Much good thinking here. I agree with almost everything you suggest. I believe the most important move for progressives who understand that the Democrat Party does not represent the needs of working people is to build toward a national agreement on a populist agenda. And what I perceive at this point in time is that the priority of that movement is best served by a focus on demands, not on reshaping the Democrat Party from within. That’s not to say that is not what could happen. But many candidates have falsely cloaked themselves in the mantle of populism. Placing priority on the Dem Party could lead to confusion and disappointment which could weaken the commitment to populism. It’s kind of a “build it and they will come” pragmatism. With events and shifts in the body politic moving so fast, it is not possible to see even 5 years into the future. We have to rip the veil off politicians’ veneer of representing people’s interest, show clearly whose interest politicians serve, and demonstrate how a true populist agenda would manifest through governmental policy and action.
I’m curious how you and the author see the Working Families Party. It seems to be a blend of both what you and the author suggest.
I thoroughly appreciate all of this line of thinking. But it leaves us with some serious challenges, perhaps rejoinders.
For now, I am thinking of these: consider the role of Elizabeth Warren in the 16 and 20 cycles; the Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Wolf PAC, all of which I was supportive of; Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush being taken out by AIPAC; that Obama nor Bernie nor anyone for that matter amassed the organization necessary to effectuate this exact scenario described in this piece and the others in this series; that the Green New Deal didn’t materialize into a massive program; that Democrats flinched in the filibuster (and may like to have it now); that Manchin and Sinema held up large swaths of the Biden agenda, and that Biden also governed like a progressive Republican — there wasn’t a Theodore Roosevelt Bully Pulpit, nor was there a new, New Deal.
I want the future described here. But we live in a world where” Trump is for you. Kamala is for They/Them” wins. Where the dog whistle politics since Reagan and before, win. But it’s not only that; it’s the massive money. It’s the work of Leonard Leo capturing SCOTUS. It’s the massive asymmetries pointed out by this author in other pieces in this series, as well as Rachel Bitecofer in “Fight Like You Mean It.”
Matthew, i believe there are many good people working in the progressive organizations throughout the US, and Working Families Party is in that group. I do hold an old concern about the WFP: the 2019 endorsement of Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren is among the best of liberals with an excellent program to rein in the markets. But she is a Free Market believer, she posited in the 2019 primaries that private industry could solve the US dependence on fossil fuel, commenting at one point "What do I can if someone makes a buck off solar panels." That is the fork in the road for me with Elizabeth Warren. It was disappointing that the WFP had not educated their own membership about the difference between reliance on the free market and reliance on government works to build infrastructure, particularly on the transition from fossil fuels. Bernie's climate program was genius and impossible to be replicated by private industry.
The thing about the Democratic party is that they're a poisoned well and most everyone knows it. That's why people don't vote and that's why we see out efforts sabotaged over and over again.
We can move forward, we can demand ranked choice voting and pull together some 150 million Americans for a real party that binds together over creating a free and fair political system to end exploitation. We just have to see that we have the power. Many other movements have done it; Serbia, Ukraine, Armenia, Egypt, South Africa.
Ranked choice voting will not solve the problem. The problem is both parties are too close to their oligarchic donors to do anything for the people who voted for them. Here’s a simple plan:
Build grass root efforts to demand their representatives take prompt action to Constitutionally reverse Citizens United, allowing only sentient human beings to contribute to those they want to represent them and only in a reasonable maximum amount per person. If the candidates for office refuse to accept the demand, vote against them. Pass a petition around to every voter to sign and pledge to. When candidates refuse the demand, expose them in every form of media in existence. More citizens will sign up. In the end the puppets of Big Money will be voted out, leaving people responsive to we the people.
This is not a difficult task since almost all voters agree big money has corrupted our politics. it only requires the voters to pledge they’ll vote the bastards out and then follow through by voting for the guy who agreed to our citizen demand.
No more AIPAC. No more military industrial complex; big pharma and big banks controlling the Government. Elon Misk would be limited to donating a few thousand dollars as would George Soros, Bill Gates et al. No more big so called independent PAC committees with deceitful names. And all we have to do is unite; give a few hours of time and pledge to vote against those who will not introduce and genuinely support the end of Big Money in politics.
