There is nothing inappropriate about Professor Jonathan Turley using his own blog to sell his recently published book. However, his recent posts are, as he would say in his restrained professorial way, “concerning.”

Turley has, along with former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, notable in recent years for his estrangement from the political party almost all of his academic colleagues give their unconditional love. It is clear that Turley has been “red-pilled” by the gradual (and sometimes not so gradual) transformation of the Democratic Party into a “by any means possible” political descendants of the radical Weatherman of the Sixties, embracing violence, socialism, anti-American propaganda, control of the news media, and intolerance of opposing political views. Although he makes a consistent effort to try to criticize both extremes of the political spectrum (In a post condemning a politically motivated Democratic attack on acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch, he writes, “It is fair to note that the Trump Administration has undermined its own position in denouncing lawfare by pursuing past critics, including dubious prosecutions over seashell threats against James Comey” for example), the drift of his blog to the right has been impossible to miss. 

I am certainly sympathetic. It is difficult to find anything close to the anti-democratic statements and acts by members of the Democratic Party, “the resistance” and the unethical mainstream news media on the conservative side; I face this problem every day.

A digression: listen to this clip from retired New York Times columnist Paul Krugman…

Ex-NYT author Paul Krugman says the US needs a “purge” of MAGA supporters akin to denazification.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/orhjLiDxfy

— AF Post (@AFpost) June 1, 2026

He was repeatedly flagged as an Ethics Dunce and worse here at Ethics Alarms, but maintained a prominent platform on the Times op-ed pages all through the first Trump term and most of the Biden years. Has any prominent Republican pundit ever called for the “purging” of progressives? The Democrats keep claiming that President Trump has secret plans to do so, but that is their favored partisan defamation. The Democratic Party in deed and word had embraced totalitarianism as their favored approach to the “greater good.” Turley sees it, as do I. Moreover, Krugman isn’t alone by any means: former Clinton minion James Carville is regularly heard ranting about using extreme measures to ensure permanent domination by his party. MSNow’s hard left propagandists, who, depressingly enough, are favored by the current Democrat mainstream as if they were real journalists, repeat these aspirations hour by hour, day by day.

Back to the topic: Turley now promotes his book, “The Age of Rage” in post after post. He finds ways to link his blog post topics to his baby relentlessly. In today’s post about a bonkers woke church on Nantucket cancelling its traditional Fourth of July celebration to prompt an examination of “whiteness,” he writes, “This type of pandering and posturing has become the norm today. In a time when the American flag is denounced as a divisive and “triggering” symbol, a refusal to celebrate our Independence is yet another way of proving one’s bona fides to the perpetually enraged.” Yesterday, in a post about NYC’s Communist mayor threatening to take property from landlords and transfer them to tenants, he writes, “In my book Rage and the Republic, I discuss this trend in Western countries toward socialist policies. It is what I refer to as the “economic factionalism” that has been used in prior years by figures ranging from Huey Long to Bernie Sanders.”

I am an admirer of Professor Turley’s courage in bucking the cookie-cutter leftist scholarly community, and frequently find his blog posts a source of ethics news. However, he is undermining his credibility by appearing to choose topics that support his new book’s thesis, and tailoring his prose to point to “The Age of Rage.” It is self-defeating. Turley should certainly be able to recognize his own conflict of interest. Unfortunately, bias even makes the wisest and smartest of us stupid.

I recently attended the 75th Anniversary gala of a venerable volunteer theater organization that I was very active in before starting a professional theater company in 1995. I attended with some trepidation, because I knew that I would be thrust into an unpredictable gathering of lapsed friends, former romantic interests, admirers, rivals, critics, resentful targets of my criticism, people I owed apologies to and people who should apologize to me. The event was well-organized and brought off without a hitch, despite the potential tensions that might have arisen from generational schisms; the attendees ranged from group legends in their 90s to current active members from Gen Z. To my genuine surprise, exemplary ethics were on display. almost uniformly.

To wit:

1. Despite the fact that almost everyone in attendance lives in the Greater Washington D.C. area, there were no political or partisan outbursts at all! None. Nor were there any political discussions that I was party to or encountered, though with over a hundred attendees I was obviously not privy to every stray comment. I found this amazing. These are show biz types, overwhelmingly left-leaning, Trump Deranged, and bubble-dwelling. Another large reunion event I attended last fall was rife with partisan grandstanding and political exclamations, both from podiums and in conversations. Those were all lawyers, however. If a group of volunteer theater artists can manage this, why can’t the Oscars, the Tonys, the Emmys and the Grammys? How hard is it to keep an event with a clearly delineated purpose on topic without injecting a source of conflict that will divide a group that has good reason to be welcoming and inclusive?

There is hope.

2. I wore a tuxedo, and, amazingly, I was the only one, although many of the women wore formal gowns. Okay, maybe its is old-fashioned, but to me, the way you show respect at an event like that is to dress formally.