All. Of. This. As a Californian and a homeowner, I have learned to lean into SB-79 and to Newsom. Like FDR, he may not be perfect, but thank the gods, he's not afraid to throw a punch. I know the fear of every community left out of the original New Deal, especially with Newsom's flirtation with the podcast bros, is that we will somehow again be the disposable bargaining chip as Dems jockey for their next Savior. Still, we are the most pragmatic of all. If he shows up to fight, I am ready to rally behind him. Bring it on, pretty boy, you got this! BTW, as someone who worked in script development for many years, you wrote some damn good Newsom monologues there, Mike!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! My husband Whit Blauvelt (whose name you might recall) and I had a heated discussion about populism last night over dinner, prompted by the apparent implosion of Graham Platner's senate run in Maine. My argument was that if Democrats want to forge a liberal version of populism, we have to stop looking primarily to these stereotypical candidates -- people we think represent the working class -- but in practice who sometimes end up being not so progressive or even liberal (another case in point, John Fetterman). Whit seemed to be arguing that populism isn't even a very useful term for Democrats. I think you've shown precisely how it can be used, even if we don't explicitly say, "hey, here's a liberal populist for you!" Could an oyster farmer/former marine be a great candidate for office? Sure. But let's not let those demographics be our criteria or the things we latch onto as "electability." Look at the distinction between Cuomo and Mamdani in NYC. I think Mamdani represents the same things you are praising (hoping will come to fruition) in Newsom -- smart, educated, perhaps from an elite background, but willing to take on those elites. Cuomo has tried to smear Mamdani as just another elite. But look at who just got Adams's endorsement.
There's some indication that Mainers are standing behind him, and I think Sanders continues to endorse him. Let's hope he can defeat Collins and prove to be the real thing in the Senate. I'm not a Mainer, but my friend who is says Mills is a mixed bag --great for standing up to Trump, but not so great on local issues. She's also of the age where Democrats need to step aside.
In the spirit of "divide and conquer," which worked for the Romans, yet as an admirer of both FDR and Bernie, here's my quibble with the "populist" stance: If we're to gain advantage against the concentrations of wealth, we'll do well to divide those concentrations. For instance, for the energy transition, we need those who are innovating in and building green energy to bring more political leverage, and help directly confront the oil-igarchy. For housing, we need the large, rich home-building firms -- despite the tasteless architectures they largely favor -- to find the same profit potentials Levitt once did in building tens of thousands of entry-level homes, and bring political leverage against the zoning which prevents them. To conquer the rich, we'll do well to divide them, enlisting some substantial portion to real opportunities congruent with our side.
When the Roundheads rose against Charles I, who was similarly focused on collecting tariffs beyond the will of the legislature, he lost because the anti-royalist side had a substantial number of the wealthy with seats in Commons and Lords finding common purpose. We have lost most all the billionaires, yet the larger portion of American millionaires, despite owning near all the stock market, vote for Democrats -- a stock market which includes the firms building green energy, transportation, housing....
The Roosevelts coming from wealth, divided and conquered their peers to serve the broader population. Straight-forward analyses show the wealthy have gained far more under Democratic than Republican national administrations, with the former much better for everyone else. Even when overwhelmingly economically selfish, the smarter of the rich, by economic calculation, should come down against the Trumpists.
Schumer is a disaster. I used to live in his Brooklyn neighborhood. Yet that neighborhood also has the Fifth Avenue Committee, which has worked for decades effectively for the interests of the poor, and the Park Slope Food Coop, with a long history of doctrinaire Marxist practice. Well-off Park Slope wasn't Mamdani's strongest primary showing, but he did easily take the majority there.
My point: We should seek to divide the rich, not simply stand against all in the name of a "populism" which views all who succeed as necessarily seduced by evil, nor denounce all "capitalism" as inherently corrupt and corrupting. When I was in college, half a century ago, there were afternoons where each of the campus socialist parties would have tables set up with literature explaining why the were superior to the others. For socialism to succeed in America -- and it must -- we need to find unity and bring the better side of capitalism into harmony with it. There are many flags which claim to be the true "populist" flag, as their are many parties claiming to be the most-truly "socialist." To unite our side and conquer our enemies we'll do well to divide, as the Romans did, the barbarians set out to sack our nation, and turn those we can to common interest.
Texan here. You laid this out perfectly, Mike. Love your modeling of dialogue- specific and needed. Sure hope Newsom reads it! Newsom may or may not be the one to do this- maybe it’s Pritzker? If Talarico were more well-known and especially if he is able to take this TX senate seat from Cornyn or Paxton it could be him in 2028. He even named our TX Christian nationalist billionaire puppet masters by name on Rogan! He is a totally uncorrupted politician who is a fighter and not embedded in the national party. I’ve met him in person- he is the real deal and has the state house voting record to prove it. Btw, the TX Dem party has turned a new youthful working-class leaf with Scudder at the helm that I’m sure the national party hates- funny thing happens when you are in a state that has been on the frontlines of the corruption under single party rule- the opposition sharpens it’s voice under the dulling oppression. Thank you for your excellent Substack. So glad to have discovered you!!
We’re Californians active in local environmental issues and sometimes Gavin makes us crazy. That being said if he runs we will send him boatloads of money. I don’t see a better option, and he’s been working to put to flight the image of the wimpy democratic compromiser.
I agree that if he can connect with the precariate that could be the power-up he needs. He’s a pal of the Getty family, so he’s got a lot to work around to get there. Good suggestions in this post.
Love your analyses, this one is excellent! Californian here and I like Gavin. He and his staff have taken a great approach in “sticking it” to Trumpists. And I like the trajectory of your thoughts. My question is: do you see any other governors/senators who could step up similarly for 2028? Pritzker, maybe Whitman come to mind as potentially willing to take on establishment Dems. Taking in monied interests is by far our best path forward!
Look at Talarico in TX. He’s not on the national stage (yet) but he should be. And he’s absolutely convicted, centered, and 100% real. Check him out on the Rogan podcast to get a good look at someone willing to fight.
I like this, Mike. Your already great thinking is evolving and growing more coherent, which is about the highest compliment in my book. Keep growing. You’re thinking and writing amazing things.
Wow, hell yes!! This is exactly the template Dem leaders must follow to beat Trumpism and the oligarchs. You realize there is huge pressure from the moderate middle which is why Dems like Schumer and Jeffries won’t support Mamdani. AIPAC looms large! Dems need to answer anti trans smears and be the party of FDR again, defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unions, affordable public transportation and housing. And yes graduated income tax and inheritance taxes! How did Dems hold power for forty years before Clinton went pro business with NAFTA? Show that Obamacare is a great program!! We have great history of progressive programs!
Wow is it refreshing to read this from someone who understands what is going on. Thanks for your good work, Mike.
The number of voters who could be convinced to change their voting preference by compromising, centrist policies is, what? Two or three percent, maybe? At best?
The number of voters who could be convinced to start voting if they believed someone had policies that helped them is, what? About 30 or 35%? (Just a guess, but clearly a vastly larger number.)
The math is clear. But like you wrote, turning the math into political success requires pushing back on the oligarchs who've dictated party policy for decades now.
I totally agree with your analysis which you describe in such clear terms - thank you
we need someone with courage and so far the leader in that category is Gavin Newsom -
I believe you are absolutely correct that we need to have someone who will stand up to the old guard Democrats if they are not willing to fight for the people and not political donors!
What good is raising a lot of money if you are going to maintain the approach that lost to a felon.
“insanity” (keep doing the same things as you have in the past but expect different results) -
there has to be a break from this approach if the Democrats are going to win the midterms
Notice that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies have not endorsed the guy who’s going to be the next mayor of New York City - he was willing to take on the establishment and he is going to win - and we need that same courage to win the next presidential election
My role is that of an involved member of a global society. My role, as I see it, is to enable clear-cut communication and avoid the "jargon."
I told a story about this dating back to the influenza epidemic of 1968-9 during my internship at LA County-USC Medical Center (LAC-USC MC). My intern partner (Peter) and I had worked 18-hour days, our patients lined the hallways, as we mixed i.v. fluids, and acted as pharmacist, nurse and MDs. In the early hours of the morning, I was writing up (by hand) a patient I had seen, when I hear Peter ask a woman in her 80s, "do you have paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea."
My brain had been overworked, and it took me a few minutes to realize that he actually asked this using those words, which mean "do you have shortness of breath that wakes you from sleep?"
I could not help it; I started to laugh, so hard, that tears rolled down my cheeks, and I pounded the desk I was writing on. Peter came out of the room, wondering what had happened. I could see he was angry and frustrated, and my laughter did not help this.
Now, decades later, I wonder, why all the jargon? I came from a middle class family, grew up in Queens, and then Nassau County, and knew I could "talk with crowds and keep your virtue or walk with kings nor lose the common touch."
I also have learned, through 83-years of intense living, that balance and communication (B&C) are Rosetta stones that make or break societies.
• B&C is optimized at a cellular level to ensure the health of a living entity.
• B&C, at an individual level, must be present in a true marriage for it to be imbued with love.
• B&C must be present if we are to create healthy societies that restore relationships of person to person and people to planet.
• B&C must prevail between nations if we are to have peace in the world.
Can we call it as it is?
What we are seeing with Trump & his caravan are fascists on the march. We can define fascism as we are witness to it. A politician or a government that focuses on a select few and gives them overwhelming power at the expense of the citizenry. A regime that uses threat, fear, chaos, imprisonment to remove any who disagree with the fascist leaders. A regime where freedom of the press, right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech is stripped from the citizen.
The US population, and the global population, both can be estimated using a bell-shaped curve. In a typical bell-shaped curve, we have 85% being in the middle or average, and we have 7.5% to the left and to the right of the bell being either less than mediocre or more than mediocre, respectively. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to show graphics in the comments section. I do not know if this will work, but here is a link to some bell-shaped curves I have used in various talks: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b6ko95tutitoo76mxtl7l/AJMnzLmJQVFkVNKM3THEQWU?rlkey=9cgzvwrakl088rsan90xy3tno&dl=0
With this "foreword," how about rephrasing the commentary after The Opening is Real?
From this:
"Trump’s authoritarian overreach plus Democratic establishment paralysis equals space for a Democrat who can credibly claim to be fighting both. Not as rhetorical positioning but as demonstrated practice."
To This:
The current political situation creates an opportunity for a new Democratic candidate who can credibly prove they are strong enough to oppose Trump's fascist actions while also fighting the perceived inaction or weakness of the traditional Democratic Party. This candidate must demonstrate their fight against both threats through real actions, not just political promises.
And can we move from this:
"This is the complementarity I’ve been arguing for: constitutional defense and economic populism. Moral clarity and structural reform. Resistance to authoritarianism and transformation of the structures that made authoritarian appeal possible."
To this:
What I've been arguing for involves defending the Constitution, as well as being committed to economic reforms exhibiting fairness and accessibility not solely to the elite and ultra-rich but to the working men and women that our a mainstay to any community. The Trump regime is directing us way off course when it comes to what is ethical, what is true and what is good. What kind of role models do we want for our children and all who follow?
We will never win the vast majority of voters to the moral side if they do not understand what is being discussed. If I have to stop and ponder over every paragraph of a long commentary, then what hope is there for a person with far less education?
This is constructive criticism. I spend many hours each day reading Mike's editorials. I have no doubt about his brilliance, his analytical mind, nor his vocabulary.
But for many, too many, his script is beyond the grasp of those that need to read him and hear his thoughts- because they are of great value. The quality of life is at stake here. But we will not win this battle, and a battle for sure it is, if we ask, "Do you experience paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea?"
Great analysis. Of course, I’m a pessimist who is afraid that prescriptions like yours will continue to be ignored but I especially like the framing that the current generation of democratic leaders are good people but not able to adjust to new realities. Whether they are or not is a different issue.
I like everything about this except Gavin Newsom. I think there's only a vanishingly small chance that he'll take the path of FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. I will support him if he steps up, but I think the Democrats need another 4 years in the wilderness starting in 2028 because they absolutely refuse to stand up to the donor class and they cannot win until they do so.
One must play the cards they have. The idea it would be better to allow an authoritarian dictatorship to consolidate until 2032 to clean the slate to your satisfaction, seems like a psychopathic position. Because I don't want to live through that.
I'm not endorsing Newsom for President. I'm identifying a path he has. I hope there is a competitive primary.
I don't want an authoritarian dictatorship for four more minutes, much less four more years. But I call the plays as I see them, and the Democratic party has a long history of remaining in the political wilderness because they can't update their agenda to reach the average voter where they are.
what Mike is asking for in his piece is to find someone who will break the approach the Democrats have taken in the past. (the wilderness as you call it) -
right now the Republicans are working every angle they can to not have anymore fair elections -
(Can we stop the fascists) IF we can find Democratic candidates with the courage to fight them in a fair election they will lose all their power and will face legal accountability (trials and prison) -
if the fascists take total control or if democrats won’t change their unpopular weak approach- then we will become Russia - is that what you want?
It is very clear to me that Democrats want to govern, but they don’t want power badly enough. And for some reason, they cannot seem to put two and two together and realize if you do not have power, you cannot govern. You can have power and not govern as is very clear right now, but if you do not have power, you cannot govern. Full stop. Is it really that hard to understand!? And why in the world are they saying anything remotely like, well we don’t have any power right now. Honestly, would Mitch McConnell ever have said anything like that? I want our next Democratic president to have huge you know whats to take care of business! Ugh.
All. Of. This. As a Californian and a homeowner, I have learned to lean into SB-79 and to Newsom. Like FDR, he may not be perfect, but thank the gods, he's not afraid to throw a punch. I know the fear of every community left out of the original New Deal, especially with Newsom's flirtation with the podcast bros, is that we will somehow again be the disposable bargaining chip as Dems jockey for their next Savior. Still, we are the most pragmatic of all. If he shows up to fight, I am ready to rally behind him. Bring it on, pretty boy, you got this! BTW, as someone who worked in script development for many years, you wrote some damn good Newsom monologues there, Mike!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! My husband Whit Blauvelt (whose name you might recall) and I had a heated discussion about populism last night over dinner, prompted by the apparent implosion of Graham Platner's senate run in Maine. My argument was that if Democrats want to forge a liberal version of populism, we have to stop looking primarily to these stereotypical candidates -- people we think represent the working class -- but in practice who sometimes end up being not so progressive or even liberal (another case in point, John Fetterman). Whit seemed to be arguing that populism isn't even a very useful term for Democrats. I think you've shown precisely how it can be used, even if we don't explicitly say, "hey, here's a liberal populist for you!" Could an oyster farmer/former marine be a great candidate for office? Sure. But let's not let those demographics be our criteria or the things we latch onto as "electability." Look at the distinction between Cuomo and Mamdani in NYC. I think Mamdani represents the same things you are praising (hoping will come to fruition) in Newsom -- smart, educated, perhaps from an elite background, but willing to take on those elites. Cuomo has tried to smear Mamdani as just another elite. But look at who just got Adams's endorsement.
I do think Platner should stay in the race. And I think he could surprise.
There's some indication that Mainers are standing behind him, and I think Sanders continues to endorse him. Let's hope he can defeat Collins and prove to be the real thing in the Senate. I'm not a Mainer, but my friend who is says Mills is a mixed bag --great for standing up to Trump, but not so great on local issues. She's also of the age where Democrats need to step aside.
I hope so.
