“Better that we concentrate on the minuscule number of transgender athletes who could prevent our daughters from winning blue ribbons, than to consider the successes of other economic systems or the pitfalls of our own.” I can only hope that Mamdani's leadership in NY paves the way for Democratic Socialism across the country.
Given that Gavin Newsom, who is widely considered to be a frontrunner for 2028, just flatly refused to impose a wealth tax on California billionaires, your hope is not likely to be realized.
The best I hope for is young progressives elected to state and local races, but even this requires massive momentum by the people.
I agree with you, hw. The corporate democrats are what brought us Trump. The number of people who chose to “sit this one out” and stop holding their noses made all the difference. The reality that the DNC decided not to show what their analysis of the election showed them, tells me all I need to know.
The bit about how neither party questoins capitalism itself is the quiet part nobody wants to say out loud. I've seen this dynamic in tech where everyone debates user privacy or AI ethics but the underlying profit maximization model stays off-limits. The Mar-a-Lago reference was sharp because it captures how wealth creates its own hermetic world. Once you're insulated enough, democracy becomes more of an inconvience than a feature.
What an excellent analysis of this moment and the true choices that we face. Thank you for a coherent summary and a pragmatic discussion of what we should all be in conversation about.
So, can't Gavin Newsom find a middle ground to increase taxes on the CA billionaires and keep them in the state? What subsidies have these companies been given? How much are they actually paying anyway? Capitulation isn't the answer.
The efforts to create a system of campaign financing reform changed dramatically with the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision expanded the amount of campaign contributions from PACs and placed few limits on private money to candidates. In effect, the Justices stated that campaign contributions by way of personal or corporate checks was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The decisions strengthened the role of PACs in the electoral process and also led to the formation of so-called Dark Money organizations where donor contributions to candidates were allowed without the requirement of revealing the donors. Dark Money organizations are now one of the primary funnels through which contributions are directed to political candidates.
The growing role that money plays in election campaigns and the concerns over the influence of contributions on policy making has led to efforts to remove money from the process of national elections. Reform-minded groups in the United Stats point to countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which have strict public financing systems including limits on how much a candidate can spend and making advertising on television and other media free or inexpensive.
While these measures are reasonable and would lead to lessening the corruption and influence peddling that are found in the American electoral system, they are not the “American way.”
Reform measures have little if any chance of limiting the role of money in politics, because there is now a firmly imbedded system of election organization and process that resists change.
Consultants, lawyers, pollsters, media outlets, and advertisers are so connected to campaigns and make enormous amounts of money for their services that reform would be next to impossible.
Candidates for office and incumbents often quietly complain that they are tired of the constant efforts to raise money by traveling to dinners and other events to glad hand potential donors, but without these fundraising rituals politicians will likely face a cash shortage that will weaken their chances for winning the election. And so political leaders continue to cozy up to the rich and the special interests as they seek dollars for their campaigns to remain in office.
When the American public decides that any candidate has to repeal Citizens United which is a tall order to be elected. Then maybe the ship could be steered without the influx of dark money and buying the candidate their seats in Congress, state and even local elections. However the pandora box has been opened and money buys power and seats.
What you are very helpfully pointing toward, if not exactly at, seems to be the evolution of our current--call it capitalist with a few democratic bows and ribbons on it system of inequality and inequity. Fine, okay, the perfect is the enemy of the good. And we most likely will evolve within some rubric that preserves the de facto caste system that we live with and must be distracted from the full knowledge of via various ennervating entertainments and declining health via nutritional and medical care deficits. But I find myself asking "What's wrong with this picture?" when we have good examples of very successful countries in which capitalism is allowed WITHIN GUARDRAILS that siphon off a portion of the riches generated for the welfare of the people who live in those countries. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland have had noteworthy and enviable success implementing such systems without chaos and complaint. Their populations are the happiest on earth according to all surveys. Some contemplations as to the reasons for as well as the mechanics behind our rejection of so-called socialist systems would be welcome. Sooner rather than later.
“Better that we concentrate on the minuscule number of transgender athletes who could prevent our daughters from winning blue ribbons, than to consider the successes of other economic systems or the pitfalls of our own.” I can only hope that Mamdani's leadership in NY paves the way for Democratic Socialism across the country.
