Dean. Obama. Bernie. Trump. Then Trump again. And again. The Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, MAGA, the George Floyd uprisings—all screaming for something radically different.
Every word you said is exactly what I believe, except for your statement that your suggestions aren't socialism. Of course you have to deny socialism because of the American bugaboo about "socialism," but this is the good socialism, not the totalitarian one that we fear. The real totalitarianism is coming disguised as market forces.
I am just an ordinary American, without any platform or exceptional power, and I have been thinking these things for about 50 years.
It's as though you read my mind and published my thoughts. No, you're not fringe, or if you are, I'm there with you.
Now those who agree with these ideas need to get together and I don't care if they identify themselves as "right" or "left." We need all of us to turn the Titanic around.
It's all hands on deck, because we are all in this boat together. We will all go down together if the crew is infighting instead of working to save the ship.
I think you are right on in saying that government needs to compete with private industry to reduce prices overall. So glad someone actually recognizes this. I was a career government employee. The last 20 years I ran the fleet department for my specific agency. We had over 300 vehicles and heavy equipment. We had our own auto shop staffed with 3-5 full time mechanics. We did most all maintenance and repairs, farming out only overflow and larger, specialized repairs. But, we utilized all local parts houses and local mechanics as needed. All was great. Our mechanics knew the vehicles and their operations. They did an annual service on everything. They were able to anticipate repair needs based on vehicle use and the actual operators. They were also there to re-train operators as needed. During Clinton-Gore, we were forced to compete against private contractors. Only thing in the bid was wages, our shop, all tools, service truckers, etc would go to the winner. Of course it was rigged, we had to stay with our government wage scale, contractor did not. They won, they stopped using local parts and shops, repairs were constantly behind schedule, customers couldn’t get their vehicles, fire and police units went un-repaired during fire season. Overall budget increased 25% before end of probation period. They were fired after 1 yr., but the damage was done. Mechanics had moved on, tools were sold. Customers now had to handle their own maintenance and repairs. It was a mess, cost continued to increase. This is just one example. Government shot itself and the taxpayers in the foot. Costing them sustainably more money, by no longer competing with private industry.
“Outsourcing “ is the bane of efficiency. Reagan really accelerated the movement with his “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.” It created an environment where they could brazenly lie about reducing the cost of government, while enriching their wealthy owners! One example is private prisons.
Goods and services produced and sold at their efficient cost of production reflect real cost and value. That is the function of competition. Goods and services which cost far beyond the cost to produce them are extractive. Monopolies set their own extractive prices far above actual costs. Their prices are not determined by market competition.
Problem with your article is you don’t address the issue of our politicians continuing to support wars, rather than what we people want. For example, a clear majority of our citizens are opposed to our support of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. I wish I could just blame this on Republicans but Genocide Joe Biden could have stopped this carnage before the end of October 2023! And the Islamophobic Racist Kamala Harris refused to break with Biden’s Zionism and thereby lost the election to a convicted felon! She didn’t receive over 3 million from votes that Joe Biden received! Her total support from the Nazi AIPAC handlers caused her to REFuSE to see the error of her ways! I am no longer a Democrat because of their rank stupidity! And it’s not just those 2! Jeffries, chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, my two Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey as well as my Representative from MA 9th C. D. Bill Keating are all sellouts who support the fascist government of Israel! Explore that issue and you will really be hitting the nail on the head!
I reckon that we need to restore representative democracy. Fix a lot of the issues with registration and voting and gerrymandering. Maybe that’s how we stop the war machine.
I always learn so much for your pieces. You never fail to bring a fresh perspective or put a slightly different spin on an issue I thought I’d seen from every side. Keep up the great work.
Yeah, we need to ditch the language (and the thinking expressed by the language, really) that denigrates the feminine and feminine qualities. The suppression of the feminine for thousands of years of human history is very much part of the mess we're in, and confronting that will be part of the solution. I like the ideas overall though, and I continue to learn how to be anti-racist as a white woman, so I'm going to say it's a teachable moment for white men w/ good intentions. Boys, don't say or believe ppl you don't agree w/ are pussies. Weak thinking.
Healthcare, medicines, everything costs more in this country with less positive outcomes. Why? GREED. That is the principle that underlies Capitalism and this country. As it stands in this country, corporations tell us what we want and dictate what we will pay for it. That is the crux… we have no control over this and over time, we become angry and bitter and want “our share”. Greed infests and takes our mind off the rest of humanity.
Just what if? What if Exxon-Mobil admitted to global warming and acknowledged it with a plan to stop drilling by year x? Or if Big Pharma acknowledged that cancer drugs cost too much and lowered the prices. What if corporations showed a little humanity towards consumers, paid CEO’s less, made less profit, cut prices, and lessened some of the desperate financial problems besetting Americans. Wouldn’t we then be freed enough from financial burdens and competition with “the other” to start BELIEVING the constitution that all are created equal, to start LIVING the Christian tenet that God loves all people? Maybe then we will recover some of our humanity and accept others as human beings with dignity.
