Mediaboss Marketing

Brandon Johnson has been portrayed as the most left-leaning, progressive mayor Chicago has ever had.

His early appointments tell a different story about how Chicagos 57th mayor might govern.

They suggest Johnson may turn out to be a pragmatic progressive, more concerned about the art of the possible and getting things done than he is about staying true to ultra-liberal principles.

So far, Johnson has made four key appointments: Rich Guidice as the all-important chief-of-staff; state Sen. Cristina Pacione-Zayas as Guidices deputy; John Roberson as chief operating officer; and Fred Waller as interim Chicago Police superintendent.

The mayor-elect has also asked most of Mayor Lori Lightfoots department heads and agency chiefs to stay on, at least for a few months, saying he is not ready to clean house.

Chief Financial Officer Jennie Bennett has told Johnsons transition team she intends to follow Mayor Lori Lightfoot out the door.

Sources said three candidates are in the running to replace her: Jill Jaworski, managing director of PFM Financial Advisers; Euriah Bennett, director of municipal finance at Citigroup in Atlanta; and Jack Brofman, Jennie Bennetts top deputy.

Any of them would likely be reassuring to Wall Street and to business leaders dead set against Johnsons proposal to impose $800 million in new or increased taxes to bankroll social programs that form the cornerstone of his anti-violence strategy.

Johnson has been reaching out to business leaders since the election to smooth those ruffled feathers and invite alternatives to his business tax proposals.

Guidice and Roberson are government lifers who cut their teeth under former Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Waller worked his way up from patrol officer to chief of patrol, chief of operations and third in command of the Chicago Police Department during a 34-year career that began under former Mayor Harold Washington and his Police Supt. Fred Rice.

Only Pacione Zayas shares Johnsons progressive roots.

She was chosen in 2020 to fill the Senate vacancy created by the election of Circuit Court Clerk Iris Martinez. Before that, she led the Erickson Institutes Policy and Leadership Department. Shes an ally of Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35th), chairman of the City Councils Democratic Socialist Caucus.

State Sen. Cristina H. Pacione-Zayas speaks at a special session for reproductive health rights after news of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last year.

Brian Rich/Sun-Times file

The Waller appointment sent a message to demoralized, overworked and under-appreciated officers who have been retiring in droves.

Johnson spent the entire campaign distancing himself from his history of supporting the concept of defunding the police. Now, as mayor-elect, he needed to demonstrate to officers whose union supported his opponent, Paul Vallas that he would have their backs.

The selections of Guidice and Roberson were designed to reassure a business community that backed and bankrolled Vallas and the nearly two dozen Council members who also supported Johnsons runoff opponent.

Rich Guidice (second from left), then first deputy of the citys Office of Emergency Management and Communications, attends the Chicago Police Department roll call meeting at Taste of Chicago in 2018.

Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times file

Their extensive government experience is expected to prove critical to Johnson, a Cook County commissioner who lacks executive and city government experience.

Jason Lee, a senior adviser to Johnsons mayoral campaign and transition team, said anyone surprised by the early appointments wasnt listening closely enough to what the mayor-elect was saying during the campaign.

Lee noted Johnson began his career in the office of Don Harmon of Oak Park, now president of the Illinois Senate. Johnson also worked for then-Ald. Deborah Graham (29th) before spending time as a teacher and a paid organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union.

What he tried to communicate on the campaign trail which people might have glossed over because of some of the other narratives was collaborative, compassionate and competent. Those were the three Cs that he used to articulate his vision for hires and all of the hires hes made so far fit those three Cs, Lee said.

John Roberson, shown in 2004 at OHare Airport after being named Chicagos aviation commissioner.

John H. White/Chicago Sun-Times-file

Lee noted 75% of Chicago voters believe the city was headed in the wrong direction. Johnson is determined to deliver that change, he said.

But to make change, you have to understand the system you wish to change. You have to have a deep, intimate knowledge of whats possible, what can wait, what can be pushed. So you build a team that has the vision for transformation, but also the know-how to make that transformation real while simultaneously maintaining the core functions of the city residents rely upon, Lee said.

After the 2008 election of Barack Obama, then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) famously said, A new president must govern from the middle.

