SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
kamala harris
Why Are So Many US Leaders Staying Silent as Musk and Trump Entrench Their Power?
Don’t self-censoring people know that they are helping the Trumpian dread, threat, and fear machine get worse?
Mar 15, 2025
There are reasons why influential or knowledgeable Americans are staying silent as the worsening fascist dictatorship of the Trumpsters and Musketeers gets more entrenched by the day. Most of these reasons are simple cover for cowardice.
Start with the once-powerful Bush family dynasty. They despise President Donald Trump as he does them. Rich and comfortable former President George W. Bush is very proud of his administration’s funding of AIDS medicines saving lives in Africa and elsewhere. Trump, driven by vengeance and megalomania, moved immediately to dismantle this program. Immediate harm commenced to millions of victims in Africa and elsewhere who are reliant on this U.S. assistance (including programs to lessen the health toll on people afflicted by tuberculosis and malaria).
Not a peep from George W. Bush, preoccupied with his landscape painting and perhaps occasional pangs of guilt from his butchery in Iraq. His signal program is going down in flames and he keeps his mouth shut, as he has largely done since the upstart loudmouth Trump ended the Bush family’s power over the Republican Party.
The Trump-Musk lawless, cruel, arrogant, dictatorial regime is in our White House. Their police state infrastructure is in place. Silence is complicity!
Then there are the Clintons and former President Barack Obama. They are very rich, and have no political aspirations. Yet, though horrified by what they see Trump doing to the government and its domestic social safety net services they once ruled, mum’s the word.
What are these politicians afraid of as they watch the overthrow of our government and the oncoming police state? Trump, after all, was not elected to become a dictator—declaring war on the American people with his firings and smashing of critical “people’s programs” that benefit liberals and conservatives, red state and blue state residents alike.
Do they fear being discomforted by Trump and Musk unleashing hate and threats against them, and getting tarred by Trump’s tirades and violent incitations? No excuses. Regard for our country must take precedence to help galvanize their own constituencies to resist tyranny and fight for Democracy.
What about former Vice President Kamala Harris—the hapless loser to Trump in November’s presidential election? She must think she has something to say on behalf of the 75 million people who voted for her or against Trump. Silence! She is perfect bait for Trump’s intimidation tactics. She is afraid to tangle with Trump despite his declining polls, rising inflation, the falling stock market, and anti-people budget slashing which is harming her supporters and Trump voters’ economic well-being, health, and safety.
This phenomenon of going dark is widespread. Regulators and prosecutors who were either fired or quit in advance have not risen to defend their own agencies and departments, if only to elevate the morale of those civil servants remaining behind and under siege.
Why aren’t we hearing from Gary Gensler, former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), now being dismantled, especially since the SEC is dropping his cases against alleged cryptocurrency crooks?
Why aren’t we hearing much more (she wrote one op-ed) from Samantha Power, the former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under former President Joe Biden, whose life-saving agency is literally being illegally closed down, but for pending court challenges?
Why aren’t we hearing from Michael Regan, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Biden about saboteur Lee Zeldin, Trump’s head of EPA, who is now giving green lights to lethal polluters and other environmental destructions?
These and many other former government officials all have their own circles—in some cases, millions of people—who need to hear from them.
They can take some courage of the seven former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioners—from Republican and Democratic administrations—who condemned slicing the IRS staff in half and aiding and abetting big time tax evasion by the undertaxed super-rich and giant corporations. I am told that they would be eager to testify, should the Democrats in Congress have the energy to hold unofficial hearings as ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees.
Banding together is one way of reducing the fear factor. After Trump purged the career military at the Pentagon to put his own “yes men” at the top, five former secretaries of defense, who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, sent a letter to Congress denouncing Trump’s firing of senior military officers and requesting “immediate” House and Senate hearings to “assess the national security implications of Mr. Trump’s dismissals.” Not a chance by the GOP majority there. But they could ask the Democrats to hold UNOFFICIAL HEARINGS as ranking members of the Armed Services Committees!