I just don’t think that’s the role of businesses. I don’t think of business is ever going to willfully reduce their prices out of some patriotic or sociological duty. It’s just not what they exist to do. That’s what government is for. That’s the balance the government supposed to provide with regard to the business sector. That’s why I talk about power or imbalances.
Respectfully, I think it is. Every corporation benefits from the roads, rails, communications infrastructure, airports, etc., that society provides. Not to mention the ongoing maintenance of all the above. They are part of this society and therefore should have cooperative interests.
Corporations can and do make huge profits while acting in the best interests of society. The concept of electric vehicles has made Musk the world’s richest person, for heaven’s sake!
Wow! You said it all! Clear and compelling! Kudos for a powerful essay!
So, how do we go about uniting all those disparate groups that are clamoring for change but don't have enough critical mass as separate entities to make it happen? And how do we get so many of them to drop their well meaning but mistaken beliefs in patching present systems instead of fundamentally rebuilding them from scratch?
If you, or someone like you, would step forward with a plan to make it happen, I'd be eager to get behind it. And I'll bet there are millions more like me who are just waiting for that leader to emerge.
P.S. Why are you asking someone else to do the work of coming up with a plan?
I believe that this is a fundamental problem in the US today: we clamor for a "leader" to do our thinking for us and then we are shocked when we end up with a demagogue.
What's your idea? Write it and publish it here on Substack in the marketplace of ideas and we can compare it with other ideas. That's how the Declaration of Independence was written. That's how the Constitution was written. They debated and disputed every point.
Maybe that's what's holding you and so many other Americans back from putting their ideas out there: they fear the dispute and discussion that would follow. This is why we aren't "the land of the brave and the home of the free" any more: we aren't free because we aren't brave. We're scared.
Watch how a beat gets going. Starts simple and clear enough so others can easily hear it and find something in it to move to. It grows gradually, and if it's foundational enough to relate to and feel good about participating with, growth is inevitable. Hope you don't mind the metaphor, but in reality, it's actually not a metaphor but literally how this stuff works (I know you know this, so apologies again, btw..).
I think your proposal here is one that enough people could resonate with that it could grow legs. You'll run into resistance around "socializing," "nationalizing," and "unfair competition", but if it's spoken of as creating job, raising standards, lowering costs, spurring innovation, increasing global competitiveness, etc. I think that's a pretty good product to offer voters.
I also think campaign finance reform (i.e. something like clean election reform) should also be a core part of the message. Nobody trusts anything politicians say without real movement to minimize the influence of private $. Again, my .02.
Caitlin Johnstone wrote an article (I think it was published on her website in September 2021) titled The Left Will Never Achieve Its Goals Until It Confronts the Establishment Propaganda.
All of your questions about "their well-meaning but mistaken beliefs" are caused by this propaganda that they hear on their nightly news shows, yet you don't address the Elephant In The Room: the establishment propaganda.
You will go a long way towards the unity you honestly want by facing this enemy of your goals.
Honest, well-meaning people get elected and become “politicians,” drunk on their perceived power (not the good kind), meet lobbyists, get sidelined by older politicians who “clue them in” to the way “things are done” in Washington. Get the $$$$ out and impose term limits. Those seem to be the biggest impediments to giving the people (you know: the ones living paycheck to paycheck, who’ll never be able to afford a house and don’t dare have kids cuz they won’t be able to support them) what they deserve.
I agree in general, especially the part about the corrupting influence of power, and that's why it seems to me one of the core problems is that govt isn't as accountable to The People as it is to the dollars that pay for their election campaigns. My ideal on that is that private money has no business at all in the mechanism by which the people's representatives are selected for public office. While it's difficult to regulate what people can spend independently to support Candidate A, B, or C, I'd be in favor of a system in which private money supporting candidates is minimized.
Also, while there's an understandable appeal to term limits, they would have an effect that discourages accountability to voters. If House reps were limited to 2 terms, for example, pretty soon half the house would have no structural incentive to vote in the interest of the people. Many of them might be being recruited by one industry or another for when they leave office (as happens now all the time anyway) and they would have little incentive to represent their voting constituents anymore.
I'd like to see people who DO represent their votes to continue to be rewarded if they deserve by being put back in office (based on fair and competitive primaries and general elections). .02.
"Get the $$$$ out" ... I was wondering why there is no party that only puts up candidates who dont take money from oligarchs and corporations. Is the problem that without money one cannot campaign, or is the problem that voters think that money is a sign of success and one therefore should vote for the money?
No. Bernie proved “the people” will support a candidate who refuses to take corporate $$$. The oligarchy wouldn’t stand for it, and the DNC screwed him both times he ran.