Tell me a better, simpler and more effective way to take back our government or don’t try at all and end up serfs in the kingdom of the rich. Because that is what is happening and will happen if we do not act quickly, unitedly and effectively. This is a bipartisan single issue.
You just stated the problem is both our parties are corrupt, but claim ranked choice isn’t the answer? That’s HOW we get a third party for the actual people.
That’s the only way any of that other stuff is going to happen. I don’t care how many people you have calling for it, the politicians still have to create LAW to make change. The ones we have are never going to do that.
There are no good choices, but we have to do something drastic. Ranked choice is preferable in my opinion than what we have. I’m just saying it won’t get rid of Big Money.
The part you are missing is the money that has infiltrated politics during this era. That is the real distinction between these politicians and FDR that you miss. It is also the driver that has forced the change in ideology. When politician are up against corporate backed Republicans in multimillion dollar races for elections, they have to figure out how to fund their races. Middle and working class people cannot provide a similar war chest. In the end, Democrats have to answer to the hand that feeds them. Until we have major changes in campaign finance, the trends you see will not and cannot change.
You make a crucial point about money in politics. But I see campaign finance as a symptom of a deeper problem: we've allowed our government to abdicate its power to corporations and markets.
The government was meant to be our collective power center, our tool for balancing corporate influence. Instead, we've systematically dismantled that capacity, creating a vacuum that corporate money naturally filled.
The revolving door between industry and government isn't just about individual corruption - it's about a fundamental shift in how we view government's role. When we decided government shouldn't build, shouldn't compete, shouldn't serve as a counterweight to corporate power, we created the conditions for money to dominate our politics.
Campaign finance reform is essential, but without restoring government's role as a builder and competitor serving public interests, the underlying power imbalance will remain. The money follows the power - and we've given far too much away.
You say, "We've allowed our government to abdicate its power to corporations and markets." But isn't it far more accurate to say that corporate power has been clawing its way into government, using bribery and other forms of manipulation of the weakest political representatives and most craven protectors of corporate power to open those doors and shut others out of government? It certainly wasn't as passive as, "we allowed the government to abdicate..." As if we the people had some sway. Little by little, the rules changed to give those with money more say than those without. Now the corruption is complete and hopelessly out of control with anonymous crypto bribes running everything. Talk about a shadow government!
I'm so totally with you on government as a competitor when markets fail- we have a local municipal broadband provider that pushed out Comcast simply by not being, in short, evil. It worked beautifully and eventually got sold to the private market and still is a dominant player in the area. The government basically shoehorned some competition in where the private markets couldn't get a foothold. The Housing Trust model that Bernie helped design in the 80s housing crisis is still going strong, helping people without the means to buy into this inflated market get into their first home. The shared equity in the model means the government money isn't just flowing out, it collects rent, and shares in the profits of sales. Too often dems are painted as a writer of blank checks, and maybe too often we are pushing ideas that are just one-way money outlays without thinking of ways of making systems that are engines of change.
The problem for political talking heads is that while you are 100% correct, the message goes nowhere. Wolf PAC tried to do this and its a wall a million miles high. Corporations run this planet and they have since the Sullivan and Cromwell became the first international corporate law firm and immediately partnered with every fascist on the planet, allowing the truly influential Nazis a safe landing after the war. Fascism is the corporations ideal form of government only people don't like it much so it takes lots of chaos to implement. With Citizens United the US became a fascist state except nobody is willing to believe it.
I’ve given it a few shots too. I was a cofounder of both Justice Democrats and brand new Congress. I wouldn’t say that they didn’t work at all, but definitely they did not do what we intended. I still think there’s an opportunity for such a maneuver.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love to hear it. I was a Bernie delegate from South Dakota in 2016 and helped organize his stops here and secured resources for a few state races when Bernie was getting beat up in the press for not supporting down ballot candidates. Nothing can get done in a political movement within the party. Every single meaningful leader is completely committed to military and corporate interests, and there is no way to oppose it. If you do, the Pentagon will publicly threaten removal of their bases from whatever state you are from, the media will paint you as a commie/fascist, academia will cancel you, and your own party will support the opposition candidate. This has all been repeatedly proven.