Illinois Go. JB Pritzker can be one of the prime witnesses at these hearings—he has no fear of speaking his mind against the Trumpsters.
On March 6, 2025, the Washington Bureau Chief of The New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller, put her rare byline on an urgent report titled, “‘People Are Going Silent’: Fearing Retribution, Trump Critics Muzzle Themselves.”
She writes:
The silence grows louder every day. Fired federal workers who are worried about losing their homes ask not to be quoted by name. University presidents [one exception is Wesleyan University President Michael Roth], fearing that millions of dollars in federal funding could disappear, are holding their fire. Chief executives alarmed by tariffs that could hurt their businesses are on mute.
To be sure, government employees and other unions are speaking out and suing in federal court. So are national citizen groups like Public Citizen and the Center for Constitutional Rights, though hampered in alerting large audiences by newspapers like the Times rarely reporting their initiatives.
Yes, Ms. Bumiller, pay attention to that aspect of your responsibility. Moreover, the Times’ editorial page (op-eds and editorials) is not adequately reflecting the urgency of her reporting. Nor are her reporters covering the informed outspokenness and actions of civic organizations.
Don’t self-censoring people know that they are helping the Trumpian dread, threat, and fear machine get worse? Study Germany and Italy in the 1930s.
The Trump-Musk lawless, cruel, arrogant, dictatorial regime is in our White House. Their police state infrastructure is in place. Silence is complicity!
Keep ReadingShow Less
WaPo Columnist Resigns, Says Publisher Killed Column That 'Respectfully Dissented' Against Bezos Edict
"This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos' new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees," wrote one journalist.
Mar 10, 2025
Columnist and editor Ruth Marcus said Monday that she is resigning from The Washington Post after CEO and publisher Will Lewis allegedly decided not to run a column she penned critiquing billionaire owner Jeff Bezos' recent changes to the opinion section, according to a note from Marcus that was obtained by multiple media reporters.
In the note, which is addressed to both Bezos and Lewis, Marcus wrote that as an opinion writer, she was "honored to offer commentary that readers could be assured constituted my best independent judgment of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, on the opinions side of the newspaper, that appears to be no longer the case."
In late February, Bezos—who has owned the paper since 2013—announced a major change in the outlet's opinion section. From now on, the opinion section will advocate for "personal liberties and free markets" and "viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others," according to an email from Bezos. The section's editor, David Shipley, decided to depart and the paper lost thousands of subscriptions after Bezos' intentions became public, according to NPR.
The move was denounced, including by the Post's own chief economics reporter, Jeff Stein, who called it a "massive encroachment" on The Post's opinion section and said that the move makes clear "dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there."
In her farewell note, Marcus said that the Lewis' decision "not to run the column that I wrote respectfully dissenting from [Bezos'] edict... underscores that the traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded."
Marcus, who has been with the paper since 1984, separately sent a note to staff in which she emphasized that her decision does not suggest "what anyone else should do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves," according to a copy of the note obtained by Semafor's Max Tani.
Marcus' departure comes amidst greater turmoil at the Post. In the fall, Bezos decided to block the paper's endorsement of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris and ended the Post's tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. Hundreds of thousands of readers canceled their subscriptions in response. The paper has also undergone layoffs and experienced other high profile departures.
The news that Marcus was leaving the paper was mourned online on Monday.
"The tragic self-destruction of a great newspaper continues. I had the privilege of working with Ruth Marcus for years and she is the best of the best. Whether you agree with her or not, she is the model of journalistic excellence and integrity," wrote New York Times journalist Peter Baker.
"Terrible news," wrote journalist Julia Preston. "Ruth Marcus writes a well-researched, level-headed column. She is a voice of reason and decency. This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos's new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Way And Its Regressive Politics Should Have No Place in the Democratic Party
The party is very much at a crossroads: It can embrace progressivism and forge a new, compelling identity or it can take cues from the donor and consultant class and embrace the very policies that precipitated our current political crisis.
