Subscribe to Civics Unhinged
Civics UnhingedAbout Civics Unhinged
Civics Unhinged is the new home for my long-form satire and political commentary — a place where essays can breathe without algorithms or paywalls. I write about the civic unraveling of our time: the absurdities of power, the decay of seriousness, and the endurance of humor as a last civic virtue. Dunnegin is a former senior federal official, policy analyst, and longtime political consultant who has advised members of Congress, federal agency heads, and corporate leaders. He has spent decades...
Civics UnhingedThe Real Heirs of the Republic
Heritage, Myth, and the Power We Inherit
Civics UnhingedThe World Is Not a Real Estate Listing
Trump, Sovereignty, and the Politics of Cramping His Scene
<100 subscribers
Civics UnhingedAbout Civics Unhinged
Civics Unhinged is the new home for my long-form satire and political commentary — a place where essays can breathe without algorithms or paywalls. I write about the civic unraveling of our time: the absurdities of power, the decay of seriousness, and the endurance of humor as a last civic virtue. Dunnegin is a former senior federal official, policy analyst, and longtime political consultant who has advised members of Congress, federal agency heads, and corporate leaders. He has spent decades...
Civics UnhingedThe Real Heirs of the Republic
Heritage, Myth, and the Power We Inherit
Civics UnhingedThe World Is Not a Real Estate Listing
Trump, Sovereignty, and the Politics of Cramping His Scene
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
The Luxury of Failing Forward
When Donald Trump says that civil rights laws caused white Americans to be "very badly treated," he is not expressing confusion. He is asserting a theory of injury—one that redefines equality as harm and accountability as persecution.
The claim deserves to be taken seriously, not because it is true, but because it is presidential. When a president recasts civil rights enforcement as an injustice against the historically advantaged, he is not commenting on the past; he is preparing the ground for dismantling the present.
So, it is worth asking, plainly and without rhetoric: What did civil rights laws actually do? And whom did they harm?
🎧 Listen to the narrated version of The Luxury of Failing Forward (7 minutes, 14 seconds).
Civil rights legislation did not dispossess White Americans of homes, schools, or jobs. They did not bar them from universities, exclude them from labor markets, or deny them access to capital. It did not prevent them from voting, serving on juries, or receiving government protection.
What those laws did was narrower—and far more consequential. They removed the state's permission to exclude others. They ended the legal guarantee that race could be used as a sorting mechanism for opportunity. They constrained discrimination by employers, landlords, lenders, and public institutions that had long operated with government blessing.
In other words, civil rights laws did not inflict mistreatment. They withdrew entitlement.
That distinction matters because Trump's grievance rests on collapsing it. His argument is not that White Americans were denied opportunity. It is that they were no longer assured priority.
Michelle Obama once captured this reality with devastating clarity during the 2024 campaign: "We don't all have the luxury of failing forward." She called it "the affirmative action of generational wealth." When some people bankrupt a business, she noted, they do not get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things go wrong, they do not get to blame the system and be rescued by it.
That observation is not rhetorical. It is structural.
"Failing forward" describes a world in which mistakes are survivable because institutions cushion the fall through family wealth, legal indulgence, political access, and reputational repair. It represents an economy of forgiveness that has always existed but never been evenly distributed.
Civil rights laws did not take that safety net away from White Americans. They simply refused to reserve it exclusively for them.
My own life stands as evidence of that distinction—not as an exception, but as a consequence.
I grew up a Black boy in a lower-class, single-parent household. Civil rights laws did not guarantee me success. They did something far more modest and far more critical: they stopped the state from deciding, in advance, that success was not for me.
Because of that legal shift, I was able to attend some of the finest institutions in the country. I served successfully in the United States military. I worked as a congressional staffer in both the House and the Senate. I was twice appointed to presidential administrations. I built a career as a regulatory consultant. I now own and operate my own business.
None of this was inevitable. None of it was easy. And none of it would have been possible if exclusion had remained lawful.
Civil rights laws did not elevate me above others. They allowed me to participate. The country did not lose when I gained access. It gained a public servant, a professional, a taxpayer, and a builder.
That is what equality looks like in practice—not redistribution, but return.
Trump's inversion depends on erasing this reality. To sustain the claim of mistreatment, he must pretend that the baseline before civil rights was neutral rather than rigged; that opportunity was once earned rather than allocated; that exclusion was natural rather than enforced.
He must also pretend that accountability is discrimination.
This disassociation is where his personal history matters—not as an insult, but as an illustration. Trump's life is a catalogue of failing forward: ventures rescued by inheritance, reputations rehabilitated by influence, losses absorbed by capital. He is not arguing from injury. He is arguing from resentment that the law no longer treats people like him as presumptively deserving.
What he calls "mistreatment" is simply the refusal of a permanent exemption.
It is essential to say this carefully: Civil rights laws did not punish White Americans for being White. They required White Americans—like everyone else—to compete without a guaranteed advantage.
Competition feels like persecution only when dominance has long been mistaken for fairness.
This leveling of the playing field is why Trump's claim resonates with those who experience equality as loss. Not because they have been harmed, but because the law has stopped cushioning their expectations.
There is a reason this argument surfaces now, and not in moments of economic expansion or shared growth. It emerges when grievance becomes a governing strategy—when political power is sustained not by promising opportunity, but by reallocating resentment.
Recasting civil rights as discrimination accomplishes two things at once. It delegitimizes enforcement, and it reframes hierarchy as victimhood. It turns the end of exclusion into an injury narrative that demands redress—not for those long denied access, but for those newly required to share it.
That is not a misunderstanding of history. It is a rejection of democracy's premise.
A democracy does not injure its majority by extending the law to everyone else. It merely reveals who mistook preference for principle.
Civil rights laws did not cause White Americans to be "very badly treated." They brought the country closer to its stated ideals. They asked institutions to justify their choices. They demanded that opportunity be defended on merit rather than inherited advantage.
What Trump mourns is not mistreatment. It is the loss of insulation.
And what Trump’s presidency risks is not discomfort, but regression—an attempt to restore grievance as governance and dominance as entitlement.
The law cannot prevent resentment. But it can refuse to enshrine it.
That is what civil rights laws did. And that is why they still matter.
~ Dunneagin
🎧 Find Civics Unhinged on your favorite platform:
Apple Podcasts (accepts PayPal if available in your country)
Spotify (accepts PayPal if available in your country)
Prefer RSS feed? Copy and paste this URL (https://dunneagin.substack.com/feed/podcast) into your preferred RSS reader
🗣 Political satire that stings. Essays, mock memos, and podcasts chronicling the slow implosion of the American Republic — in English, French, and German.
💬 On Bluesky? Join the conversation at @dunneagin.bsky.social
📚 Support this work — and get three free eBooks!
Paid subscribers help keep this circus running without corporate ads, think tank donors, or truth-averse billionaires. Join them.
As a thank you, all yearly paid members receive:
📕 Trump’s Big Top: How Politics Became a 3-Ring Circus
📕 The Liar’s Guide to Autocracy
📕 Mr. Dunneagin Speaks, Volume 2
☕ Civics Unhinged mugs and merchandise are available at: https://f-p-dunneagin-shop.fourthwall.com
👉 Thank you for listening and for your support.
The Luxury of Failing Forward
When Donald Trump says that civil rights laws caused white Americans to be "very badly treated," he is not expressing confusion. He is asserting a theory of injury—one that redefines equality as harm and accountability as persecution.
The claim deserves to be taken seriously, not because it is true, but because it is presidential. When a president recasts civil rights enforcement as an injustice against the historically advantaged, he is not commenting on the past; he is preparing the ground for dismantling the present.
So, it is worth asking, plainly and without rhetoric: What did civil rights laws actually do? And whom did they harm?
🎧 Listen to the narrated version of The Luxury of Failing Forward (7 minutes, 14 seconds).
Civil rights legislation did not dispossess White Americans of homes, schools, or jobs. They did not bar them from universities, exclude them from labor markets, or deny them access to capital. It did not prevent them from voting, serving on juries, or receiving government protection.
What those laws did was narrower—and far more consequential. They removed the state's permission to exclude others. They ended the legal guarantee that race could be used as a sorting mechanism for opportunity. They constrained discrimination by employers, landlords, lenders, and public institutions that had long operated with government blessing.
In other words, civil rights laws did not inflict mistreatment. They withdrew entitlement.
That distinction matters because Trump's grievance rests on collapsing it. His argument is not that White Americans were denied opportunity. It is that they were no longer assured priority.
Michelle Obama once captured this reality with devastating clarity during the 2024 campaign: "We don't all have the luxury of failing forward." She called it "the affirmative action of generational wealth." When some people bankrupt a business, she noted, they do not get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things go wrong, they do not get to blame the system and be rescued by it.
That observation is not rhetorical. It is structural.
"Failing forward" describes a world in which mistakes are survivable because institutions cushion the fall through family wealth, legal indulgence, political access, and reputational repair. It represents an economy of forgiveness that has always existed but never been evenly distributed.
Civil rights laws did not take that safety net away from White Americans. They simply refused to reserve it exclusively for them.
My own life stands as evidence of that distinction—not as an exception, but as a consequence.
I grew up a Black boy in a lower-class, single-parent household. Civil rights laws did not guarantee me success. They did something far more modest and far more critical: they stopped the state from deciding, in advance, that success was not for me.
Because of that legal shift, I was able to attend some of the finest institutions in the country. I served successfully in the United States military. I worked as a congressional staffer in both the House and the Senate. I was twice appointed to presidential administrations. I built a career as a regulatory consultant. I now own and operate my own business.
None of this was inevitable. None of it was easy. And none of it would have been possible if exclusion had remained lawful.
Civil rights laws did not elevate me above others. They allowed me to participate. The country did not lose when I gained access. It gained a public servant, a professional, a taxpayer, and a builder.
That is what equality looks like in practice—not redistribution, but return.
Trump's inversion depends on erasing this reality. To sustain the claim of mistreatment, he must pretend that the baseline before civil rights was neutral rather than rigged; that opportunity was once earned rather than allocated; that exclusion was natural rather than enforced.
He must also pretend that accountability is discrimination.
This disassociation is where his personal history matters—not as an insult, but as an illustration. Trump's life is a catalogue of failing forward: ventures rescued by inheritance, reputations rehabilitated by influence, losses absorbed by capital. He is not arguing from injury. He is arguing from resentment that the law no longer treats people like him as presumptively deserving.
What he calls "mistreatment" is simply the refusal of a permanent exemption.
It is essential to say this carefully: Civil rights laws did not punish White Americans for being White. They required White Americans—like everyone else—to compete without a guaranteed advantage.
Competition feels like persecution only when dominance has long been mistaken for fairness.
This leveling of the playing field is why Trump's claim resonates with those who experience equality as loss. Not because they have been harmed, but because the law has stopped cushioning their expectations.
There is a reason this argument surfaces now, and not in moments of economic expansion or shared growth. It emerges when grievance becomes a governing strategy—when political power is sustained not by promising opportunity, but by reallocating resentment.
Recasting civil rights as discrimination accomplishes two things at once. It delegitimizes enforcement, and it reframes hierarchy as victimhood. It turns the end of exclusion into an injury narrative that demands redress—not for those long denied access, but for those newly required to share it.
That is not a misunderstanding of history. It is a rejection of democracy's premise.
A democracy does not injure its majority by extending the law to everyone else. It merely reveals who mistook preference for principle.
Civil rights laws did not cause White Americans to be "very badly treated." They brought the country closer to its stated ideals. They asked institutions to justify their choices. They demanded that opportunity be defended on merit rather than inherited advantage.
What Trump mourns is not mistreatment. It is the loss of insulation.
And what Trump’s presidency risks is not discomfort, but regression—an attempt to restore grievance as governance and dominance as entitlement.
The law cannot prevent resentment. But it can refuse to enshrine it.
That is what civil rights laws did. And that is why they still matter.
~ Dunneagin
🎧 Find Civics Unhinged on your favorite platform:
Apple Podcasts (accepts PayPal if available in your country)
Spotify (accepts PayPal if available in your country)
Prefer RSS feed? Copy and paste this URL (https://dunneagin.substack.com/feed/podcast) into your preferred RSS reader
🗣 Political satire that stings. Essays, mock memos, and podcasts chronicling the slow implosion of the American Republic — in English, French, and German.
💬 On Bluesky? Join the conversation at @dunneagin.bsky.social
📚 Support this work — and get three free eBooks!
Paid subscribers help keep this circus running without corporate ads, think tank donors, or truth-averse billionaires. Join them.
As a thank you, all yearly paid members receive:
📕 Trump’s Big Top: How Politics Became a 3-Ring Circus
📕 The Liar’s Guide to Autocracy
📕 Mr. Dunneagin Speaks, Volume 2
☕ Civics Unhinged mugs and merchandise are available at: https://f-p-dunneagin-shop.fourthwall.com
👉 Thank you for listening and for your support.
F.P. Dunneagin
F.P. Dunneagin
No comments yet