There are wounds that remain because we have not yet forged a moral consensus:

“…E pluribus unum”

The image underscores a defining moment in our civic life:    when expressions of dissent are met not with dialogue but with the politicization of militarized force on behalf the executive’s brand.    It echoes a troubling pattern—where calls for justice and inclusion are conflated as partisan threats, and the defense of plurality is treated as provocation.

---

*

There is a deepening divide in our country—one intensified by the 2025 return of the Trump administration and the M.A.G.A. movement’s project to “reform” America by disrupting the constitutional principles that have long undergirded our democracy.    This movement has emboldened some to claim they are under siege—particularly by Black Americans—whom they accuse of harboring irrational hatred.    Yet this accusation ignores a deeper truth:    those who make it often refuse to confront their own complicity in the conditions that produce widespread suffering and rightful indignation.    They see themselves as blameless while dismissing the lived experience of others.

This dissonance reveals a persistent tribalism—a complex masked as patriotism, often directed at marginalized communities.    It demeans empathy and stifles accountability.

Dissent, however, is the lifeblood of democracy.    And while we may cherish this nation—its landscapes, its cultural richness, and its founding ideals—we must also confront the unfinished work of justice.    To celebrate the Constitution while ignoring the legacy of slavery, segregation, and systemic inequity is to cheapen both our history and our future.

Nowhere is this more evident than in our criminal justice system.    The need for reform is no longer a partisan position; it is a moral imperative.    Communities of color remain disproportionately targeted, criminalized, and subjected to violence under the guise of law and order.    Police departments across the country have repeatedly failed in their duty to protect those most vulnerable—those left behind by lack of opportunity, education, and support.    When these conditions are met not with compassion but with brutality, we witness the most abhorrent face of cruelty.

One may love this country profoundly, but such love must be active—committed to fairness, not nostalgia.    Justice and equality are not rewards for silence; they are the birthright of all who live here.

The Black Lives Matter movement is not a threat to American values; it is a call to fulfill them.    It is not hatred to protest injustice.    Hatred lies in silencing dissent, in trampling the rights of others while claiming moral high ground.    Time and again, those in power have distanced themselves from the oppressed, especially those stripped of political voice or voting rights.    This indifference persists until solidarity becomes unavoidable.

To relativize the murder of young Black men—or to remain silent—betrays a refusal to understand the long arc of racism in America.    Gestures of inclusion cannot substitute for truth.    Real justice requires not half-measures, but fullhearted resolve.

And now, that same machinery of suppression is turning with renewed force against immigrants, against LGBTQ Americans, and against the very principle of diversity.

—as demonstrated by the unnecessary militarization of one square mile Los Angeles in June 2025, where localized protests were amplified by the federal government as if they were a national insurrection—

The mobilization of troops to suppress peaceful protests—replacing law enforcement with military assault—, the criminalization of migrants seeking refuge, and the push to roll back gay rights—these are not isolated policies.    They are symptoms of the same moral aberration of the executive branch as a political brand:    the fear of plurality.

This fear has now targeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives themselves.    These programs, born out of civil rights struggles and meant to remedy historical exclusion, have become scapegoats.    DEI is not a threat to merit; it is a framework for justice.    It is not a matter of political orthodoxy, but about ensuring access, visibility, and dignity for those long marginalized.    The opposition to DEI is not a neutral debate—it is a calculated attempt to suppress the very plurality that gives meaning to democracy.

—Often it reduces that plurality to a caricature.    In partisan circles, the term “woke” has been weaponized to dismiss any effort toward inclusion or redress as absurd, elitist, or dangerous.    What began as a call to remain alert to injustice has been twisted into a tool of mockery—less an argument than a reflex, deployed not to clarify but to silence.    Yet justice does not lose its urgency because it is ridiculed.

Banning DEI offices, defunding inclusion efforts, or labeling diversity work as ideological indoctrination reflects not strength, but fear.    Such actions undermine the foundational values of liberty and justice, replacing inclusive citizenship with enforced conformity.

The desire to reverse LGBTQ rights, to demonize racial justice movements, and to silence DEI are all parts of one piece. These are not isolated grievances; they are expressions of an intolerant worldview seeking dominance through exclusion—echoes of McCarthyism, the early 1950s campaign led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose televised accusations of communist infiltration turned suspicion into a weapon and captivated a fearful nation.    These are not the marks of a strong republic, but the signs of a fearful and weakened society.

And yet, the Republican majority in Congress—those enabling Trump and embracing the politics of M.A.G.A. disruption—has further deepened the moral deficit—cut taxes for billionaires and dismantled the nation’s social and political infrastructure.    They have fueled inflation through aggressive foreign tariffs and pursued a global posture that increases instability, all in service of enriching a narrow class of oligarchs at the expense of the common good.

To love this country is to reject that fear and the brittle cowardice that sustains it.    To love our nation is to defend and embrace its pluralism.    To love it is to confront its contradictions—not with cynicism, but with resolve.

We are not a perfect union, but we are still a union.    The path forward is not backward.    It begins where justice lives:    in the search for truth, in compassion, in courage.

~

PostScript

• Project 2025 and the Machinery of Conformity

Among the clearest examples of how fear of plurality has been codified into political strategy is Project 2025—an ambitious blueprint for restructuring the U.S. federal government, advanced by The Heritage Foundation and now actively endorsed by the Trump administration.    Though its architects invoke the language of liberty and constitutional reform, its underlying goal is not democratic renewal but ideological consolidation.

Project 2025 does not merely aim to reduce government.    It seeks to dismantle the administrative State, eliminate civil service protections, and replace career public servants with partisan loyalists.    Under the guise of “draining the swamp,” it proposes a purge—not to restore constitutional balance, but to empower a narrow executive elite.    This is not conservatism in any meaningful sense.    It is executive authoritarianism draped in populist garb.

Even its rhetoric of “taking back the country” belies its intent:    not to restore pluralist democracy, but to impose uniformity—cultural, political, and moral.    DEI initiatives are to be dismantled, public education reshaped to reflect a singular ideology, and dissent within the government neutralized.    These are not reforms; they are instruments of control.

Such a project is not an aberration but a culmination:    the weaponization of nostalgia, grievance, and fear into policy.    And what it reveals is a deep contradiction—that those who most loudly invoke the Constitution now seek to rewrite it in practice, replacing the promise of We the People with the dominion of We alone.

This was not theoretical when we arrived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood earlier this week.    Outside the Heritage Foundation’s headquarters, we encountered a protest in full confrontation—two factions opposed, one defending reproductive rights, the other cloaking rage in the language of moral authority.    The louder of the two, a group of conservative mothers, shouted not in debate but in contempt—hurling not argument, but condemnation at the very idea of moral disagreement.

It was not a defense of life.    It was a campaign to control how others live.

What I witnessed outside the Heritage Foundation was no isolated outburst.    It was the local manifestation of the national project unfolding within.    The Foundation no longer merely comments on politics; it builds the scaffolding for an authoritarian turn already underway.    In synchrony with the Trump administration—whether openly acknowledged or not—Heritage is not offering policy recommendations.    It is designing a machinery of conformity.

This machinery does not tolerate pluralism.    It redefines dissent as insubordination, diversity as decadence, and governance as loyalty to a singular will.    It is not a restoration of constitutional order, but a calculated repudiation.

And what Project 2025 proposes is not mere administrative change.    It is a blueprint for ideological capture:    of language, of law, and of public life itself.    It replaces We the People with a command from above: Only us.

This is the wound that will not heal—unless we confront it.

• On the Way to Union Station

As we were leaving Capitol Hill, heading toward Union Station to return home to Pennsylvania, the streets were marked by the symbols of looming celebration.    Barricades had gone up.    Military vehicles lined the avenues.   

Preparations were underway for a military parade featuring tanks, troops, and martial fanfare.    Officially, it was to mark the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary.    But the timing—Saturday, June 14, Trump’s birthday—along with the pageantry and presidential framing, made it difficult to see the event as anything but an orchestrated spectacle.    The symbolism blurred the line between honoring military service and appropriating it for personal glorification.    It felt less like a birthday—and more like a coronation.

Crossing one of the barricaded intersections, a Black man in a sleek motorized wheelchair passed us on the right.    Without prompting, he looked at us—two men walking together—and said with calm finality, “Beware, Judgment Day is coming soon.”

We said nothing.    He kept rolling forward.

It was a quiet moment, but not a small one.    A judgment—clearly moral, likely biblical—delivered without confrontation, but not without intention.    It was an indictment, as casual as it was chilling.    Even someone visibly vulnerable had absorbed and echoed the nation’s reflex toward condemnation.    The extremes no longer live just in platforms and policies.    They are seeping into the pavement.

I turned to my husband and asked, “How long can all this hatred last?”

He didn’t look away. “We may not live to see the end,” he said. “But it will pass.”

*

Ricardo F. Morín

Capitol Hill, D.C., June 10, 2025

---