Mar 05, 2025
Over the weekend, Politicoreported that, in early February, a group of Democratic “consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials, and party leaders” had convened in Virginia to chart a course forward for the party. The so-called “Comeback Retreat” was organized by the corporate centrist think tank Third Way and resulted in a summary document highlighting some of the top takeaways from the convening. In a series of bullet points, the authors of the document summarize the ways that, in their view, Democrats can reconnect with working class voters.
The Democratic Party is still reeling from its loss to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in November, and party leaders are correct in thinking they should adopt a new tack. However, Third Way, and its brand of tried-and-failed Republican-lite politics, should not have any say in the way the Democratic Party reforms itself as it heads into the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential election.
The Comeback Retreat summary focuses on Democrats’ cultural disconnect with working class voters, as well as Democrats’ lack of “economic trust” with voters. The document first points to issues in each category and then offers solutions for rebuilding across both lines. Some of these issues and prescriptions are of the milquetoast variety typically generated by the consultant class. Democrats should “acknowledge [voters’] struggles and speak to real concerns,” advises one point, while elsewhere the document recommends “[improving] Democratic communication and media strategy.” No political strategist would disagree that these are both good practices for any successful campaign.
If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans.
However, situated alongside these poli-sci bromides are some truly reactionary ideas. In the cultural dimension, the document encourages Democrats to “embrace masculinity” and celebrate “traditional American imagery (e.g., farms, main streets).” Apparently, Third Way and its colleagues don’t consider city dwellers to be traditionally American. On the economic side, the document encourages Democrats to stop “demonizing wealth and corporations” and to “avoid an anti-capitalist stance.” The party also, per Third Way, needs to “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate.”
If the party “moves away” from small-dollar donors, that apparently means “moving toward” millionaire, billionaire, and corporate donors.
Finally, the document devotes a fair amount of time to “reduc[ing] far-left influence and infrastructure.” Recommendations include building a pipeline of moderate Democrats to staff the ranks of the party and run for office, banning “far-left” candidate questionnaires, and “push[ing] back” against far-left staffers and groups who, according to Third Way, exert “disproportionate influence” in the party. (I’m pleased, as a member of the so-called “far-left,” to learn that we wield so much power within the party—and expect that our influence on party policy will become visible any day now.)
Taken together, a very clear image emerges of the Democratic Party envisioned by Third Way: It is pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, and preferential to big donors over small ones. It also celebrates masculinity and a traditional America while rejecting “identity-based” concerns. To put it another way, it sounds a lot like the modern GOP right before the MAGA movement took over.
This list of prescriptions—cooked up at a retreat held in the richest county in the U.S., where I seriously doubt there were working class voters present—is a recipe for disaster for the Democratic Party. In 2024, former Vice President Kamala Harris ran a campaign that was heavily focused on Republicans disaffected with Trump and aimed at presenting the Democrats as a kinder, gentler GOP, the kind that we might have today if Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney had become the standard-bearer instead of Donald Trump. This strategy backfired catastrophically. Doubling down on it would be pure political malpractice.
The Democratic Party does need to emphasize “shared values,” as the document says. These values, though, include the notion that healthcare is a human right that should be provided by the government, not a privilege. They embrace the idea that the U.S. needs to develop more clean energy sources, not drill for more oil and gas—with renewable energy creating more jobs than drilling. And Americans agree that corporations and the wealthy should be taxed more, not celebrated for their ingenuity in hoarding wealth.
If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans. The affordability crunch caused by corporate greed, the climate crisis, our ever-more-expensive healthcare system, and our flailing democracy all provide the party with openings to take bold, progressive policy stands. However, these stances are completely incompatible with the regressive, triangulating politics that Third Way envisions.
The Democratic Party is very much at a crossroads: It can embrace progressivism and forge a new, compelling identity that speaks directly to voters’ concerns—especially working-class voters. Or it can take cues from the donor and consultant class and embrace the very policies that precipitated our current political crisis. The former approach requires bravery and risk-taking; the latter only asks that the party backslides into its old habits and, quite possibly, political obsolescence.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular