Hakeem Jeffries thinks the path back to power for Democrats is focusing on “kitchen table issues,” waiting for Trump to self-destruct, and avoiding challenging Trump on his increasing constitutional violations in immigration enforcement, the deployment of military to cities.
Thank you for this excellent post, Mike. For detailing exactly what is wrong with both of our two major parties. The inability to let go of the funding and stand up for what is right. To put our country over party. To uphold our oath as citizens and elected officials to support and defend our Constitution. My God! The 2026 midterms and the 2028 Presidential Election are exactly about Trump's and the current administration's contempt for and complete destruction of our constitutional republic. "Kitchen table" issues mean nothing if we no longer live in a free country. This is why I am an Independent. This is why I have been attending rallies in support and defense of our constitution and the rule of law since February 2025. Because I love my country!
May our constitutional republic be restored. May our country have a new birth of freedom.
I do not love our country. I hate what it has become-from a land of opportunity to a land of opportunists. I grew up with a distant father, but he did teach me a few crucial concepts. "Son, if you do something, do it right or don't do it at all." -Bernard Strum
What I have done, from cutting grass, to working in a laboratory, to become a physician treating cancer patients for the last 50 years, I do right. I place patient outcome before physician income. That is the old-fashioned work ethic that make America great. That is
just about gone now. Our world has become one of the quick and dirty, and it's all about greed based in Consumerism. Christianity is rare. Consumerism is everywhere. If we could resurrect Wordsworth, he would say:
"The world is too much with us, late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers,
Too little in Nature we see that is ours."
If you want perspective on how far we have fallen, and what we could do to start to change things for the better, read Wendell Berry's "A Continuous Harmony" or his "The Road to Ignorance." Those will turn you into Berry aficionados. Berry is 91. He lives in a small town called Port Royal, in Kentucky. That's a person with perspective. There's a man that like you and me and others that proposes constructive approaches to fix what we have destroyed in the US and in the world.
I have listened to Mamdani's speeches. I have not seen enough of his perspective in his 34 years of age to warrant what I would consider unbridled enthusiasm. I have learned also that the old adages are truths borne out by history. I realize their value.
At least Mamdani offers a way forward, which is more than the Democratic Party Establishment does. Not everything he tries will succeed, and many of the Billionaires will leave NYC in a minute and a huff—but enough of them see that what Mike Brock calls "economic royalism" leads to a future THEY don't want either, and so will stay and accept a higher tax rate in exchange for publicly-run supermarkets and free buses.
What is being offered by the overwhelming majority is what should be considered "generic" political bullshit. "I will lower food prices, decrease healthcare costs, solve immigration, fix the damage we have done to the Earth" and blah, blah, blah. If you came to me with a cancer diagnosis and my only remark was "I'll get rid of your cancer" would you not want to know "how?" It's the same old story of not hearing the details of a strategy. "I'll win the war." But how? Tell me what you plan to do in depth- don't present me with generalizations.
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The merit of a politician is in the doing- not in the professing or promises that are rarely ever realized.
“The Democratic establishment raises money from concentrated wealth.” You can largely thank Citizens United vs FEC for this; that ill-considered judgement should be hung around John Roberts’ neck and then engraved on his tombstone.
“The framework is dead. It died somewhere between 2008’s financial crisis response that bailed out banks while abandoning homeowners.” This was another nail in the coffin; it told the people in no uncertain terms that corporations were too big to fail, but the people could be allowed to fail en masse.
I agree completely with everything you wrote; is it OK if I send a link to my Democratic senators?
This is a dagger: "It worked for FDR, who won four terms not by promising to abolish capitalism but by fighting to preserve democratic capitalism against the oligarchs who would transform it into feudalism. The model exists. The opening is there—Trump’s authoritarian overreach plus establishment paralysis equals desperate need for someone who’ll actually fight."
.
Since FDR, the plutocrats and the oligarchs have schemed how to regain power. The rise of the New Right in the late 1970's was the beginning of that comeback tour, and now they have essentially retaken all the levers of power (and they have consolidated the largest media properties within their grubby paws).
As usual, you are articulating what I think I am seeing, but providing a framework for that thinking. We need a vision of the future where the fair treatment of everyone matters. There is no reason children should go hungry, or families should forego health insurance or medicine because they can’t afford it. This is not just unfair, it is systematic injustice. All of us are part of a society — for some, they are able to make more out of what we have. But we all kind of chipped in to that success. It’s infuriating that rich people don’t want to pay an increased marginal tax rate of 2%. Which, of course, is easier to sell than a wealth tax — but it’s time we talked about how this country can work and, surely, it isn’t working now. We need to make our voices heard by electing the non-establishment Dems — or maybe we need a whole new party.
This is a fine piece overall (per usual), yet it misses the
Nuance in Maine's upcoming election. Talk about "liberal populism!" Three times in a row the people of Maine instituted ranked choice voting as a way to curb its long history of minority rule. Only twice in a row did the state legislature override the referenda, erasing ranked choice voting. On the third try, it stuck. The result of this is that it really does not matter whether the Zombie Democrats are right or wrong in backing Janet Mills, the 77-year-old governor, as its candidate for Federal Senate. Voters will rank their preferences for Mills and Graham Platner, and whoever gets the most votes will win. Grassroots campaigns become practical under ranked choice voting, because it kills the need for strategic voting — voting for whom one thinks could win, rather than whom one wants.
Mills, the 77-year-old governor, is actually a long-time, quietly radical politician of proven ability. The notion that she would never stand up to anyone who mattered is simply wrong. At a meeting of governors, when Trump tried to dominate her, she talked right back to him, saying, "See you in court." Then, she sued him and won. As Maine's attorney general, she regularly fought Paul LePage, the terrible Republican governor who did a lot of damage in two terms despite never winning an election. Before ranked choice voting, he only needed to allow the Democrats to lose, by splitting the vote between too many candidates. Mills knows how to operate in politics, the essential skill for the office.
Platner is a wildcard. He talks a great game and is currently favored, but he has yet to show whether he has any ability to govern. He may, but whether he does is unknown. How well can he read, write, and understand law? How well can he negotiate? Manage staff? (Some management ability is necessary; this differs from "managing" public opinion.) He may be great in these regards, or perhaps a latent inability will, eventually, kill his campaign — or not. Angry voters may elevate him without considering these issues.
It's not enough to go to Washington and rail against the system. One must know how to work with it and fight it.
Personally, I could see where Janet Mills might catch less flack if she were running for a two-year term as a Representative at the age of 77. Then again, Angus King is 81, and doing a fine job as Maine's other Senator. There is nothing wrong with respecting the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Other cultures do, but the United States does not. Besides, Mills and Platner are running against well-entrenched Susan Collins, who is always very concerned, but whose main skill is saying all the right things before foolishly voting with Trump. She MUST go! Either Platner or Mills would be better, regardless how well they governed.
I think this is insightful and wholly correct. But, I think you omitted something that George Romero knew quite well. The dead cannot hear the living but they can still crush the life out of them.
Schumer and Jeffries may not be able to win against Trump. The Abundance crowd may never catch fire outside of the badge space. But they can still kill off many many promising candidates and promising paths by dropping insane sums on primaries, sucking up the ad-buy and convincing older Democrats to vote against their conscience for the sake of "victory".
Not to mix metaphors but our fight is against the dictator on the throne, *and* the army of darkness.
Mike - you have explained the actual root of our political problems - this clearly details the dilemma we’re facing - democratic leadership is dependent on oligarchs too! - Bernie Sanders and AOC have been trying to get this message out - we need to share this message through Independent media as the mainstream media are the beneficiaries of the oligarchs advertising money - thank you for being an independent thinker - this is an essential message
Mike, I'm with you in sentiment, but I can't wrap my head around how the Democratic Party could hope to compete against the amalgamated propaganda machine of the GOP without the money and help of rich donors. And I'd venture a guess the Democratic establishment can't wrap their heads around it, either. What's going to replace the party's infrastructure when donors stop donating? Do they not need as much money as they spend? Will they have any hope of countering GOP propaganda? How will they get their messages out, buy ads, get publicity (or q-score, or whatever the equivalent is now), hold events, knock doors, and do all the unglamorous work of party politics? The change you're implying here is too big for this little brain to comprehend.
