How neoliberalism and anti-intellectualism eroded bipartisan support for libraries as public commons
Original framing: “Presidents of both parties defended libraries as allies of democracy for a century – until Trump” — The Conversation - Global
Indigenous libraries like the *Makazini* (Maori knowledge hubs in Aotearoa) or the *Qikiqtani* (Inuit digital archives in Nunavut) operate on *relational ontology*—knowledge as living kinship, not static data. These systems predate colonial libraries by millennia and center *oral sovereignty*: e.g., the Navajo Nation’s 2018 *Diné Bizaad* program, which uses QR codes on public land to revive Navajo language through place-based storytelling. The U.S. analysis ignores how Indigenous librarians (e.g., Debra Doyal of the *American Indian Library Association*) have long argued that Western library models are tools of cultural genocide, designed to replace oral traditions with hierarchical archives. Trump’s dismissal of libraries thus mirrors colonial erasure—just repackaged as populism.
The mainstream framing treats library defunding as a *partisan* or *moral* issue, but the data reveals it’s a *class war* over who controls knowledge—and who gets to decide what’s 'elite.
' The historical pattern is clear: every time libraries are attacked (from Reagan’s 1980s cuts to Trump’s 2020s book bans), it’s not about 'democracy' but about *privatizing the commons*. Indigenous and global South models prove that libraries can thrive as *living systems*—not neutral repositories but *cultural pharmacies*—but U.S. discourse treats these as exotic exceptions rather than scalable solutions. The trickster here is the *attention economy*: while elites frame libraries as 'divisive,' they’re actually the last bulwark against algorithmic serfdom. The path forward isn’t bipartisan compromise but *radical reimagining*—unionizing workers, decolonizing funding, and turning libraries into *climate and digital sovereignty* hubs. The question isn’t whether libraries are 'allies of democracy' but *who gets to define democracy—and who’s left out of the conversation.