Given that Gavin Newsom, who is widely considered to be a frontrunner for 2028, just flatly refused to impose a wealth tax on California billionaires, your hope is not likely to be realized.
The best I hope for is young progressives elected to state and local races, but even this requires massive momentum by the people.
So . . . do you think Democrats will elect the guy with the memes, who gave Trump some of his own in return? If that's all it takes, God help us.
No, I think Newsom has triangulated himself into a corner.
The good candidates won't be supported by the Democratic leadership or DNC.
The only solutions are candidates who can self-fund or once in a generation talents, like Mamdani.
I agree with you, hw. The corporate democrats are what brought us Trump. The number of people who chose to “sit this one out” and stop holding their noses made all the difference. The reality that the DNC decided not to show what their analysis of the election showed them, tells me all I need to know.
The bit about how neither party questoins capitalism itself is the quiet part nobody wants to say out loud. I've seen this dynamic in tech where everyone debates user privacy or AI ethics but the underlying profit maximization model stays off-limits. The Mar-a-Lago reference was sharp because it captures how wealth creates its own hermetic world. Once you're insulated enough, democracy becomes more of an inconvience than a feature.
What an excellent analysis of this moment and the true choices that we face. Thank you for a coherent summary and a pragmatic discussion of what we should all be in conversation about.
So, can't Gavin Newsom find a middle ground to increase taxes on the CA billionaires and keep them in the state? What subsidies have these companies been given? How much are they actually paying anyway? Capitulation isn't the answer.
The efforts to create a system of campaign financing reform changed dramatically with the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision expanded the amount of campaign contributions from PACs and placed few limits on private money to candidates. In effect, the Justices stated that campaign contributions by way of personal or corporate checks was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The decisions strengthened the role of PACs in the electoral process and also led to the formation of so-called Dark Money organizations where donor contributions to candidates were allowed without the requirement of revealing the donors. Dark Money organizations are now one of the primary funnels through which contributions are directed to political candidates.
The growing role that money plays in election campaigns and the concerns over the influence of contributions on policy making has led to efforts to remove money from the process of national elections. Reform-minded groups in the United Stats point to countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which have strict public financing systems including limits on how much a candidate can spend and making advertising on television and other media free or inexpensive.
While these measures are reasonable and would lead to lessening the corruption and influence peddling that are found in the American electoral system, they are not the “American way.”
Reform measures have little if any chance of limiting the role of money in politics, because there is now a firmly imbedded system of election organization and process that resists change.
Consultants, lawyers, pollsters, media outlets, and advertisers are so connected to campaigns and make enormous amounts of money for their services that reform would be next to impossible.
Candidates for office and incumbents often quietly complain that they are tired of the constant efforts to raise money by traveling to dinners and other events to glad hand potential donors, but without these fundraising rituals politicians will likely face a cash shortage that will weaken their chances for winning the election. And so political leaders continue to cozy up to the rich and the special interests as they seek dollars for their campaigns to remain in office.
When the American public decides that any candidate has to repeal Citizens United which is a tall order to be elected. Then maybe the ship could be steered without the influx of dark money and buying the candidate their seats in Congress, state and even local elections. However the pandora box has been opened and money buys power and seats.
What you are very helpfully pointing toward, if not exactly at, seems to be the evolution of our current--call it capitalist with a few democratic bows and ribbons on it system of inequality and inequity. Fine, okay, the perfect is the enemy of the good. And we most likely will evolve within some rubric that preserves the de facto caste system that we live with and must be distracted from the full knowledge of via various ennervating entertainments and declining health via nutritional and medical care deficits. But I find myself asking "What's wrong with this picture?" when we have good examples of very successful countries in which capitalism is allowed WITHIN GUARDRAILS that siphon off a portion of the riches generated for the welfare of the people who live in those countries. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland have had noteworthy and enviable success implementing such systems without chaos and complaint. Their populations are the happiest on earth according to all surveys. Some contemplations as to the reasons for as well as the mechanics behind our rejection of so-called socialist systems would be welcome. Sooner rather than later.