An individual candidate can concentrate on small donors. But that candidate relies on the party infrastructure and on PACs and superPACs funded by rich people.
Another spot on essay. When I was very young, my father told me that concentrated power always leads to a loss of freedom and opportunity for those not holding it. Whether the power held be financial or military or marketplace or governmental or judicial or religious or ideological…Diffusing overly concentrated power and disbursing it among a greater number of constituencies would allow so many more of us to participate in the dance of democracy…
I think you've said it without saying it: the nemesis of concentrated power resides in our UNdemocratic economic system. Expunge the lies coming from the "wise men" of the corporate world. Technical and financial "landlords" rule capitalism right now, but capitalism doesn't need them to succeed -- a participating working class and rigorous protective regulatory administration can make capitalism work the way it's supposed to, and spare us from the ultimate fascist holocaust (6th Mass Extinction).
We can’t expect change by doing the same thing over and over again. It’s time to energize our base — the working class. That means fighting for real, common-sense wins: a universal single-payer healthcare system that puts people before corporate profits, getting money out of politics, repealing Citizens United, and ending the insider game of politicians profiting from stock trades.
we will have the leadership we need into the future, keep driving toward democracy, and make leaders do the work of the people, corporate dosnt want the people to succeed, never stop struggling forward, the leaders will appear when we need them, keep focused on ending this unlawful, illegal assault in democracy, its the most inmportant endeavor of our lives…
P. S. to my ealier comment, kudos to the reader from Maine who intelligently described the situation there w/Platner & Mills. (Unfortunately I've managed to lose the original thread in the comment stream.) I think its important to hear from knowledgeable people on the ground in places where these important races are happening, not just from outside observers looking at them from a national perspective.
Thank you for this excellent post, Mike. For detailing exactly what is wrong with both of our two major parties. The inability to let go of the funding and stand up for what is right. To put our country over party. To uphold our oath as citizens and elected officials to support and defend our Constitution. My God! The 2026 midterms and the 2028 Presidential Election are exactly about Trump's and the current administration's contempt for and complete destruction of our constitutional republic. "Kitchen table" issues mean nothing if we no longer live in a free country. This is why I am an Independent. This is why I have been attending rallies in support and defense of our constitution and the rule of law since February 2025. Because I love my country!
May our constitutional republic be restored. May our country have a new birth of freedom.
I do not love our country. I hate what it has become-from a land of opportunity to a land of opportunists. I grew up with a distant father, but he did teach me a few crucial concepts. "Son, if you do something, do it right or don't do it at all." -Bernard Strum
What I have done, from cutting grass, to working in a laboratory, to become a physician treating cancer patients for the last 50 years, I do right. I place patient outcome before physician income. That is the old-fashioned work ethic that make America great. That is
just about gone now. Our world has become one of the quick and dirty, and it's all about greed based in Consumerism. Christianity is rare. Consumerism is everywhere. If we could resurrect Wordsworth, he would say:
"The world is too much with us, late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers,
Too little in Nature we see that is ours."
If you want perspective on how far we have fallen, and what we could do to start to change things for the better, read Wendell Berry's "A Continuous Harmony" or his "The Road to Ignorance." Those will turn you into Berry aficionados. Berry is 91. He lives in a small town called Port Royal, in Kentucky. That's a person with perspective. There's a man that like you and me and others that proposes constructive approaches to fix what we have destroyed in the US and in the world.
I have listened to Mamdani's speeches. I have not seen enough of his perspective in his 34 years of age to warrant what I would consider unbridled enthusiasm. I have learned also that the old adages are truths borne out by history. I realize their value.
"Vee Get Too Soon Olt Und Too Late Schmart!"
At least Mamdani offers a way forward, which is more than the Democratic Party Establishment does. Not everything he tries will succeed, and many of the Billionaires will leave NYC in a minute and a huff—but enough of them see that what Mike Brock calls "economic royalism" leads to a future THEY don't want either, and so will stay and accept a higher tax rate in exchange for publicly-run supermarkets and free buses.
What is being offered by the overwhelming majority is what should be considered "generic" political bullshit. "I will lower food prices, decrease healthcare costs, solve immigration, fix the damage we have done to the Earth" and blah, blah, blah. If you came to me with a cancer diagnosis and my only remark was "I'll get rid of your cancer" would you not want to know "how?" It's the same old story of not hearing the details of a strategy. "I'll win the war." But how? Tell me what you plan to do in depth- don't present me with generalizations.
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The merit of a politician is in the doing- not in the professing or promises that are rarely ever realized.
If you mean Mamdani, he plans to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the 1%—he's certainly said it enough times.
This is incredibly insightful and gets at the core of my hatred for the Dem establishment.
“The Democratic establishment raises money from concentrated wealth.” You can largely thank Citizens United vs FEC for this; that ill-considered judgement should be hung around John Roberts’ neck and then engraved on his tombstone.
“The framework is dead. It died somewhere between 2008’s financial crisis response that bailed out banks while abandoning homeowners.” This was another nail in the coffin; it told the people in no uncertain terms that corporations were too big to fail, but the people could be allowed to fail en masse.
I agree completely with everything you wrote; is it OK if I send a link to my Democratic senators?
…they’re all corporate, families with lobbyists and more then half of the congress are millionaires, career politician supposed to be an oxymoron
Thank you for plainly stating what is plaining unfolding. Now, action.
This is a dagger: "It worked for FDR, who won four terms not by promising to abolish capitalism but by fighting to preserve democratic capitalism against the oligarchs who would transform it into feudalism. The model exists. The opening is there—Trump’s authoritarian overreach plus establishment paralysis equals desperate need for someone who’ll actually fight."
.
Since FDR, the plutocrats and the oligarchs have schemed how to regain power. The rise of the New Right in the late 1970's was the beginning of that comeback tour, and now they have essentially retaken all the levers of power (and they have consolidated the largest media properties within their grubby paws).
As usual, you are articulating what I think I am seeing, but providing a framework for that thinking. We need a vision of the future where the fair treatment of everyone matters. There is no reason children should go hungry, or families should forego health insurance or medicine because they can’t afford it. This is not just unfair, it is systematic injustice. All of us are part of a society — for some, they are able to make more out of what we have. But we all kind of chipped in to that success. It’s infuriating that rich people don’t want to pay an increased marginal tax rate of 2%. Which, of course, is easier to sell than a wealth tax — but it’s time we talked about how this country can work and, surely, it isn’t working now. We need to make our voices heard by electing the non-establishment Dems — or maybe we need a whole new party.
This is a fine piece overall (per usual), yet it misses the
Nuance in Maine's upcoming election. Talk about "liberal populism!" Three times in a row the people of Maine instituted ranked choice voting as a way to curb its long history of minority rule. Only twice in a row did the state legislature override the referenda, erasing ranked choice voting. On the third try, it stuck. The result of this is that it really does not matter whether the Zombie Democrats are right or wrong in backing Janet Mills, the 77-year-old governor, as its candidate for Federal Senate. Voters will rank their preferences for Mills and Graham Platner, and whoever gets the most votes will win. Grassroots campaigns become practical under ranked choice voting, because it kills the need for strategic voting — voting for whom one thinks could win, rather than whom one wants.
Mills, the 77-year-old governor, is actually a long-time, quietly radical politician of proven ability. The notion that she would never stand up to anyone who mattered is simply wrong. At a meeting of governors, when Trump tried to dominate her, she talked right back to him, saying, "See you in court." Then, she sued him and won. As Maine's attorney general, she regularly fought Paul LePage, the terrible Republican governor who did a lot of damage in two terms despite never winning an election. Before ranked choice voting, he only needed to allow the Democrats to lose, by splitting the vote between too many candidates. Mills knows how to operate in politics, the essential skill for the office.
