Bob Schwartz

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in…

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only

Bob Dylan, It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)

I was going to write about and recommend listening to Bob Dylan, particularly to the three albums Bringing It All Back Home (1965), Highway 61 Revisited (1965), Blonde On Blonde (1966). Given that these albums are from sixty years ago, I thought it might be a helpful mention for those newer ears who resist some old songs by some old guy.

But I decided it was pointless, partly because literally thousands have written about Dylan, partly because I’m not sure how much impact it would have anyway on those who resist listening to some old songs by some old guy, however famous and influential he is—including influencing current artists.

So instead of a whole piece, I picked out just one example, It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding) from Bringing It All Back Home, with video and lyrics below. By the way, all Dylan lyrics and more are available on the Bob Dylan website.

It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)

Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child’s balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon
There is no sense in trying

Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

Temptation’s page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you’d just be one more
Person crying

So don’t fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It’s alright, Ma, I’m only sighing

As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don’t hate nothing at all
Except hatred

Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Make everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred

While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

An’ though the rules of the road have been lodged
It’s only people’s games that you got to dodge
And it’s alright, Ma, I can make it

Advertising signs they con
You into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you

You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you

A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit
To satisfy, insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not forget
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to

Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer’s pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death’s honesty
Won’t fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes must get lonely

My eyes collide head-on with stuffed
Graveyards, false gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
what else can you show me?

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only

A couple of weeks ago, The Economist ran the above cover and story (see below). It is, as so many of their covers are, perfect.

Can those who oppose the current regime depend on Democrats? Should we give up on them?

Many already have given up on the Democratic Party as effective opposition. Not surprising, because along with two spectacular losses to Trump, and failure to take over at least one house of Congress, Trump and his servants have run roughshod over democracy, the economy, and constitutional, legal, civil and human rights—with limited push-back.

There is no good answer to the question of whether to give up on the Democrats. America is, unlike the rest of the world, nationally a structural two-party country. If one of those parties is unwilling and unable to stand up and fight, we are not better if they then just go away, and, as the cover illustration suggests, surrender and cede the field to the other team. But if the Democrats aren’t willing to take the first step and admit that they have big problems—not little but BIG problems—nothing is going to change, except things getting worse.

---

Donald Trump is unpopular. Why is it so hard to stand up to him?
Republicans are servile. Courts are slow. Can the Democrats rouse themselves?
The Economist
Sep 4th 2025

IF A SINGLE political idea has tied Americans together over their first quarter of a millennium, it is that one-person rule is a mistake. Most Americans also agree that the federal government is slow and incompetent. Together, these things ought to make it impossible for one man to govern by diktat from the White House. And yet that is what this president is doing: sending in the troops, slapping on tariffs, asserting control over the central bank, taking stakes in companies, scaring citizens into submission.

The effect is overwhelming, but not popular. President Donald Trump’s net approval rating is minus 14 percentage points. That is little better than Joe Biden’s after his dire debate last year, and no one fretted that he was over-mighty. This is a puzzle. Most Americans disapprove of Mr Trump. Yet everywhere he seems to be getting his way. Why?

One answer is that he moves much faster than the lumbering forces that constrain him. He is like the TikTok algorithm, grabbing attention and moving on to the next thing before his opponents have worked out what just happened. The Supreme Court has yet even to consider whether deploying troops to Los Angeles in June was lawful. While the justices take their time, the president may soon use the same routine in Chicago. The court may not rule on the legality of his tariffs for months. So far the president has obeyed Supreme Court rulings, but if one legal avenue is closed he will try another and the clock resets.

Another answer is that the Republican Party always lets him have his way. It is not just that he dominates it, with an approval rating among Republicans of almost 90%. It is that the party’s organising idea is that Mr Trump is always right, even when he contradicts himself. Policy debates have turned into theological disputation in which sides fight over the real meaning of his words.

Independent institutions—companies, universities or news organisations—might oppose him. But they suffer from a co-ordination problem. This is much easier to point out than to fix, because organisations that compete with each other would have to collaborate. What is bad for Harvard may not be bad for its rivals. If a single law firm can be picked off, its business may go to a competitor.

Behind all these lurks the ugly reality of Mr Trump’s vindictiveness and intimidation. Previous presidents were influenced by independent-minded experts and the cabinet. The new definition of an expert in the Oval Office is someone who agrees with the boss. Bearers of bad news are sacked; awkward Republicans primaried; business leaders punished; opponents investigated. For each, the rational response is to apologise, settle and hope that someone else will do the right thing. Having seen what that entails, someone else may prefer a quiet life.

Politically, therefore, the main task of opposition falls to the Democrats. They are, to put it kindly, confused. Should they fight Mr Trump with ALL CAPS posts, as Gavin Newsom is doing? Is it all about mastering curated authenticity, like Zohran Mamdani? Do they move left? Do they occupy the centre? Is the problem merely one of messaging that can be fixed if only activists would stop calling women “birthing people”?

The fact that Democrats can neither constrain Mr Trump nor even communicate clearly leaves their base angry. Mr Trump’s ratings are low, but he is more popular than the Democratic Party—not because Republicans and independents disapprove of it (though they do), but because Democrats disapprove of themselves.

In the short run the self-loathing may be overdone. The midterms are a year away. In ten of the 12 elections for the House of Representatives this century, voters have turned against the party that holds the presidency. Gerrymandering, which will reduce the number of competitive seats in the House from few to almost none, means that even a president this unpopular is unlikely to suffer a landslide defeat in 2026. But a Democratic House with subpoena power would provide a crucial check on presidential corruption and incompetence.

In the long run, though, that looks like false comfort. The Democratic brand is damaged. Democrats are more trusted by the electorate on health care, the environment and democracy. But on many issues voters care about, including crime and immigration, they prefer Republicans. In the 2024 election Kamala Harris was seen as more extreme than Mr Trump. Saying the voters are wrong or sexist to think this way is not helpful.

Demography is no longer the Democrats’ friend. Under Mr Trump, Republicans have made progress with non-white and young voters. The Democrats have lost the white working class. Although the most educated voters like them, only 40% of Americans aged 25 or over have a college degree. These changes mean the story Democrats have long told themselves—that they represented the real majority in America, but Republican machinations kept them out of power—is no longer true, if it ever was. Now they benefit from a lower turnout.

Ten years into the Trump era, Democrats are still underestimating him. His skill in setting traps for them is extraordinary. Take the looming vote in Congress on annual government funding: Democrats will have to choose between more cuts to foreign aid and shutting the government. Or take sending troops into cities, supposedly to fight crime. Democrats decry executive overreach; Mr Trump places them on the side of criminals and danger. Or take drone strikes on alleged drug-smugglers. It is hard to oppose the lack of any due process without sounding like a defender of violent gangs.

They alone can fix it

Democrats have choices about whether to walk into those traps. Lots of them think, rightly, that Mr Trump poses a danger to the country’s democratic values and conclude that this alone should make him toxic to most voters. Alas, it does not. Instead, the question Democrats need to keep asking themselves is this: why do voters think they are the extremists, rather than the guy trying to establish one-man rule?

---