Lee was asked whether Johnson shares Pelosis philosophy about the need to govern from the middle and be more pragmatic than progressive.

Pragmatism, to me, is essential to any effective progressivism. All pragmatism says is, I have a keen understanding of the reality of what it takes to get things done, and I will organize myself and my actions around that so I can be an effective progressive, said Lee. whose mother is U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-Texas), a 28-year congressional veteran now running for mayor of Houston.

Being a progressive is not just about saying things. Its about doing things.

Lee noted city government is a giant bureaucracy, often resistant to change. To make substantive change, you need people with vision about what is needed, what is possible and understand how to ... navigate the opportunities to move the ball forward, he said.

If you can do it without unnecessary de-stabilization, then you will build political consensus. If theres too much de-stabilization, then you lose the political support needed for everything else.

David Greising, president and CEO of the Better Government Association, wrote a column for the Chicago Tribune sounding the alarm about what he called the scant government experience and union roots of some of Johnsons early transition team choices.

They included members of a Service Employees International Union whose affiliates were Johnsons second-largest campaign contributor.

But Greising acknowledged to the Sun-Times he might have jumped to the wrong conclusion and put too much stock in the transition team, since it is less important than who will govern alongside the new mayor.

I went at him fairly hard saying, These people arent ready for prime time. I did point out and Im glad that theres more to come. Well, the more to come part of it has been pretty impressive. It says to us that Brandon Johnson may be more of a pragmatist than he appeared to be as a candidate. And the extent to which he is able to be both a pragmatist and a progressive will be a big factor in determining whether he is successful as a mayor, Greising said.

Hes aware of where his deficits or lack of experience as a manager may need some shoring up. And he seems to be filling that with people who are qualified to be significant contributors to the administration. If he listens to these people and takes on board their expertise and their more mainstream views and matches that up with where hes coming from, it could be quite an interesting and successful administration.

Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), who endorsed Vallas, was equally encouraged.

Hes trying to strike a balance. Hes clearly determined not to make the mistakes of the previous mayor and alienate people, Hopkins said.

Politics is a game of addition. So hes trying to add to his progressive, Socialist base by appealing to the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party.

Greising warned the pragmatic path Johnson appears to be paving is not without political risk. He pointed to the serious political price Mayor Lori Lightfoot paid for, as he put it, walking away from her progressive image.

During Round One of the mayoral sweepstakes, Johnson accused Lightfoot of breaking every single promise she made to progressive voters.

The hopes and desires of working families have been ignored. This is what happens when you are not legitimately connected to the progressive movement. Its not a surprise to me that she broke those promisesbecause she never believed them from the beginning,Johnson told the Sun-Times.

Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson introduces former CPD third-in-command Fred Waller as his choice to be interim police superintendent, effective May 15.

Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times file

I dont break promises. I will be the bonafide progressive in this race who can organize and collaborate in a way that actually gets us to the type of economic justice that this city needs.

Johnsons bill of particulars against Lightfoot included her about face on an elected school board and her broken promises to reopen shuttered mental health clinics and raise the real-estate transfer tax on high-end home sales to create a dedicated revenue source to reduce homelessness and create affordable housing.

He also cited Lightfoots handling of the car-shredding operation seeking to relocate from Lincoln Park to a predominantly Black and Latino area on the Southeast Side.

Lightfoots administration initially backed the move, triggering an ongoing federal civil rights investigation. The city health department eventually denied the operating permit. Johnson slammed an administration that was willing to set up a toxic waste dump ... where Black folks and Brown folks reside.

If Johnson is unable to deliver on all of his progressive promises, including that real estate transfer tax which needs approval from state lawmakers as well as a financial transaction tax opposed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker Greising said the new mayor will have to rely on his formidable communication skills.

Progressives tend to be idealists. They often are not very realistic about what they demand and expect. But its his job to bring them along, Greising said.

Comparing Johnson to Lightfoot, Greising said: Hes a really good communicator, and she was not. What Lightfoot failed to do was communicate the whys and wherefores of those decisions. What he does best is communicate. Hell have a better chance of keeping the progressives with him even if he has to make pragmatic compromises along the way.

Also weighing in Johnsons favor is his progressive roots. Hes one of them, Greising said.

Unlike Lightfoot, he added: Hes not a corporate lawyer.

