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
money in politics
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
Trump, Vance, and Musk Have Ushered Us Into Madison’s ‘Very Definition of Tyranny’
American democracy and government—after 240 years—is finally on the verge of collapsing and being replaced by something very much like Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
Feb 10, 2025
So, U.S. Vice President JD Vance is now saying that he and President Donald Trump don’t have to obey federal judges, tweeting, “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” This is how autocrats run things; it’s an extraordinarily dangerous moment.
It was Tuesday, July 17, 1787, and the men writing the Constitution had convened in Philadelphia to debate the separation of powers between the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. They drew their inspiration for that day from French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu, whose 1748 book The Spirit of the Laws had taken the New World and the Framers of the Constitution by storm.
In it, Montesquieu pointed out the absolute necessity of having three relatively coequal branches of government, each with separate authorities, to prevent any one branch from seizing too much power and ending a nation’s democracy. In The Spirit of Laws, he laid it out unambiguously:
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.
As the topic of the separation of powers was being debated at the Constitutional Convention that day 29 years after Montesquieu’s book had been published, “Father of the Constitution” James Madison rose to address the delegates:
If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other...
In like manner, a dependence of the executive [president] on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner.
He [Montesquieu] conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted-republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other… for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.
If the president were ever to dictate all terms to the Congress, which then became a compliant rubber stamp regardless of how excessive or even illegal the president’s actions became, that, Madison said, “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
We’re there now.
In simplified form, the system Madison and his compatriots came up with that summer gave the power to create and fund government agencies (including the federal court system) to Congress (Article I), the first among equals.
The responsibility of the president was to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution); in other words, to manage the institutions of government envisioned, authorized, and funded by Congress.
And the role of the Article III Courts was to make sure neither overstepped their authority, and independently arbitrate disputes between them. Their decisions must be final for the system to work.
This is more correctly defined as a war against America and our system of government than mere politics.
However, as a result of a 44-year-long effort by morbidly rich American oligarchs to corrupt our government to their own gain (the so-called Reagan Revolution, President George W. Bush, Trump, 1,500 radio stations, three television networks, multiple newspapers and other publications, over 200 television stations, hundreds of billions spent to purchase and then elect politicians), all of this American democracy and government—after 240 years—is finally on the verge of collapsing and being replaced by something very much like Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
The GOP-controlled Congress has, in both houses, become a pathetic rubber stamp for whatever billionaires, Trump, Elon Musk, and industries like fossil fuels, crypto and tech, and banks want.
The president is nakedly breaking laws and daring both Congress and the courts to do anything about it.
And now JD Vance claims Trump can do whatever he wants and ignore the courts. (Only federal marshals can enforce federal court orders, but they work for Attorney-General Pam Bondi and Donald Trump.)
That is the very definition of a constitutional crisis.
And Republicans on the Supreme Court facilitated the entire corrupt deal by legalizing political bribery in 2010 with their billionaire-funded Citizens United decision.
As a result, every Republican and most Democrats are terrified of Elon Musk or some other billionaire destroying them in the next primary election. The result has been legislative gridlock, a paralysis of the legislative branch.
Going a step farther, Trump has authorized a drug-abusing, Putin-conversing, government-contracting billionaire—his single largest donor who probably was responsible for him becoming president—to access the private information of every American citizen and corporation, dismantle entire agencies created and funded by Congress, and stop multiple investigations into his own business practices.
This is more correctly defined as a war against America and our system of government than mere politics.
A war that must be absolutely delighting America’s enemies, particularly Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. Especially now that Musk is calling for the shutdown of the Voice of America that both Putin and Xi hate as much as they both hated USAID.
But it even goes beyond that. Trump and Musk are rapidly moving America—with their attacks on the press, voting, and truth itself—toward the kind of authoritarian police state that several of the men Trump appears to love have established.
Further defying the Constitution, Trump has empowered the richest man in the world to attack and possibly destroy multiple federal agencies that were, just coincidentally of course, investigating his businesses:
- The Federal Aviation Administration’s administrator had launched an investigation into SpaceX after a spectacular rocket explosion; he’s now been fired.
- The Department of Justice was looking into possible violations of securities and other laws by Musk and Tesla; it’s probably safe to assume that investigation won’t go any farther.
- The USAID inspector general was investigating how Musk's SpaceX Starlink satellite terminals, purchased with USAID funds, were used in Ukraine’s war to defend itself from Russia.
