Michael Shellenberger on ICE Protests, Censorship Threats, and His Radical Past in Venezuela

Quick Overview

Michael Shellenberger argues that the modern Democratic Party is a radicalized, radical left party, evidenced by increasing acceptance of violence to silence speakers, and attributes current political polarization, including extreme swings on immigration enforcement like ICE raids, to this underlying radicalization, which he connects to a broader societal spiritual disorder and narcissistic desire for revolutionary change.

Key Points: The share of college students who believe violence may be justified to stop a campus speaker rose from under 20% in 2020 to 33% in 2025, which Shellenberger calls an existential problem for the country. Shellenberger asserts that the Democratic Party is a radical left party, most influenced part of which radicalized after Trump, leading to extreme political swings such as Biden's 'insane' open borders policy. Regarding the recent ICE incident where a woman was shot, Shellenberger stresses it is premature to judge justification, comparing it to the complex evidence that emerged in the George Floyd killing. Activists engaging in civil disobedience against ICE often view officers as 'Nazis' or 'fascists,' framing their resistance, even violent opposition, within a mainstream Hollywood mythology of fighting fascism (e.g., killing baby Hitler). Shellenberger identifies the core driver of radical movements as 'the revolution,' stating that 'the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution,' which he links to a disordered spiritual response to modernity and narcissism. He explains the rise of 'AWFL' (Affluent White Female Liberal) activism as a modern outlet for assertive, educated women whose traditional social functions within a 'village' have been displaced, causing them to seek heroic roles in radical ideology. Shellenberger recounted his own radical past, noting his early political engagement in the 1980s concerning US support for death squads in Central America, and his 1994 interview where Lula promised not to impose Cuba-style censorship, which Shellenberger views as a later betrayal.