Exactly - you said you still think there is an opportunity (assume you meant to reform from within - maybe I read you wrong). But from my view, that has been proven false repeatedly.
The policies you refer to also destroyed the market for high quality imports. Back in the late 80's early 90's I manufactured clothing in Bali. At that time you had fit into restrictive quota limits and pay duty. By the time my products got to the US they were on a level playing field with US manufactured goods. Quota was a commodity apportioned only to reputable exporters and despite the fact that it was supposed to be free, as a manufacturer I had to pay for it. I produced very high quality garments that were hand printed at batik factories and I paid my workers what were exceptionally high wages for the region to insure the high quality. After NAFTA and the rise of predatory box stores like Walmart the market was flooded with cheap junk that US manufacturers could never compete with. I have never understood why people Revere Clinton. NAFTA was the brain child of the Republican party looking to outsource labor, instead of putting on the brakes he signed it into law. I have a deep respect for Jimmy Carter but he was a disaster as a president. Those were the days of even and odd gas lines, clear cuts in our national rain forest and mortgage interest rates were over 16%. It's been a while since we've had a decent president. I won't even start on Obama, he was bought and paid for before he set foot in office. At the very least he should have made the banks pay back the loans as Elizabeth Warren tried to push. He actually separated more families and deported more people than trump did his first time as president and authorized more people to be murdered with drone strikes in civilian areas. He also looked the other way when Russia annexed Crimea.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the massive damage done by the passing of Citizens United during Obama's term.
My theory has been for a long time that we do it with what Bernie calls a "political revolution." Since we live in a firmly two-party system, the most realistic path to reform the country is by rebuilding the Democratic Party from within.
Here's what this would look like: A presidential candidate needs to emerge NOW, not later, who would actively recruit either supportive incumbents or primary challengers united behind a national mission to restore government's role in the economy. In solidly Republican districts like mine, they'd need to back independents who could actually win.
This is similar to what Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats attempted, but what's missing is scale. We need a mass movement that mobilizes people's energy and enthusiasm - and for whatever reason, that only seems to happen through presidential campaigns in this country.
My vision is an FDR-style figure launching a campaign that isn't just about winning the White House, but actively building a coalition of House and Senate candidates committed to restoring American democracy in a real way. And I don't just mean "saving democracy" in the defensive sense we hear today - I mean acknowledging that our democracy itself is broken, just like our economy, and needs to be fundamentally rebuilt.
If that leader emerges, Im right there with them - hoping the onslaught from both the Democrat and Republican Parties doesn't destroy them.
And if that leader doesn't have congressional support it could be a disaster. I was a low level policy advisor in the Bernie 2020 campaign. I always thought "god help us" if he wins but congress remains in the hands of the corporations, because that will decidedly undermine the populist movement.
So even if a leader emerges now, organizing and education around a populist agenda most remain a priority.
Gary Stevenson has a strong message in the UK and it looks like people around him are starting to organize. It is a long long road and it starts at the local level. Don't ever think we can use the Internet to capture big wins - the Internet is only as good as the local efforts it helps organize. What are those efforts? Investing in people even if it is just a few minutes of active listening but especially if it is helping them find resources, lending a hand, but being sure to ask them to contribute in return by staying educated and being a voice of sanity in our community. Tax wealth, not work.
The case can certainly be made that Chuck Schumer is the poster child for turning the Democratic Party, as the author of this article puts it, into “Wall Street's best friend”.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, it was difficult to find a member of Congress as loyal to Wall Street as New York’s senior senator. According to a December 2008 New York Times article about Schumer’s fundraising prowess, John Kerry was the only member of Congress at the time who’d raked in more cash from the securities and investment industry over the course of his career.
This article, which ran just a few months following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the implosion of the global financial system, noted that Schumer had helped raise an astonishing $240 million during the previous four years. During this timeframe, the senator was also instrumental in increasing donations to the party from Wall Street by 50%.
“Donors describe the Schumer pitch as unusually aggressive: He calls repeatedly to suggest breakfast or dinner, coffee or cocktails. He enlists intermediaries to invite prospects to events and recruits several senators to tag along. And he presses for the maximum contribution. “I need you to max out,” he is known to say, then follows up by asking that a donor’s spouse and four or five friends write checks, too,” the article wrote.
Schumer was a fundraising machine and the financial institutions who spent years showering him with cash got what they paid for.
The bankers on Wall Street have always had plenty of friends on Capitol Hill. Few have been as responsive to their interests as Schumer. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, this willingness to play ball was centered mainly on deregulation. Among the provisions Schumer supported were lower capital reserve requirements for banks as well as rolling back requirements that would’ve made corporate balance sheets more transparent. The senator also worked to significantly limit the regulation of credit rating agencies, the institutions whose enthusiasm for rubberstamping toxic securities with AAA ratings led to the ultimate destruction of the economy.
His very vocal advocacy for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, was without a doubt Schumer’s most consequential contribution to the Clinton era spree of runaway financial deregulation.
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era piece of legislation, prohibited financial institutions from operating as both commercial and investment banks for some six decades. Many have argued that rolling back this crucial reform was one of the primary factors that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
After playing such a sizeable role in weakening the regulatory structure designed to keep the financial services industry in check, the senator worked diligently behind the scenes to help craft the Wall Street bailout following the 2008 crash.
“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals. We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”
According to this same Times article, this was how one executive in attendance summarized Schumer’s remarks, which were made by the senator at a breakfast fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan in the runup to the passage of the $700 billion bailout. During the week that followed, executives who’d attended the event “sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.”
I agree with you. However, I am quite fearful about what Trump is doing to America. It is dangerous on so many levels. You offered a solution. Are you going to fight for it as a Democratic candidate?
People are hungry for action. Hungry for dynamic leaders. You are correct with your assessment. Now, to break through the old guard and get honest with ourselves.
Lots of great things in this post. I particularly liked this line:
"We've got a two-fold process ahead of us. First, we need to reform government in such a way that we trust it to work for us. And second, we need to use that reformed government to reform our economy in a way that it works for us."
Love the insights you shared.
Let's transparently harness government power to We the People, and then use that power to rebuild and repair our society.
This is actually in response to your piece "The Democrats Have Disappeared." Well, America gave Dems the finger in 2024, maybe they're just returning the favor. Perhaps the thought process is, time to just let this dumpster fire burn itself out. The people who voted for Trump will suffer the most from his actions, so maybe Dems figure why bother? I'm not saying that's my position, but I suspect it may be for many Dems.
Hey since the democratic party – I’m not a member of any party – being forced to move away from the old guard finally. Bernie and AOC are drawing the crowds
I've been saying much the same thing. We will never win with the Democratic party sabotaging our efforts. The sorry fact is that the dollar as the global reserve currency forces a net import of goods to export dollars. Otherwise the whole thing collapses. You can look up more about Triffin's Dilemma for that, but economists tend to call it the TINA solution, as in There Is No Alternative.
But that's not exactly true. There's no alternative that allows for their continued corruption, fraud, and greed. We could most certainly create a system that benefits the common people, even if we need the great reset to do it. But that would take away their power-money. They fear us.
In the 80s the GOP was winning the fund-raising race, beating Dems badly. Dems then, with some success, sought a big piece of that pie. I hadn't realized at what cost, but once I did I left off being a member of any party. I'd join a party formed around your thinking. Schumer's spine and my interest in the Dem party left town on the same train. Thanks.
Much good thinking here. I agree with almost everything you suggest. I believe the most important move for progressives who understand that the Democrat Party does not represent the needs of working people is to build toward a national agreement on a populist agenda. And what I perceive at this point in time is that the priority of that movement is best served by a focus on demands, not on reshaping the Democrat Party from within. That’s not to say that is not what could happen. But many candidates have falsely cloaked themselves in the mantle of populism. Placing priority on the Dem Party could lead to confusion and disappointment which could weaken the commitment to populism. It’s kind of a “build it and they will come” pragmatism. With events and shifts in the body politic moving so fast, it is not possible to see even 5 years into the future. We have to rip the veil off politicians’ veneer of representing people’s interest, show clearly whose interest politicians serve, and demonstrate how a true populist agenda would manifest through governmental policy and action.
I’m curious how you and the author see the Working Families Party. It seems to be a blend of both what you and the author suggest.
I thoroughly appreciate all of this line of thinking. But it leaves us with some serious challenges, perhaps rejoinders.
For now, I am thinking of these: consider the role of Elizabeth Warren in the 16 and 20 cycles; the Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Wolf PAC, all of which I was supportive of; Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush being taken out by AIPAC; that Obama nor Bernie nor anyone for that matter amassed the organization necessary to effectuate this exact scenario described in this piece and the others in this series; that the Green New Deal didn’t materialize into a massive program; that Democrats flinched in the filibuster (and may like to have it now); that Manchin and Sinema held up large swaths of the Biden agenda, and that Biden also governed like a progressive Republican — there wasn’t a Theodore Roosevelt Bully Pulpit, nor was there a new, New Deal.
I want the future described here. But we live in a world where” Trump is for you. Kamala is for They/Them” wins. Where the dog whistle politics since Reagan and before, win. But it’s not only that; it’s the massive money. It’s the work of Leonard Leo capturing SCOTUS. It’s the massive asymmetries pointed out by this author in other pieces in this series, as well as Rachel Bitecofer in “Fight Like You Mean It.”
Matthew, i believe there are many good people working in the progressive organizations throughout the US, and Working Families Party is in that group. I do hold an old concern about the WFP: the 2019 endorsement of Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren is among the best of liberals with an excellent program to rein in the markets. But she is a Free Market believer, she posited in the 2019 primaries that private industry could solve the US dependence on fossil fuel, commenting at one point "What do I can if someone makes a buck off solar panels." That is the fork in the road for me with Elizabeth Warren. It was disappointing that the WFP had not educated their own membership about the difference between reliance on the free market and reliance on government works to build infrastructure, particularly on the transition from fossil fuels. Bernie's climate program was genius and impossible to be replicated by private industry.
First, I want to point out that Trump only won via massive voter suppression and election interference, with strong evidence of outright fraud in the swing states. (https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won-c6f?r=2lkf6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false)
The thing about the Democratic party is that they're a poisoned well and most everyone knows it. That's why people don't vote and that's why we see out efforts sabotaged over and over again.
We can move forward, we can demand ranked choice voting and pull together some 150 million Americans for a real party that binds together over creating a free and fair political system to end exploitation. We just have to see that we have the power. Many other movements have done it; Serbia, Ukraine, Armenia, Egypt, South Africa.
We can too.
Ranked choice voting will not solve the problem. The problem is both parties are too close to their oligarchic donors to do anything for the people who voted for them. Here’s a simple plan:
Build grass root efforts to demand their representatives take prompt action to Constitutionally reverse Citizens United, allowing only sentient human beings to contribute to those they want to represent them and only in a reasonable maximum amount per person. If the candidates for office refuse to accept the demand, vote against them. Pass a petition around to every voter to sign and pledge to. When candidates refuse the demand, expose them in every form of media in existence. More citizens will sign up. In the end the puppets of Big Money will be voted out, leaving people responsive to we the people.
This is not a difficult task since almost all voters agree big money has corrupted our politics. it only requires the voters to pledge they’ll vote the bastards out and then follow through by voting for the guy who agreed to our citizen demand.
No more AIPAC. No more military industrial complex; big pharma and big banks controlling the Government. Elon Misk would be limited to donating a few thousand dollars as would George Soros, Bill Gates et al. No more big so called independent PAC committees with deceitful names. And all we have to do is unite; give a few hours of time and pledge to vote against those who will not introduce and genuinely support the end of Big Money in politics.
Tell me a better, simpler and more effective way to take back our government or don’t try at all and end up serfs in the kingdom of the rich. Because that is what is happening and will happen if we do not act quickly, unitedly and effectively. This is a bipartisan single issue.
You just stated the problem is both our parties are corrupt, but claim ranked choice isn’t the answer? That’s HOW we get a third party for the actual people.
That’s the only way any of that other stuff is going to happen. I don’t care how many people you have calling for it, the politicians still have to create LAW to make change. The ones we have are never going to do that.
There are no good choices, but we have to do something drastic. Ranked choice is preferable in my opinion than what we have. I’m just saying it won’t get rid of Big Money.
That's why we need to use it to run a third party on two basic principles: create a free and fair political process & end neoliberal exploitation.
(see the 2nd half of this post: https://peoplespartyus.substack.com/p/oh-my-god-its-sabotage)
Well said, “what kind of country takes food out of the mouths of hungry children and health care away from poor people, to make billionaires richer?
The part you are missing is the money that has infiltrated politics during this era. That is the real distinction between these politicians and FDR that you miss. It is also the driver that has forced the change in ideology. When politician are up against corporate backed Republicans in multimillion dollar races for elections, they have to figure out how to fund their races. Middle and working class people cannot provide a similar war chest. In the end, Democrats have to answer to the hand that feeds them. Until we have major changes in campaign finance, the trends you see will not and cannot change.
You make a crucial point about money in politics. But I see campaign finance as a symptom of a deeper problem: we've allowed our government to abdicate its power to corporations and markets.
The government was meant to be our collective power center, our tool for balancing corporate influence. Instead, we've systematically dismantled that capacity, creating a vacuum that corporate money naturally filled.
The revolving door between industry and government isn't just about individual corruption - it's about a fundamental shift in how we view government's role. When we decided government shouldn't build, shouldn't compete, shouldn't serve as a counterweight to corporate power, we created the conditions for money to dominate our politics.
Campaign finance reform is essential, but without restoring government's role as a builder and competitor serving public interests, the underlying power imbalance will remain. The money follows the power - and we've given far too much away.
You say, "We've allowed our government to abdicate its power to corporations and markets." But isn't it far more accurate to say that corporate power has been clawing its way into government, using bribery and other forms of manipulation of the weakest political representatives and most craven protectors of corporate power to open those doors and shut others out of government? It certainly wasn't as passive as, "we allowed the government to abdicate..." As if we the people had some sway. Little by little, the rules changed to give those with money more say than those without. Now the corruption is complete and hopelessly out of control with anonymous crypto bribes running everything. Talk about a shadow government!
I'm so totally with you on government as a competitor when markets fail- we have a local municipal broadband provider that pushed out Comcast simply by not being, in short, evil. It worked beautifully and eventually got sold to the private market and still is a dominant player in the area. The government basically shoehorned some competition in where the private markets couldn't get a foothold. The Housing Trust model that Bernie helped design in the 80s housing crisis is still going strong, helping people without the means to buy into this inflated market get into their first home. The shared equity in the model means the government money isn't just flowing out, it collects rent, and shares in the profits of sales. Too often dems are painted as a writer of blank checks, and maybe too often we are pushing ideas that are just one-way money outlays without thinking of ways of making systems that are engines of change.
The problem for political talking heads is that while you are 100% correct, the message goes nowhere. Wolf PAC tried to do this and its a wall a million miles high. Corporations run this planet and they have since the Sullivan and Cromwell became the first international corporate law firm and immediately partnered with every fascist on the planet, allowing the truly influential Nazis a safe landing after the war. Fascism is the corporations ideal form of government only people don't like it much so it takes lots of chaos to implement. With Citizens United the US became a fascist state except nobody is willing to believe it.
I’ve given it a few shots too. I was a cofounder of both Justice Democrats and brand new Congress. I wouldn’t say that they didn’t work at all, but definitely they did not do what we intended. I still think there’s an opportunity for such a maneuver.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love to hear it. I was a Bernie delegate from South Dakota in 2016 and helped organize his stops here and secured resources for a few state races when Bernie was getting beat up in the press for not supporting down ballot candidates. Nothing can get done in a political movement within the party. Every single meaningful leader is completely committed to military and corporate interests, and there is no way to oppose it. If you do, the Pentagon will publicly threaten removal of their bases from whatever state you are from, the media will paint you as a commie/fascist, academia will cancel you, and your own party will support the opposition candidate. This has all been repeatedly proven.
Which claims? That it's still possible?
Exactly - you said you still think there is an opportunity (assume you meant to reform from within - maybe I read you wrong). But from my view, that has been proven false repeatedly.
Bernie Sanders managed to run a powerful campaign without corporate money, and was attacked viciously by the corporate democrats for showing them up.
The policies you refer to also destroyed the market for high quality imports. Back in the late 80's early 90's I manufactured clothing in Bali. At that time you had fit into restrictive quota limits and pay duty. By the time my products got to the US they were on a level playing field with US manufactured goods. Quota was a commodity apportioned only to reputable exporters and despite the fact that it was supposed to be free, as a manufacturer I had to pay for it. I produced very high quality garments that were hand printed at batik factories and I paid my workers what were exceptionally high wages for the region to insure the high quality. After NAFTA and the rise of predatory box stores like Walmart the market was flooded with cheap junk that US manufacturers could never compete with. I have never understood why people Revere Clinton. NAFTA was the brain child of the Republican party looking to outsource labor, instead of putting on the brakes he signed it into law. I have a deep respect for Jimmy Carter but he was a disaster as a president. Those were the days of even and odd gas lines, clear cuts in our national rain forest and mortgage interest rates were over 16%. It's been a while since we've had a decent president. I won't even start on Obama, he was bought and paid for before he set foot in office. At the very least he should have made the banks pay back the loans as Elizabeth Warren tried to push. He actually separated more families and deported more people than trump did his first time as president and authorized more people to be murdered with drone strikes in civilian areas. He also looked the other way when Russia annexed Crimea.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the massive damage done by the passing of Citizens United during Obama's term.
How do we retake our country???
My theory has been for a long time that we do it with what Bernie calls a "political revolution." Since we live in a firmly two-party system, the most realistic path to reform the country is by rebuilding the Democratic Party from within.
Here's what this would look like: A presidential candidate needs to emerge NOW, not later, who would actively recruit either supportive incumbents or primary challengers united behind a national mission to restore government's role in the economy. In solidly Republican districts like mine, they'd need to back independents who could actually win.
This is similar to what Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats attempted, but what's missing is scale. We need a mass movement that mobilizes people's energy and enthusiasm - and for whatever reason, that only seems to happen through presidential campaigns in this country.
My vision is an FDR-style figure launching a campaign that isn't just about winning the White House, but actively building a coalition of House and Senate candidates committed to restoring American democracy in a real way. And I don't just mean "saving democracy" in the defensive sense we hear today - I mean acknowledging that our democracy itself is broken, just like our economy, and needs to be fundamentally rebuilt.
If that leader emerges, Im right there with them - hoping the onslaught from both the Democrat and Republican Parties doesn't destroy them.
And if that leader doesn't have congressional support it could be a disaster. I was a low level policy advisor in the Bernie 2020 campaign. I always thought "god help us" if he wins but congress remains in the hands of the corporations, because that will decidedly undermine the populist movement.
So even if a leader emerges now, organizing and education around a populist agenda most remain a priority.
Gary Stevenson has a strong message in the UK and it looks like people around him are starting to organize. It is a long long road and it starts at the local level. Don't ever think we can use the Internet to capture big wins - the Internet is only as good as the local efforts it helps organize. What are those efforts? Investing in people even if it is just a few minutes of active listening but especially if it is helping them find resources, lending a hand, but being sure to ask them to contribute in return by staying educated and being a voice of sanity in our community. Tax wealth, not work.
The case can certainly be made that Chuck Schumer is the poster child for turning the Democratic Party, as the author of this article puts it, into “Wall Street's best friend”.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, it was difficult to find a member of Congress as loyal to Wall Street as New York’s senior senator. According to a December 2008 New York Times article about Schumer’s fundraising prowess, John Kerry was the only member of Congress at the time who’d raked in more cash from the securities and investment industry over the course of his career.
This article, which ran just a few months following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the implosion of the global financial system, noted that Schumer had helped raise an astonishing $240 million during the previous four years. During this timeframe, the senator was also instrumental in increasing donations to the party from Wall Street by 50%.