- The Department of Defense’s inspector general opened a review in 2024 into alleged repeated failures by Musk and SpaceX to properly disclose their contact with foreign leaders; he’s now fired.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector general's office was investigating alleged animal abuse at Neuralink, Musk’s brain implant company; he’s been fired.
- The National Transportation Safety Board, overseen by the Department of Transportation, had several open probes into Tesla regarding its remote and self-driving vehicles; odds are they’ll be dropped if they haven’t been already.
- The Environmental Protection Agency had settled multiple lawsuits with Tesla in recent years over Clean Air Act and hazardous waste law violations; now that the EPA is being gutted there probably won’t be any more.
- The National Labor Relations Board, overseen by the Department of Labor, had 17 open investigations against Tesla and SpaceX for alleged unfair labor practices, safety violations, and discriminatory work practices that are probably now moot.
- The Federal Communications Commission was carrying out investigations and had issued court orders related to Musk’s businesses.
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was overseeing some of Musk’s companies and had a consent decree in place.
- Additionally, the Air Force and the Pentagon’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security launched reviews in November 2024 regarding Musk and SpaceX’s compliance with federal reporting requirements.
Musk’s $277 million investment to get Trump elected—legalized by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court—has, so far, paid off well.
Welcome to Madison’s “very definition of tyranny.”
Now that Republicans control Congress and have surrendered their authority to Trump, the last bulwark against the president converting himself into the sort of monarch we fought the Revolutionary War against is the Supreme Court, which will probably begin weighing in over the next few weeks.
And, in the face of this, the vice president is arguing that he and the president should feel free to ignore court orders.
This attack on our republic represents the most dangerous moment America has experienced since the Civil War.
Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress are entirely capable of ignoring public opinion: It’s vital we all reach out to our elected officials (particularly Republicans) to demand they reclaim their rightful role in our republic and speak out against this illegal, unconstitutional power grab.
It’s also crucial to make our opinions known in every way and every venue possible.
If America is to retain any fidelity whatsoever to our Constitution that was written and survived more than two centuries’ investment of blood and treasure, it’s time to raise absolute holy hell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Trump Threat, Greenland Bans Foreign Political Donations Before March Elections
A parliamentary document says the legislation "must be seen in light of the geopolitical interests in Greenland and the current situation where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in taking over" the territory.
Feb 05, 2025
Faced with repeated threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, who wants to take over resource-rich Greenland, the Danish territory's parliament on Tuesday enacted a ban on foreign political donations, ahead of its March 11 elections.
The new measure—which also bars political parties in the self-governing territory from accepting domestic donations above 200,000 Danish kroner (about $27,700) or 20,000 kroner (about $2,770) from a single contributor—is intended to protect "Greenland's political integrity," The Associated Pressreported, citing a parliamentary document translated from Danish.
The document states that the legislation "must be seen in light of the geopolitical interests in Greenland and the current situation where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in taking over and controlling Greenland."
According to the AP:
A senior legal officer at Greenland's parliament, Kent Fridberg, told The Associated Press he did not know whether any foreign donors had contributed to Greenland's political parties and the idea for the bill was "basically a preventative measure."
Fridberg noted that some Russian politicians had voiced a similar interest—and that political parties in Greenland are generally funded by public means.
Even before returning to the White House last month, Trump revived his first-term interest in making Greenland part of the United States. In early January, he even refused to rule out using military force to seize both the autonomous island nation and the Panama Canal.
Danish and Greenlandic leaders have forcefully pushed back against Trump's remarks, and polling published last week by a pair of newspapers—Denmark's Berlingske and Greenland's Sermitsiaq—shows that 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S.
Public opinion polling conducted in Greenland in 2018 has also received fresh attention recently, including from Trump himself. Gustav Agneman, an associate professor of economics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, was part of the team that conducted those older surveys, which he discussed in a Tuesday piece for The Conversation.
"Two-thirds of the participants thought that 'Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future,'" he noted. "Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between 'yes' and 'no' to independence."
As Agneman detailed:
Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland's budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defense.
This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.
For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump's interest in Greenland.
During a January appearance on Fox News, Trump's national security adviser, Mike Waltz, made clear why the Republican has renewed interest in the takeover of the nearby territory, saying: "It's oil and gas. It's our national security. It's critical minerals."
One of the most outspoken critics of Trump's plan is leftist Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede, who supports independence and has said: "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom."
Announcing the elections for Greenland's parliament, the Inatsisartut, Egede said on Facebook Tuesday that "we are facing an unprecedented and challenging time," and stressed the need "for cooperation and unity" among the island's roughly 60,000 residents.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular