to, and presidential picking and choosing that takes journalists’ particular viewpoints into account is entirely protected.

Again, though, the president cannot pick and choose which journalists are allowed access to a non-public forum based on a journalist’s viewpoint. Regrettably, when Donald Trump was asked why he was denying access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, his remarks demonstrated that viewpoint discrimination animated his choices:

Because they’re fake news. Uh, you get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. Uh, when you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW, which used to be MSNBC, which some people call MS DNC, Democratic National Committee, it’s fake news. It’s fake news … And when you look at Politico, I mean, they got a government—the government under Biden gave them like $8 million to keep them afloat. Uh, and the stories they wrote are fake „, You know how fake their reporting is. It’s one-sided. It’s never good. I’ve done many, many—look at this story today about, uh, favored nations on drugs. We lowered the drug costs by 50, 60, 70 percent. They won’t even put it—if they put it on, it’ll be—they will find a reason why that’s a negative … They’re smart people, but they purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.

The president’s subsequent explanation of his powers and the media’s rights is particularly revealing:

I mean, there’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my—into the people’s house.

Public officials are sometimes under the mistaken impression that the powers and perquisites they acquire in government function like their own private property—that, for instance, Donald Trump can control every inch of the White House in the same way he can control every inch of Mar-a-Lago. Eventually, these public officials discover that they are mistaken and that they cannot use public property in the same way they use their own private property. 

It is a pity that Donald Trump has evidently not yet learned this important lesson, and it is unfortunately an open question what he will learn when he loses the lawsuit that CNN and others filed yesterday. 

Top Stories

Congress Did Not “steal” From Social Security

 by Rod Williams, Sept. 20, 2026 -  It is so frustrating to see the same memes or read comments about Security that are simply false. They pop up in my Facebook feed again and again. In talking to people, I hear them repeat lies about what is wrong with Social Security.

People will say that if we would cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse, the problem with Social Securityy would be solved. No doubt there is someone somewhere who is getting Social Security who is not entitled to it. But cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse would not solve Social Security's problem. The waste, fraud, and abuse is insignificant. I am for catching as many cheaters as we can find, but that is not what is wrong with Social Security.

Sometimes people get more specific and say what is wrong with Social Security is all of the illegal immigrants getting Social Security. Illegal immigrants in the United States are ineligible to receive Social Security retirement, disability, or survivor benefits. There are a handful of non-citizens, such as green card holders, who do qualify for Social Security, but they are also paying into the system. Their participation in Social Security is no more of a drain on the system than anyone else. Illegal immigrants who are working and using a fake Social Security card actually help the system. They pay in and never receive Social Security benefits.

One of the biggest lies about Social Security is that the reason it is going broke is that the government borrowed from Social Security and left the trust fund with worthless IOU's, or simple claims that Congress stole from Social Security. Absolutely untrue.

When Social Security collects more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, the excess is invested in Treasury bonds issued specifically for the trust fund. The cash from these bond purchases flows into the Treasury’s general fund, which can be used for any federal purpose. 

What do people think happens to money that is in the Trust Fund? Do they think it just sits untouched in a vault or is under someone's mattress?  We should be glad that it is drawing a little bit of interest. That is the way the system works.  In fact, it is a legal requirement, and it’s the same thing that happens when any investor buys U.S. government bonds.  When the trust fund redeems its bonds, the Treasury pays the principal and interest from general revenues. Because these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the bonds are legally obligated to be honored. People take what is rational and legally required and somehow turn it into the claim that the government stole from Social Security.  Congress does not “steal” from Social Security. Surplus revenues are legally invested in Treasury bonds earning interest.

What is wrong with Social Security is demographics. People are living longer, and because people are having fewer children, there are fewer people paying into the system. Social Security is a transfer program. When you pay Social Security taxes, that money does not go into an account with your name on it. When you pay your Social Security taxes, it goes right out the door to pay someone else's current benefit. It has always been that way. Any excess of what is received over what is paid out goes into the Trust Fund, but most of the benefits one receives is money that someone else is paying in.

Social Security is in trouble, with the trust fund projected to be depleted by late 2032. When it is depleted, benefits will be cut by about 22%. I suspect Congress will not allow that to happen and will pay the Social Security deficit out of the General Fund, which means borrowing with Treasury bonds sold on the open market or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Issuing more debt will hasten the day of reckoning for running up massive debt. Borrowing from the Federal Reserve is "printing money," is inflationary, and reduces the purchasing power of the dollar.

Some things could be done to put Social Security on a sounder footing. I have explored these elsewhere in posts on this blog. All solutions have consequences and a downside. Solutions should be explored and debated. Unfortunately, any talk of reform is met with images of pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff. 

What does not help address the future of Social Security is repeatedly telling people that the reason there is a problem is that Congress stole the money. 

.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Bill Frist: Clean Air Standards Save Lives.

From Senator Bill Frist, M.D., Sept. 17, 2026- Clean air standards save lives. Weakening them is a step backward for public health and the environment.

This week, the EPA proposed eliminating all remaining greenhouse gas emissions rules for coal and natural gas power plants. Many of these regulations have a history of bipartisan support, grounded in the Clean Air Act of 1970 that was authored by my mentor, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-TN).

As a heart and lung transplant surgeon and former Senate Majority Leader, I see clean air protections as preventive medicine.

Fine-particle air pollution can trigger inflammation, impair blood-vessel function, and promote abnormal clotting, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The original power-plant carbon standards were projected to deliver additional health benefits through measurable reductions in air pollution.

Any serious assessment of regulatory costs must also account for the costs of preventable illness: hospitalizations, lost productivity, and lives cut short.

In this week’s Myth Diagnosis, I address the claim that clean air standards are “just more red tape.”

My diagnosis? Prevention reversed.

Prescription? Protect the safeguards that protect our health.

We have made real progress toward cleaner air. Now is the time to build on it.

Clean air protections are health protections. Because the world around us shapes the health within us. 

Top Stories

MAGA is More socialist Than DSA Supporters

by Rod Williams, Sept. 16, 2026 -Under Trump, the government has taken an ownership stake in over 30 large companies. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Even a lot of people who align with the DSA do not really support socialism.

Government ownership of the means of production, DSA’s defining program and actual textbook socialism, draws support from just 11 percent of voters, with 79 percent opposed and 63 percent strongly opposed. Even among Democrats favorable to the DSA, it nets out at 59 percent opposition.

The DSA’s defining program, public ownership of businesses, is underwater four to one even among those supporting the DSA. Nor is this the only sign of confused beliefs about socialism among today’s supporters. Other polls of voters under 25 showing 77 percent thought their paycheck should be based on merit, 70 percent wanted to own their own business, and 63 percent saw America as the land of opportunity led Mark Penn and Andrew Stein to remark earlier this month that “today’s young adults must be the most entrepreneurial socialists in history.”

Even socializing only utilities and railways — socialist bread and butter — failed to command majority support among any group polled by The Argument, even though those are exactly the two sectors DSA identifies as pivotal for socialists to nationalize. That proposition is only supported by 48 percent of Democrats who view the DSA favorably, with 38 percent actually opposed. In other words, while support for the socialist label is rising alongside the DSA’s success, apparent support for the key tenets of socialism remains fringe. (Do DSA Supporters Really Want Socialism? | Cato at Liberty Blog)

Of course, while the DSA actually calls for socialism and they accurately define it, most people don't really want socialism. They favor policies more aligned with Social Democracy policies. They want a regulated capitalist economy and strong social welfare programs to promote what they see as equality and social justice. They do not actually want to nationalize Amazon and Kroger. If you think your paycheck should be based on merit and you someday want to own your own business, you are not really a socialist. 

It seems the only people in America who want socialism are Trump supporters. I haven't found any polling to confirm this, but Trump supporters still enthusiastically support Trump and his policies, and I hear no voices on the new right condemning Trump's policy of taking ownership interest in American companies.

If a Democrat administration had taken an ownership interest in over 30 companies, Republicans would have their hair on fire and be screaming bloody murder. Of course, Republicans have abandoned most of what they once believed and now believe whatever Trump is doing is correct. They blindly follow Trump wherever he leads, and he can lead them to accept socialism as long as he doesn't call it socialism. Federal corporate ownership is becoming routine under this Republican administration. Don't tell me that it is not the Republican Party that views socialist policies more favorably.

Top Stories

Trump Says Don't Worry About AI, the Only Guardrails Needed is a Strong and Smart President

by Rod Williams, Sept. 14, 2026- It seems most people who pay attention are concerned about the danger of AI. Not the President, of course. Here is what he had to say on his Truth Social today. 

I, of course, don't know what should be done about AI. I do not think doing nothing and assuming there is not a problem is the answer.

"Ban it" is not a solution but a slogan. I have no way of knowing whether the dire warnings expressed by researchers and industry leaders are warranted, but enough people are expressing concern that the issue should be taken seriously. The risk of a new wave of biological weapons and autonomous warfare is a serious concern. 

Of course, if the US calls a halt to technological advancement and China and other countries are not restrained, then nothing is accomplished. Unilateral disarmament is not a solution. That is not a reason for despair and doing nothing, however.  We have lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation since 1945 yet we cooperated with an enemy sworn to destroy us and avoided nuclear Armageddon. The arms race was dialed back by things like the Test Ban Treaty and SALT. I think such an approach should be pursued regarding AI, assuming of course, that the threat is real, which I tend to think it is but have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. 

Since Trump has turned much of the world against us and we have lost much of our soft power and Trump has been destroying alliances and the world order, America would have a more difficult time exerting leadership in the world to address this issue than in the past.  However, we should attempt to rally the world to deal with this issue, again assuming it is as serious as some think it is. 

I am a little suspicious when industry leaders call for government regulations of their industry. I have to ask if this is to lock in an advantage and suppress competition or if it is genuine.  I don't know, so while I am skeptical of the motives of industry leaders, I am not prepared to simply dismiss the industry's expressed concerns. 

There are a lot of questions about the threat of AI and, as of yet, not a lot of answers. In my view, the threat should be taken seriously. The last thing we need is for the President of the United States to say all is fine because I am in charge and I am strong and smart. Oh, and if you think there is a reason to be concerned about AI you are a conspiracy theorist, treasonous, and a traitor. 

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Never Have so Many People Known so Little and Been so Imbued With the Confidence of Their Intellect

by Rod Williams, Sept. 13, 2026 - 

One finds fame on platforms like Twitter by being the lamest, the angriest, the least amenable to thoughtful pushback or open debate or introspection. And Zeus forbid that someone reject tribal orthodoxy. The biggest stars of the Twitter age . . . well, let’s just say that rarely have so many people who knew so little been imbued with so much confidence in their intellect. (Democracy in Silos, by David Earsany, NR)

I came across the above the other day, and it expresses well what I have observed and that of which I am persuaded.  People are getting dumber and dumber, and they think they are informed and intelligent.  I think there was a time when people who were ignorant kind of knew they were ignorant. On certain topics, they would defer to experts and better-informed people. Now, many seem to think an uninformed opinion is just as valuable as an informed one, and they distrust experts. There is a certain pride in having "common sense," and a belief that common sense and a passion are all one needs to argue a case for some proposition or to govern.

I think the rise of new media is a major reason for this.  There are "influencers" with no experience and no credentials who are followed by millions. On the right, there is an explosion of podcasters at the junction of the manosphere and Trumpistan. People take them seriously and think they have discovered the truth and that everyone else has been lying to them.  Of course, this is not only true of right-wing political podcasts, but you see the same certainty of one's views about healthcare topics, alien encounters, and other topics. 

In addition to this certainty of having discovered the truth, those who are promoting unorthodox views are able to reach people who in the past, they would never have reached. Sure, before the widespread use of the internet, one could publish anything one wanted. People had the same right to spread untrue or hatefull or just wrong information, but you can only reach so many people by handing out xeroxed copies on the street, and to found and publish a magazine is a big undertaking. Then, one could only reach a small fraction of the population. In the past, there were gatekeepers. A TV discussion panel was not going to program a person of really fringe views or people who just spread wrong information. Letters to the Editor did not get published if they were too outlandish. Now the gatekeepers are gone.

One thing that led to our current state of political illiteracy is the rise of Donald Trump. Without any evidence and despite over 60 court rulings against the stolen election myths and despite the millions paid in settlements for defamation, about a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Another example of people believing things that are obviously not true is that tariffs are paid by the exporting country. They refuse to believe that it is the consumers who pay the tariffs. This should not even be debatable. The importer pays the tariffs, and he passes them on to the retailer, who passes them on to the consumer.  That is a fact, yet many don't believe it. People not only feel entitled to their wrong opinion but also to their own "facts."