In the spirit of "divide and conquer," which worked for the Romans, yet as an admirer of both FDR and Bernie, here's my quibble with the "populist" stance: If we're to gain advantage against the concentrations of wealth, we'll do well to divide those concentrations. For instance, for the energy transition, we need those who are innovating in and building green energy to bring more political leverage, and help directly confront the oil-igarchy. For housing, we need the large, rich home-building firms -- despite the tasteless architectures they largely favor -- to find the same profit potentials Levitt once did in building tens of thousands of entry-level homes, and bring political leverage against the zoning which prevents them. To conquer the rich, we'll do well to divide them, enlisting some substantial portion to real opportunities congruent with our side.
When the Roundheads rose against Charles I, who was similarly focused on collecting tariffs beyond the will of the legislature, he lost because the anti-royalist side had a substantial number of the wealthy with seats in Commons and Lords finding common purpose. We have lost most all the billionaires, yet the larger portion of American millionaires, despite owning near all the stock market, vote for Democrats -- a stock market which includes the firms building green energy, transportation, housing....
The Roosevelts coming from wealth, divided and conquered their peers to serve the broader population. Straight-forward analyses show the wealthy have gained far more under Democratic than Republican national administrations, with the former much better for everyone else. Even when overwhelmingly economically selfish, the smarter of the rich, by economic calculation, should come down against the Trumpists.
Schumer is a disaster. I used to live in his Brooklyn neighborhood. Yet that neighborhood also has the Fifth Avenue Committee, which has worked for decades effectively for the interests of the poor, and the Park Slope Food Coop, with a long history of doctrinaire Marxist practice. Well-off Park Slope wasn't Mamdani's strongest primary showing, but he did easily take the majority there.
My point: We should seek to divide the rich, not simply stand against all in the name of a "populism" which views all who succeed as necessarily seduced by evil, nor denounce all "capitalism" as inherently corrupt and corrupting. When I was in college, half a century ago, there were afternoons where each of the campus socialist parties would have tables set up with literature explaining why the were superior to the others. For socialism to succeed in America -- and it must -- we need to find unity and bring the better side of capitalism into harmony with it. There are many flags which claim to be the true "populist" flag, as their are many parties claiming to be the most-truly "socialist." To unite our side and conquer our enemies we'll do well to divide, as the Romans did, the barbarians set out to sack our nation, and turn those we can to common interest.
Texan here. You laid this out perfectly, Mike. Love your modeling of dialogue- specific and needed. Sure hope Newsom reads it! Newsom may or may not be the one to do this- maybe it’s Pritzker? If Talarico were more well-known and especially if he is able to take this TX senate seat from Cornyn or Paxton it could be him in 2028. He even named our TX Christian nationalist billionaire puppet masters by name on Rogan! He is a totally uncorrupted politician who is a fighter and not embedded in the national party. I’ve met him in person- he is the real deal and has the state house voting record to prove it. Btw, the TX Dem party has turned a new youthful working-class leaf with Scudder at the helm that I’m sure the national party hates- funny thing happens when you are in a state that has been on the frontlines of the corruption under single party rule- the opposition sharpens it’s voice under the dulling oppression. Thank you for your excellent Substack. So glad to have discovered you!!
We’re Californians active in local environmental issues and sometimes Gavin makes us crazy. That being said if he runs we will send him boatloads of money. I don’t see a better option, and he’s been working to put to flight the image of the wimpy democratic compromiser.
I agree that if he can connect with the precariate that could be the power-up he needs. He’s a pal of the Getty family, so he’s got a lot to work around to get there. Good suggestions in this post.
Love your analyses, this one is excellent! Californian here and I like Gavin. He and his staff have taken a great approach in “sticking it” to Trumpists. And I like the trajectory of your thoughts. My question is: do you see any other governors/senators who could step up similarly for 2028? Pritzker, maybe Whitman come to mind as potentially willing to take on establishment Dems. Taking in monied interests is by far our best path forward!
Look at Talarico in TX. He’s not on the national stage (yet) but he should be. And he’s absolutely convicted, centered, and 100% real. Check him out on the Rogan podcast to get a good look at someone willing to fight.
I like this, Mike. Your already great thinking is evolving and growing more coherent, which is about the highest compliment in my book. Keep growing. You’re thinking and writing amazing things.
Wow, hell yes!! This is exactly the template Dem leaders must follow to beat Trumpism and the oligarchs. You realize there is huge pressure from the moderate middle which is why Dems like Schumer and Jeffries won’t support Mamdani. AIPAC looms large! Dems need to answer anti trans smears and be the party of FDR again, defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unions, affordable public transportation and housing. And yes graduated income tax and inheritance taxes! How did Dems hold power for forty years before Clinton went pro business with NAFTA? Show that Obamacare is a great program!! We have great history of progressive programs!
Wow is it refreshing to read this from someone who understands what is going on. Thanks for your good work, Mike.
The number of voters who could be convinced to change their voting preference by compromising, centrist policies is, what? Two or three percent, maybe? At best?
The number of voters who could be convinced to start voting if they believed someone had policies that helped them is, what? About 30 or 35%? (Just a guess, but clearly a vastly larger number.)
The math is clear. But like you wrote, turning the math into political success requires pushing back on the oligarchs who've dictated party policy for decades now.
Mike - BRAVO !
I totally agree with your analysis which you describe in such clear terms - thank you
we need someone with courage and so far the leader in that category is Gavin Newsom -
I believe you are absolutely correct that we need to have someone who will stand up to the old guard Democrats if they are not willing to fight for the people and not political donors!
What good is raising a lot of money if you are going to maintain the approach that lost to a felon.
“insanity” (keep doing the same things as you have in the past but expect different results) -
there has to be a break from this approach if the Democrats are going to win the midterms
Notice that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies have not endorsed the guy who’s going to be the next mayor of New York City - he was willing to take on the establishment and he is going to win - and we need that same courage to win the next presidential election
(Paid subscriber who values your opinions)
I am a Californian, and I couldn’t agree more. Well said.
100%. I hope Newsom reads it.
A left populism is needed. Is Newsom the guy?
Opportunity knocks!
My role is that of an involved member of a global society. My role, as I see it, is to enable clear-cut communication and avoid the "jargon."
I told a story about this dating back to the influenza epidemic of 1968-9 during my internship at LA County-USC Medical Center (LAC-USC MC). My intern partner (Peter) and I had worked 18-hour days, our patients lined the hallways, as we mixed i.v. fluids, and acted as pharmacist, nurse and MDs. In the early hours of the morning, I was writing up (by hand) a patient I had seen, when I hear Peter ask a woman in her 80s, "do you have paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea."
My brain had been overworked, and it took me a few minutes to realize that he actually asked this using those words, which mean "do you have shortness of breath that wakes you from sleep?"
I could not help it; I started to laugh, so hard, that tears rolled down my cheeks, and I pounded the desk I was writing on. Peter came out of the room, wondering what had happened. I could see he was angry and frustrated, and my laughter did not help this.
Now, decades later, I wonder, why all the jargon? I came from a middle class family, grew up in Queens, and then Nassau County, and knew I could "talk with crowds and keep your virtue or walk with kings nor lose the common touch."
I also have learned, through 83-years of intense living, that balance and communication (B&C) are Rosetta stones that make or break societies.
• B&C is optimized at a cellular level to ensure the health of a living entity.
• B&C, at an individual level, must be present in a true marriage for it to be imbued with love.
• B&C must be present if we are to create healthy societies that restore relationships of person to person and people to planet.
• B&C must prevail between nations if we are to have peace in the world.
Can we call it as it is?
What we are seeing with Trump & his caravan are fascists on the march. We can define fascism as we are witness to it. A politician or a government that focuses on a select few and gives them overwhelming power at the expense of the citizenry. A regime that uses threat, fear, chaos, imprisonment to remove any who disagree with the fascist leaders. A regime where freedom of the press, right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech is stripped from the citizen.
The US population, and the global population, both can be estimated using a bell-shaped curve. In a typical bell-shaped curve, we have 85% being in the middle or average, and we have 7.5% to the left and to the right of the bell being either less than mediocre or more than mediocre, respectively. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to show graphics in the comments section. I do not know if this will work, but here is a link to some bell-shaped curves I have used in various talks: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b6ko95tutitoo76mxtl7l/AJMnzLmJQVFkVNKM3THEQWU?rlkey=9cgzvwrakl088rsan90xy3tno&dl=0
With this "foreword," how about rephrasing the commentary after The Opening is Real?
From this:
"Trump’s authoritarian overreach plus Democratic establishment paralysis equals space for a Democrat who can credibly claim to be fighting both. Not as rhetorical positioning but as demonstrated practice."
To This:
The current political situation creates an opportunity for a new Democratic candidate who can credibly prove they are strong enough to oppose Trump's fascist actions while also fighting the perceived inaction or weakness of the traditional Democratic Party. This candidate must demonstrate their fight against both threats through real actions, not just political promises.
And can we move from this:
"This is the complementarity I’ve been arguing for: constitutional defense and economic populism. Moral clarity and structural reform. Resistance to authoritarianism and transformation of the structures that made authoritarian appeal possible."
To this:
What I've been arguing for involves defending the Constitution, as well as being committed to economic reforms exhibiting fairness and accessibility not solely to the elite and ultra-rich but to the working men and women that our a mainstay to any community. The Trump regime is directing us way off course when it comes to what is ethical, what is true and what is good. What kind of role models do we want for our children and all who follow?
We will never win the vast majority of voters to the moral side if they do not understand what is being discussed. If I have to stop and ponder over every paragraph of a long commentary, then what hope is there for a person with far less education?
This is constructive criticism. I spend many hours each day reading Mike's editorials. I have no doubt about his brilliance, his analytical mind, nor his vocabulary.
But for many, too many, his script is beyond the grasp of those that need to read him and hear his thoughts- because they are of great value. The quality of life is at stake here. But we will not win this battle, and a battle for sure it is, if we ask, "Do you experience paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea?"
Every writer needs a trustworthy editor. Agree sometimes the brilliance loses its shine..
Great analysis. Of course, I’m a pessimist who is afraid that prescriptions like yours will continue to be ignored but I especially like the framing that the current generation of democratic leaders are good people but not able to adjust to new realities. Whether they are or not is a different issue.
I like everything about this except Gavin Newsom. I think there's only a vanishingly small chance that he'll take the path of FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. I will support him if he steps up, but I think the Democrats need another 4 years in the wilderness starting in 2028 because they absolutely refuse to stand up to the donor class and they cannot win until they do so.
One must play the cards they have. The idea it would be better to allow an authoritarian dictatorship to consolidate until 2032 to clean the slate to your satisfaction, seems like a psychopathic position. Because I don't want to live through that.
I'm not endorsing Newsom for President. I'm identifying a path he has. I hope there is a competitive primary.
I don't want an authoritarian dictatorship for four more minutes, much less four more years. But I call the plays as I see them, and the Democratic party has a long history of remaining in the political wilderness because they can't update their agenda to reach the average voter where they are.
Yet, he signed SB79. Even as the wealthy donor-class of California was screaming in his ear to veto it.
Anecdot-
what Mike is asking for in his piece is to find someone who will break the approach the Democrats have taken in the past. (the wilderness as you call it) -
right now the Republicans are working every angle they can to not have anymore fair elections -
(Can we stop the fascists) IF we can find Democratic candidates with the courage to fight them in a fair election they will lose all their power and will face legal accountability (trials and prison) -
if the fascists take total control or if democrats won’t change their unpopular weak approach- then we will become Russia - is that what you want?
It is very clear to me that Democrats want to govern, but they don’t want power badly enough. And for some reason, they cannot seem to put two and two together and realize if you do not have power, you cannot govern. You can have power and not govern as is very clear right now, but if you do not have power, you cannot govern. Full stop. Is it really that hard to understand!? And why in the world are they saying anything remotely like, well we don’t have any power right now. Honestly, would Mitch McConnell ever have said anything like that? I want our next Democratic president to have huge you know whats to take care of business! Ugh.