I wrote this past week about the need for Democrats to construct a Project 2029 that takes the revolutionary nature of the Trump regime seriously and seeks not to restore what was, but to build something new in the wake of this conjuncture. In it I refer, as I often do, to the Reconstruction period of American history — the roughly 10 to 15 years following the end of the Civil War — as inspiration for how Democrats might approach that task. In particular, the Radical Republicans who spearheaded the most far-reaching attempts to reconstruct the South embraced a constitutional vision rooted in the broad authority of Article I of the Constitution. Part of this was by necessity. After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, they had to contend with President Andrew Johnson, a vicious white supremacist who opposed Black civil rights and sought a speedy end to Reconstruction so that he might build a new political party on a Jacksonian vision of white supremacy. They also had to contend with a Supreme Court that saw itself as a bulwark for a narrow and restrictive vision of the Constitution. The leading congressmen of the period had their own conception of the relationship between Congress, the presidency, and the courts — shaped in large part by their battles with the slave power. But Reconstruction Republicans were also determined to secure and consolidate the political settlement of the Civil War against their foes in government. Congressional supremacy then was as much about the moment as it was about a deeper political perspective. Here I want to highlight two things about the way congressional supremacy worked. The first is that the Reconstruction Congress rejected the Supreme Court’s authority to invalidate its legislation. It was Congress — representing the entire people — that had the right and authority to say what the Constitution meant and it was the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that meaning on the states. To stymie the court, this Congress took steps to limit the court’s jurisdiction, to directly repudiate court rulings with its own laws, and to reshape the Supreme Court itself — including preventing President Johnson from appointing new members when old ones died or left the bench. The second is that the Reconstruction Congress leveraged a long-dormant part of the Constitution, the Guarantee Clause, which says that all states shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. It was under the Guarantee Clause that Republicans pursued their most far-reaching efforts to reconstruct the South. As I wrote, should Democrats have control of the White House and both branches of Congress in 2029, they will be faced with a project of reconstruction, not restoration. You could do worse in those circumstances than to ask: What would Charles Sumner do? What would Thaddeus Stevens do? What would John Bingham do? They wouldn’t stand by and allow their project to be destroyed by the hostile forces arrayed against them. They would look to the Constitution which, for all of its flaws, gives Congress the power and authority to make its vision reality. What I WroteMy column this week was on the prospect of a Project 2029, and why any effort worthy of the name must have a vision for reconstruction, not restoration. If this is all true, and it is, then any plausible response to Project 2025 must include a larger vision for the future of the American Republic. A Project 2029 cannot be a collection of Democratic Party agenda items. It must articulate a broad new conception of the nation’s political order — one that will guide the way a future Democratic-led government might wield power. Above all, Democrats must have a plan for reconstruction — for building something new on the wreckage of what President Trump, MAGA and the Republican Party have wrought — not for restoration of what was. I also joined my colleagues David French and Michelle Cottle on an episode of The Opinions. Now ReadingRobin D.G. Kelley on the war on Black Studies for The New York Review of Books. Ned Resnikoff on “hyperfascism” for his personal newsletter. Vittoria Elliott on the retribution campaign against a DOGE whistle-blower for Wired. Harsha Walia on immigration enforcement for Boston Review. Nancy Fraser on Israel’s war on Gaza for New Left Review. Photo of the Week
A Greyhound bus station in San Antonio. Now Eating: Palak Paneer
I have a few different recipes for palak paneer in my repertoire and of the bunch, this one from NYT Cooking is my favorite. It takes a bit of time, but it is absolutely worth it. If you are watching out for saturated fat, you can substitute extra- or super-firm tofu for the paneer. Either way, you should pan-fry or air fry the tofu or paneer before you add it to the sauce — it makes for a better final product. Ingredients
Directions Place the garlic, chiles and ginger in a food processor with 3 tablespoons of water. Purée until a paste forms, scraping down the sides of the bowl as needed. Set paste aside until ready to use. Coarsely grate the tomatoes on a box grater set directly on your cutting board. Discard the skins and set the grated tomatoes aside until ready to use. Fill a medium bowl with ice and cold water. Bring a medium saucepan of water to a boil. Add the spinach and cook until wilted, 1 to 2 minutes. Drain, then transfer the spinach to the bowl of ice water until cold, about 5 minutes. Drain, discarding the water and ice cubes. Transfer the spinach to a food processor or blender along with ½ cup of water and purée until smooth. Set aside until ready to use. Heat the ghee in a medium saucepan over medium-high. Add the cumin seeds and cook until they start to pop, about 30 seconds, then add the bay leaf and onion and cook until the onion is soft and golden, 3 to 4 minutes. Stir in the reserved garlic-ginger paste and cook until fragrant, 1 to 2 minutes. Add the grated tomatoes and cook until soft, 4 to 5 minutes, then stir in the garam masala and chile powder. Cook until fragrant, about 1 minute. Stir in the reserved spinach purée, the fenugreek leaves and 1 cup water. Decrease the heat so the mixture is at slow simmer and cook for 5 minutes, stirring occasionally. Add the paneer and 1 tablespoon cream and stir until the paneer has warmed through, about 3 minutes. (Take care not to heat the paneer too long in the sauce or it will become chewy.) Season with salt and remove the bay leaf. Transfer to a serving dish and drizzle with more cream. Serve with naan and rice. Thanks for reading. You will soon start to get my columns emailed to you too. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have feedback? Send me a note at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com. You can also follow me on Twitter (@jbouie), Instagram and TikTok.
|