“Donors describe the Schumer pitch as unusually aggressive: He calls repeatedly to suggest breakfast or dinner, coffee or cocktails. He enlists intermediaries to invite prospects to events and recruits several senators to tag along. And he presses for the maximum contribution. “I need you to max out,” he is known to say, then follows up by asking that a donor’s spouse and four or five friends write checks, too,” the article wrote.
Schumer was a fundraising machine and the financial institutions who spent years showering him with cash got what they paid for.
The bankers on Wall Street have always had plenty of friends on Capitol Hill. Few have been as responsive to their interests as Schumer. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, this willingness to play ball was centered mainly on deregulation. Among the provisions Schumer supported were lower capital reserve requirements for banks as well as rolling back requirements that would’ve made corporate balance sheets more transparent. The senator also worked to significantly limit the regulation of credit rating agencies, the institutions whose enthusiasm for rubberstamping toxic securities with AAA ratings led to the ultimate destruction of the economy.
His very vocal advocacy for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, was without a doubt Schumer’s most consequential contribution to the Clinton era spree of runaway financial deregulation.
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era piece of legislation, prohibited financial institutions from operating as both commercial and investment banks for some six decades. Many have argued that rolling back this crucial reform was one of the primary factors that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
After playing such a sizeable role in weakening the regulatory structure designed to keep the financial services industry in check, the senator worked diligently behind the scenes to help craft the Wall Street bailout following the 2008 crash.
“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals. We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”
According to this same Times article, this was how one executive in attendance summarized Schumer’s remarks, which were made by the senator at a breakfast fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan in the runup to the passage of the $700 billion bailout. During the week that followed, executives who’d attended the event “sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.”
It was a poor choice for Democrats to turn away from main street and worship at the altar of Wall Street.
If I were a Democrat running for office, I'd ask myself and others in that party, WWBD? (what would Bernie do) and then do it.
I agree with you. However, I am quite fearful about what Trump is doing to America. It is dangerous on so many levels. You offered a solution. Are you going to fight for it as a Democratic candidate?
I'm hoping just to have a little bit of input and influence on the direction of the party.
People are hungry for action. Hungry for dynamic leaders. You are correct with your assessment. Now, to break through the old guard and get honest with ourselves.
Lots of great things in this post. I particularly liked this line:
"We've got a two-fold process ahead of us. First, we need to reform government in such a way that we trust it to work for us. And second, we need to use that reformed government to reform our economy in a way that it works for us."
Love the insights you shared.
Let's transparently harness government power to We the People, and then use that power to rebuild and repair our society.
Talk about raising all boats.... the only boats being raised are yachts that 99% of us can't afford.
This is actually in response to your piece "The Democrats Have Disappeared." Well, America gave Dems the finger in 2024, maybe they're just returning the favor. Perhaps the thought process is, time to just let this dumpster fire burn itself out. The people who voted for Trump will suffer the most from his actions, so maybe Dems figure why bother? I'm not saying that's my position, but I suspect it may be for many Dems.
The answer is sortition in place of elections.
The odds favor improvements in the White House. But we need people with demonstrated skills,Not just another anybody.
Democrats won’t save us! FUCK THEM!!! Need a working class people’s party.
Hey since the democratic party – I’m not a member of any party – being forced to move away from the old guard finally. Bernie and AOC are drawing the crowds
I've been saying much the same thing. We will never win with the Democratic party sabotaging our efforts. The sorry fact is that the dollar as the global reserve currency forces a net import of goods to export dollars. Otherwise the whole thing collapses. You can look up more about Triffin's Dilemma for that, but economists tend to call it the TINA solution, as in There Is No Alternative.
But that's not exactly true. There's no alternative that allows for their continued corruption, fraud, and greed. We could most certainly create a system that benefits the common people, even if we need the great reset to do it. But that would take away their power-money. They fear us.
https://peoplespartyus.substack.com/p/oh-my-god-its-sabotage?r=2lkf6n
In the 80s the GOP was winning the fund-raising race, beating Dems badly. Dems then, with some success, sought a big piece of that pie. I hadn't realized at what cost, but once I did I left off being a member of any party. I'd join a party formed around your thinking. Schumer's spine and my interest in the Dem party left town on the same train. Thanks.