Platner is a wildcard. He talks a great game and is currently favored, but he has yet to show whether he has any ability to govern. He may, but whether he does is unknown. How well can he read, write, and understand law? How well can he negotiate? Manage staff? (Some management ability is necessary; this differs from "managing" public opinion.) He may be great in these regards, or perhaps a latent inability will, eventually, kill his campaign — or not. Angry voters may elevate him without considering these issues.
It's not enough to go to Washington and rail against the system. One must know how to work with it and fight it.
Personally, I could see where Janet Mills might catch less flack if she were running for a two-year term as a Representative at the age of 77. Then again, Angus King is 81, and doing a fine job as Maine's other Senator. There is nothing wrong with respecting the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Other cultures do, but the United States does not. Besides, Mills and Platner are running against well-entrenched Susan Collins, who is always very concerned, but whose main skill is saying all the right things before foolishly voting with Trump. She MUST go! Either Platner or Mills would be better, regardless how well they governed.
I think this is insightful and wholly correct. But, I think you omitted something that George Romero knew quite well. The dead cannot hear the living but they can still crush the life out of them.
Schumer and Jeffries may not be able to win against Trump. The Abundance crowd may never catch fire outside of the badge space. But they can still kill off many many promising candidates and promising paths by dropping insane sums on primaries, sucking up the ad-buy and convincing older Democrats to vote against their conscience for the sake of "victory".
Not to mix metaphors but our fight is against the dictator on the throne, *and* the army of darkness.
Mike - you have explained the actual root of our political problems - this clearly details the dilemma we’re facing - democratic leadership is dependent on oligarchs too! - Bernie Sanders and AOC have been trying to get this message out - we need to share this message through Independent media as the mainstream media are the beneficiaries of the oligarchs advertising money - thank you for being an independent thinker - this is an essential message
Mike, I'm with you in sentiment, but I can't wrap my head around how the Democratic Party could hope to compete against the amalgamated propaganda machine of the GOP without the money and help of rich donors. And I'd venture a guess the Democratic establishment can't wrap their heads around it, either. What's going to replace the party's infrastructure when donors stop donating? Do they not need as much money as they spend? Will they have any hope of countering GOP propaganda? How will they get their messages out, buy ads, get publicity (or q-score, or whatever the equivalent is now), hold events, knock doors, and do all the unglamorous work of party politics? The change you're implying here is too big for this little brain to comprehend.
We can do it by supporting non establishment candidates as small donors
An individual candidate can concentrate on small donors. But that candidate relies on the party infrastructure and on PACs and superPACs funded by rich people.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". - Upton Sinclair
Another spot on essay. When I was very young, my father told me that concentrated power always leads to a loss of freedom and opportunity for those not holding it. Whether the power held be financial or military or marketplace or governmental or judicial or religious or ideological…Diffusing overly concentrated power and disbursing it among a greater number of constituencies would allow so many more of us to participate in the dance of democracy…
I think you've said it without saying it: the nemesis of concentrated power resides in our UNdemocratic economic system. Expunge the lies coming from the "wise men" of the corporate world. Technical and financial "landlords" rule capitalism right now, but capitalism doesn't need them to succeed -- a participating working class and rigorous protective regulatory administration can make capitalism work the way it's supposed to, and spare us from the ultimate fascist holocaust (6th Mass Extinction).
We can’t expect change by doing the same thing over and over again. It’s time to energize our base — the working class. That means fighting for real, common-sense wins: a universal single-payer healthcare system that puts people before corporate profits, getting money out of politics, repealing Citizens United, and ending the insider game of politicians profiting from stock trades.
we will have the leadership we need into the future, keep driving toward democracy, and make leaders do the work of the people, corporate dosnt want the people to succeed, never stop struggling forward, the leaders will appear when we need them, keep focused on ending this unlawful, illegal assault in democracy, its the most inmportant endeavor of our lives…
P. S. to my ealier comment, kudos to the reader from Maine who intelligently described the situation there w/Platner & Mills. (Unfortunately I've managed to lose the original thread in the comment stream.) I think its important to hear from knowledgeable people on the ground in places where these important races are happening, not just from outside observers looking at them from a national perspective.