Excerpt from:
Brandon Johnsons early appointments suggest hell be a pragmatic ... - Chicago Sun-Times

Mr. Buffett parts company from boardroom progressives for two reasons, one having to do with style, the other substance. He is fiercely independent, not surprisingly for a contrarian investor. He takes pains to control his agenda; over the years, friends who asked for even a token contribution to a pet cause were typically disappointed. In his mid-70s, Mr. Buffett announced he would leave the bulk of his estate to the foundation run by his friend Bill Gates. Other than that, he does not outsource his political or social convictions.

This inner-directed style colors everything about Berkshire. Unlike other C.E.O.s, Mr. Buffett does not employ handlers or spokespeople. Calls are typically answered in seconds, not hours. Even Berkshires proxy statement reflects Mr. Buffetts minimalism (many are weighty tomes; Berkshires is 19 pages).

Although Berkshire is a corporate octopus with 383,000 employees and more than 60 operating groups everything from energy and manufacturing to residential brokerage and a premium candy brand only 26 employees work in the corporate office. It eschews corporatewide directives and procedures, letting the units run with near autonomy.

Two of its businesses, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BNSF Railway, account for more than 90 percent of the companys fossil fuels consumption; each discloses its carbon footprint and a timeline for reduction. Berkshire Energy, which serves 12 million customers, says half of its electricity stems from noncarbon fuels. (About 40 percent of electricity in the United States is generated using zero-carbon fuels.) Berkshire Energy has invested more than $30 billion in renewables, much of it on infrastructure to, as Mr. Buffett puts it, get power from where the wind blows to where people live. Meanwhile, it has been shuttering coal facilities.

But Mr. Buffett rejects what he regards as implausible deadlines, mocking with studied impartiality both defenders of the old order and unrealistic visionaries desiring an instantly new world. He rebuffs the idea that the insurance unit, for example, should monitor the carbon use of its customers. The insurance subsidiary, the proxy notes, is in the business of gauging risk. In terms of the potential effect on profits the reason for securities disclosure Mr. Buffett does not distinguish politically charged categories such as climate from other risks. He bristles at the idea of subjecting Berkshires operating groups, which have vastly different energy profiles, to a boilerplate.

We dont want to be preparing a lot of reports and asking 60 subsidiaries each to do something, Mr. Buffett said at a past meeting. Were not going to spend the time of the people at Berkshire Hathaway Energy responding to questionnaires or trying to score better with somebody that is working on that. He noted that corporate America is worried about activists stirring up controversy, but at Berkshire, where Mr. Buffett owns 31.6 percent of the voting stock, we dont have to worry about that.

Mr. Buffett has said his critics do not read the companys disclosures, and he has a point. While Berkshire is attacked for not disclosing enough on diversity, the company, as required, provides reams of data to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which it makes public (58 percent of its insurance work force is female; 45 percent in service/retail/distribution identify as diverse). But it declines to issue a separate report on its diversity efforts. And few corporations would proclaim, as Berkshire does, that it does not have a policy on how diversity affects consideration of board nominees.

The rest is here:
Opinion | Why Warren Buffett Runs Berkshire Hathaway His Way - The New York Times

But this dust-up is actually more interesting than that, because it involves a notable change in the wider political landscape: The rise of the populist right means there are more Republicans saying positive things about traditionally left positions on issues like trade and corporate power.

Given that many of those populists have racial and social views that progressives find appalling, the question across Washingtons progressive organizations is: Whats the right way to think about working with them or even just praising their break from GOP orthodoxy? So far, theres little consensus on the question, and a high danger of vitriol in cases where it comes up, even when the cases dont involve a lightning-rod like Carlson.

To rewind a bit: The 1,200-word essay that kicked off the fireworks, by writers Lee Harris and Luke Goldstein, spent little time on the ousted Fox hosts incendiary racial and cultural statements, but instead lingered on his professed disdain for mainstream American elites. Carlsons insistent distrust of his powerful guests acts as a solvent to authority, they wrote, noting his evolution from libertarian to rejecting many of the free-market doctrines hed previously espoused.

Among other things, the piece cited his skepticism about free trade, his monologues against monopolistic Big Tech firms, and a viral segment about potential job losses from self-driving cars. It also noted that he attacked establishmentarian GOP leaders over their support for the Ukraine war.

Its safe to say that the immediate social media reaction did not give the pair points for originality.

Disgraceful and stupid, tweeted Prospect alum Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo. Genuinely revolting, added Zachary Carter, the journalist and John Maynard Keynes biographer. The whitewashing of Tucker Carlson has begun, said The Bulwarks Will Saletan.

Much of the blowback focused, appropriately, on the actual column, with a chorus of critics arguing quite convincingly that Harris and Goldstein had been snookered that Carlson was a phony populist, part of a long American tradition of demagogues like George Wallace pretending to fight economic elites when they really want to just pick on some out-group of fellow citizens.

Fair enough. But at least some of the criticism moved beyond engaging on the arguments merits (or lack thereof) and instead cast doubt on the motivations of the authors themselves, suggesting something more sinister might be afoot.

How did these writers, who are either too dumb to notice Carlsons virulently racist, sexist & anti-labor politics, or whose own politics are so vile that they dont care, ever get hired by the Prospect in the first place?, tweeted writer Kathleen Geier.

A day later, amid the incoming flak, Prospect editor David Dayen issued a statement of his own, saying the piece had missed the mark. It is my job as editor to make sure that whatever journalism or opinion we publish upholds our mission, he wrote. I dont think we quite got there with this story.

The magazine left the original essay in place on its site, but soon published a scathing rebuttal by two other Prospect writers. The act of distancing, naturally, invited a whole new barrage of incoming criticism from people who accused Dayen of cowering before the online rage.

They should have gotten a raise, Ruy Teixeira, the longtime progressive Washington think-tank figure, told me this week, referring to Harris and Goldstein. Instead they brought the hammer down. They got denounced by their own editor, denounced by their own comrades on their staff for what I actually thought was a pretty good article, the kind of article that wasnt completely predictable and made you think.

Harris declined comment; Goldstein did not respond to a message. Dayen, too, declined to be quoted, except to say that the writers werent reprimanded for the story, that their status at the magazine is unchanged and theyll keep writing about whatever interests them including on places where the right and left overlap. The magazine has in fact done a fair amount of that with no particular blowback, including putting Donald Trumps trade chief, Robert Lighthizer, on its cover for a largely laudatory feature in 2019.

Teixeira, of course, is no stranger to making this sort of allegation about intellectual narrowness in the progressive ecosystem. Last year, he left the Center for American Progress and took a perch at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, saying that his politics hadnt changed (he still refers to himself as a social democrat) but that he couldnt stand the narrow focus on identity that he said permeated his former world.

If you missed that saga, you can be forgiven. Theres a whole librarys worth of stories about the alienation of mostly older left-wing figures from post-collegiates in think tanks or advocacy groups, a divide that often involves disagreements over campus-style identity debates. (In one example, the Democratic Socialists of America canceled a speech by the celebrated left-wing academic Adolph Reed because some in the organization were upset that hed argued that the left must emphasize class over race.)

But that kind of incident feels different than what was going on last week.

In fact, for progressives, the debates like the fracas over the Carlson column could, perversely, be seen as a side-effect of good news. Instead of a furious argument over internal dissent against political tactics, it was a furious argument over (alleged) new external support for policy positions.

Even for folks who dont buy the idea that the market-skeptical bits of Carlsons schtick were at all genuine, its a situation thats presenting itself more frequently as elements of the GOP move beyond Reaganite positions and instead talk up things like opposition to monopolies, support for living family wages or protectionist treatment of embattled stateside manufacturing.

The challenge is that the rising GOP populists whose views on economic issues might appeal to progressives also often have social views that are way more extreme than the average Chamber of Commerce lifer. Sometimes, in fact, those social views may even be their motivator for their hostility to businesses. Witness the fulminations about woke capitalism.

One example of those complications popped up in POLITICO Magazines recent profile of antitrust advocate Matt Stoller. Stoller drew sharp criticism for his seeming warmth toward Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who fist-pumped insurrectionists and led Senate efforts to overturn the 2020 election but has also lobbed grenades at monopolies. The stance has made Stoller a controversial figure on the left, even as his push for a crusade against monopoly has been embraced by the Biden administration.

Matt Stoller drew sharp criticism for his seeming warmth toward Republican Sen. Josh Hawley but has also lobbed grenades at monopolies.|Francis Chung/POLITICO

When we spoke this week, Stoller said it boils down to what politics is for.

They think politics is fundamentally a moral endeavor, he said when I asked him about people who disdain the idea of treating someone like Hawley as an acceptable partner. Theyre not shy about letting me know what they think. But I think that we have a lot more in common than a lot of people who are interested in politics assume. I have a different view of what politics is. For me, when I look at politics, I think about political economy as, like, the driving factor, and corporate power as the driving factor.

In a way, its an argument on the left that goes back to the popular front period of the 1930s, or further (in the Russian civil war, the Bolsheviks argued about making common cause with Islamic fighters from Central Asia, whose embrace of religion was distinctly non-Marxist).

Michael Kazin, the historian of American populism, says theres a long history of fuzziness about what constitutes left and right, which complicates the question of just who youll deem acceptable. Prominent opposition to big business in the Great Depression, he says, also included the likes of the antisemitic radio priest Charles Coughlin and the segregationist Louisiana Gov. Huey Long.

Kazin, whose newest book is a history of the Democratic Party, says hes sure Carlson is no fellow traveler and also thinks coming up with a standard for how people like Hawley should be embraced or rejected might also be a little premature given the political realities: Do you really think that Hawleys going to support anything Biden wants? Theres a wish to have a broad anti-corporate alliance, but in the end the constituencies are very different.

David Duhalde, chair for the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, told me that one way to slice it is a function of where you sit. A Senator like Bernie Sanders working with the libertarian Utah Republican Mike Lee to curb presidential war powers? With 100 voters in the Senate, he doesnt have much choice. A think tanker or essayist trying to be clever? Not so much. Im more sympathetic to what the pols are trying to do than to media figures trying to find nuance where there isnt any, he says.

And for at least some people closer to the grassroots, the tendency to police against associating with ideological undesirables is a sign of a bigger sickness in elite circles. Amber ALee Frost, a writer and longtime fixture of the far-left Chapo Trap House podcast, once wrote about giving a talk about the importance of union organizing before an audience of tech workers. During the question and answer session afterwards, a woman approached the mic to ask what they should do if someone from the alt-right wanted to join their union.

If that happens, Frost replied, it means youve won.

It was kind of a dead silence, she told me this week, a sign that shed said something deeply troubling.

Frost, unsurprisingly, was dismissive of both sides of the Carlson contretemps right wing populism is largely a cynical brand of lip service from a bunch of professional hucksters but says she finds the one tic in the debates about potential left-right overlap disappointingly familiar.

Theyre more invested in whos on their side than whats going on, she said of the people who take umbrage at the idea that left politics might someday lure people with dubious records. Theres this fear of contamination from the right, which betrays that these people are scared of the general population.

Read more:
The Right's Economic Populism Is Breaking Progressives' Brains - POLITICO

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Read the original here:
Progressives are winning the immigration debate but it doesn't feel like it - Financial Times

From left: Sean Gunn as Kraglin, Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), Chris Pratt as Star-Lord, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), Dave Bautista as Drax, and Pom Klementieff as Mantis in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Courtesy of Marvel Studios

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, The latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, features a ragtag band of misfits and outcasts fighting a megalomaniac eugenics-spouting despot. It celebrates found family and finding your true self, no matter how improbable that self is, or how different it is from what your parents and the world expect. Its Florida Governor Ron DeSantis worst nightmare, right?

Well, not exactly. DeSantis has been engaged in a high profile war with Disneythe biggest employer in central Florida (and parent company to Marvel) since the company issued a mild objection to DeSantis sweeping Dont Say Gay ban. That ban places tight restrictions on discussing LGBT issues, or effectively LGBT people, in schools. Disney this month sued DeSantis on first amendment grounds.

In that context, its tempting to read Guardians of the Galaxy as a show of support for queer people: director James Gunn giving the governor a patented superhero biff in the snoot.

The truth is less defiant, though. Guardians of the Galaxy carefully avoids explicit queer themes even as it nods in their general direction. It also continues the MCUs tradition of villainous progressivesutopian dreamers who want to change the world for the better, and end up just slaughtering people.

The film doesnt show that Disney is determined to advance progressive goals. It shows mostly that Disney would rather avoid controversy and wants to sell tickets to everyoneeven Ron.

Volume 3 focuses on the backstory of Rocket Raccoon, an anthropomorphic genius inventor with a blaster voiced by Bradley Cooper. Rocket, we learn, was created through genetic manipulation by the High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), who is on a quest to create a perfect society.Miriam Shor as Recorder Vim, Chukwudi Iwuji as The High Evolutionary, and Nico Santos as Recorder Theel (from left) in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Jessica Miglio

Rocket escaped from the High Evolutionary sometime before the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and now the High Evolutionary wants him back to study his brain. But of course the Guardians of the Galaxy arent going to allow any evil dude to take their buddy Rocket! Cue lots of inspirational nostalgic rock music, explosions, fight choreography, and quips.

Rockets a very appealing neotenous protagonist, and the flashback sequences that show him gaining sentience and bonding with a genetically-enhanced otter, rabbit, and walrus are the emotional core of the film.

In one sequence, the surgically altered foursome realize that they dont have names of their ownthe High Evolutionary gives them numbersand they decide to rechristen themselves. The parallel with trans experience is hard to miss and seems like it has to be intentional. Rockets father and creator insults him, bullies him, loathes him, and tries to kill him. And in response, Rocket finds a new community (or new communities) and a new self, with a name that hes chosen, and that reflects who he is, rather than who his ogre father wants him to be.

The metaphor is moving. But its very much just a metaphor. The film has cyborgs, sentient trees, telekinetic dogs, and green-skinned women returned from the dead. But it doesnt have any queer people. The one representation of an LGBT relationship is a throwaway gag; the Guardians mind-manipulator Mantis (Pom Klementieff) makes a guard fall in love with her bruiser friend Dax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista). Hes exasperated, shes amused. Men loving other men; its something to laugh at.

The MCU did include a gay relationship in The Eternals. But Disney obviously still approaches that material with some diffidence. The film could have made Rocket gay, if theyd wanted to follow their LGBT themes to their logical conclusion. But instead he stands in for the LGBT community, rather than being part of it himself.

The MCU also has often distanced itself from progressive causes by making its villains thinly disguised progressives-gone-wrong. Thanos in Infinity War and End Game wants to eliminate half of the people in the universe as part of a misguided environmentalism; he thinks catastrophic population decline will leave more resources for all. Both Black Panther films frame White colonialist nations, like the United States, as the villains, to some degree. But then our Wakandan heroes spend most of the films fighting other people of color who want to retaliate against white supremacy too harshly.

The High Evolutionary is in that villainous tradition of twisted radicalism. Hes Black and disfigured, and claims to want to perfect society, a la Communist and utopian medlars. But his lust for perfection leads him to genocidal lengths, as he incinerates and exterminates all his sentient projects that dont quite work out. His surgical experiments are treated with particular disgust, and theres an uncomfortable resonance with the current moral panic targeting trans medical care.

His surgical experiments are treated with particular disgust, and theres an uncomfortable resonance with the current moral panic targeting trans medical care.

Obviously, Volume 3 isnt trying to make some sort of sweeping statement about Black people in power, or to denounce medical care for trans people. On the contrary, its trying not to say anything. On television, Amazon Primes The Boys and James Gunns own Peacemaker on HBO denounce white supremacy and fascism directly; their villains are racist, power-hungry white men who glory in targeting and humiliating marginalized people. Those schemes are clearly modeled on Trumpism, and the critiques of these shows therefore encompass DeSantis, or any number of Republicans.

Gunn knows how to take a stand, if he wants. But Guardians does not. Its carefully balanced and carefully distanced so that it can appeal to marginalized people looking for heroes without actually standing by them or naming any oppressors. When the Guardians get into a big group hug at the end of the film, its supposed to evoke love and solidarity. But it might better be characterized as the unity of capital, determined to offend no one and turn no ones dollars away. Disney may be suing DeSantis, and they may well win. But they want his fanbase to come to the movies too, and so they give them a villain they can comfortably mock, and heroes who are carefully not queer.

The rest is here:
'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' And The MCU's Tradition of Villainous Progressives - Observer