Of course, this raises the question: did Trump spread political illiteracy, or is political illiteracy what led to Trump? I think it is a little of both. At some point in the last thirty or so years, schools began focusing on STEM and had to cut other things, like civics and history. Generations of people grew up without an understanding or appreciation of how government works and the conflicts that led to our democracy. People had to wrestle less with competing and complex ideas.  Not only did civic education suffer, but other critical thinking skills suffered, with there being less emphasis on literature, reading, and composition. 

This decline in critical thinking skills and the ability to reason is greater than just what happens in the political realm. I think it is a general dumbing down of society. There are two articles published in The Atlantic that explore this. One is The Post Literate Age published in the October 2025 issue. This article by George Packer, makes the case about people's failure to read and why it matters:

For one thing, did anyone still read fiction? I mean literary fiction, the kind that aspires to complex characters, subtle themes, and careful attention to prose style. Those novels are gone from the best-seller lists—it’s all sexy dragons now. The novel ceased long ago to occupy the cultural center, giving way first to movies, then TV series, video games, social-media posts, and AI content. The novelist as voice of a generation no longer exists. Literary fiction has become more like classical music—the eccentric taste of a diminishing set of the devoted.

I don't think it matters the topic of the novel so much as exercising the brain the way reading requires. As we read less, we are less capable of rational thought. 

The other article that explores this topic is The End of Reading Is Here, by Rose Horowitch published in the August 2026 issue. It points out that "The decline in reading cuts across age groups, gender, and education levels. Even the demographics that traditionally read the most—retirees, women, and college graduates—have seen a collapse."

Not only are people reading less, but their attention spans are also shrinking and what they do read has been dumbed down. Horowitch points out that New York Times bestsellers today have sentences that are about one-third shorter than they were a century ago.  Nearly 30 percent of American adults cannot paraphrase or make inferences from a multipage text. In 2017, that number was less than 20 percent. Reading scores are plummeting.

Not only is the decline in literacy found in the average American, but the elites are getting less literate also. The article documents this. Some will say that we are getting information from listening to news or podcasts on headphones. The author says that hearing something is no substitute for reading: 

The written word is fundamentally different from oral language. Writing detaches the message from the messenger, allowing for a more dispassionate spread of information than was possible in oral societies. Because writing a phrase takes longer than speaking it, writing forces the author to slow down and reflect. Written language tends to employ more complex sentence structures and vocabulary than spoken language. And unlike speech, it doesn’t disappear into the ether. Readers can return to a text and plumb it for new meaning and understanding. Because writing endures, individuals can temporarily forget what they’ve written but trust that it won’t be lost forever. This frees up the mind to think of new ideas and make new discoveries. ...

Studies have shown that people comprehend less when reading on a digital device than on paper, perhaps because of all these distractions. Devoting extended, undivided attention to a text can now feel like too much to ask. Audiobooks have become a popular alternative to print books at least in part because listening to a book allows for multitasking: You can read while doing the dishes or driving to work.

In this digital age, illiteracy increases: the short-form video and the tweet and the thumbs up and other symbols are replacing reading text and writing text online.  The author points out that as America has become postliterate, Trump is our first postliterate president. 

Trump’s communication style is perfectly suited to an oral society. He employs epithets—“Low-Energy Jeb,” “Little Marco,” “Sleepy Joe”—that are easy to remember and repeat. He contradicts himself as though there is no record of his previous statements. Even his writing is almost indistinguishable from his speech. (It makes sense; Trump reportedly prefers dictation to composition.) His online posts are full of idiosyncratically placed punctuation, capital letters, and exclamation points. Many are memes with little text:

I am pessimistic about the future of America. Trump's policies have weakened America's standing in the world; the world order that kept the peace is falling apart, and America faces an economic crisis. I could think that when Trump passes from the scene, we can restore the old order and reintegrate a fractured world and address our pressing issues; however, I have my doubts.  I fear that an illiterate population, getting dumber by the day, may be incapable of rational thought and discerning the truth from fiction. People want free things and they don't want to pay for them, and they want scapegoats to blame for the problems of the country or their own failings. A post-literate world will be easier to demigod, to manipulate, and to persuade. 

Top Stories