During the 2019-2020 election cycle, Sanders received roughly $1.4 million from individuals employed in the "pharmaceuticals/health products" field and about $400,000 from those in "pharmaceutical manufacturing", according to OpenSecrets.
It's crucial to note that this money came from individuals working in various capacities within these fields, not directly from pharmaceutical corporations or their Political Action Committees (PACs).
It's very difficult to someone without access to exceeding wealth to run a campaign for public office, especially when you get past local and state legislative elections.
I'd like to see most all election campaigns for public office to be publicly funded. There are models for that for different kinds of races at the state level. It's tricky, but possible, and this would go a long way, imo, toward having people run who have good ideas, good hearts for public service, and the ability to communicate those ideas effectively.
This is an interesting idea. Maybe I am to pessimistic here, but it seems to me that too many Americans hate anything that is publicly funded. Tax is theft. Government is bad. Etc. This mindset is very strong ...
Yes, you’re right about that. One of the points I have often made is that if there is anything whatsoever that is funded fully by government, it should be the process by which the representatives of the people in public office are chosen.
Then those folks could decide, based on the merits of arguments, on how best to finance everything else.
I know that’s an idealistic vision, but that’s the direction that would seem the most in integrity, it seems to me.
Big challenge, obviously, on how to get there from where we are, but it’s a direction I’d love to see us to consider.
Those who run for office aren't "honest, well-meaning people." Many studies have shown that they are usually psychopaths who have the necessary force of personality to go through the process of getting elected.
There are certainly plenty of those types of folks in public office. There are also a lot of folks with good hearts for public service. It's like most any career, it seems to me, there's all kinds.
It doesn’t matter how good a candidate is, anyone running under a D or R, I would NEVER vote for either— two sides of a very corrupt, rigged system! We were warned how parties become divisive, and here we are. People would rather save their Party than themselves. Bananas!
I was suggesting running in Democratic primaries and in general elections as independents. I think it would need to be an overt strategy to utilize the effective primary structures and then run independents as well.
We tried that before, as you eloquently stated. Doing it again is the proverbial definition of insanity. After 2 rounds of general elections, I can tell you now, people have lost trust in the dino-Democrats. When you lose the immigrant base and ADOS, there is no way winning over suburban whites will overcome that.
Yet another circular firing squad Democratic “analysis”, wholly ignoring that Harris got only a percentage point less than Trump. Or ignoring the devastating effect of Trump’s trans ads and not responding to the far right culture wars stuff. Our failure is not supporting the so-called “status quo”. MAGA doesn’t support it at all. I live in a red state where registered Dems outnumber GOP, yet the non voters have a huge hand in electing retrograde GOPPERs.
We’re not gonna get much done with one or two percentage points. We’re gonna get something done when we have broadbase support across the American electric. Transformational change takes transformational ideas. That would result in massive electoral victories. What we need are massive majorities like we had in the 30s and 40s and 50s
If disgruntled Bernie Bros hadn’t gone with Jill Stein in Michigan and Wisconsin, or failed to vote because Hillary was “too establishment, we would have had a President Clinton and Trump would have been out of our hair for good.
This was my first reaction as well, but I do think it taps the underlying problem, which is essentially an economic one. It is also a profoundly democratic one. It taps on the possibility of addressing private money in public politics, and it also taps on the possibility of creating a functional alternative to the economic power maldistribution we are up against.
Democracy has always been, imo, an effort to provide an effective counterweight to the power of capital. If the government doesn’t do that, it is not fulfilling its core function, as I see it. I think most of us recognize that, but our strategies for fixing that are different depending on our political orientation.
That’s what I see in this analysis, is that the ultimate grievance is about that economic power imbalance.
and Trent‘s proposal to encourage government not only to redistribute wealth, but to engage in the economic game as a player in the capitalist system is an intriguing one, I think.
And yes, it is what FDR did, and the New York City example is interesting too. The US Postal Service and public education system and the public highway system, NASA, the TVA, all examples of the government playing an active role in not only job creation, but productive advancement.
From an individual standpoint, pitching in on all those things feels like an economic hit at tax time, but the benefits to the economy we exist in our huge, even if we don’t always recognize them all.
I also like the idea of initiating new ideas rather than just recycling the old ones that have continued to fail to appeal to the vast majority of the population election after election, decade after decade.
The fact that Harris only lost because of "this reason or that" is a testament to the very problem Trent raises.
People are supremely pissed off that in a country as wealthy as these United States, that so many things, including just having a decent life, some sense of financial security, and an reasonable expectation that their kids lives will be better, are still so seemingly unreachable.
I do think we can do much better. MUCH better. And while I too, would encourage us not to get too fierce in any of our opinions to the point of that circular firing squad dynamic you mentioned, I do think that creative ideas like this one are territory worth exploring as we seek the kinds of solutions that many more Americans could genuinely be attracted to.
It’s going to take more than doing just well enough to win elections. Feels time to fundamentally rethink how this potentially revolutionary society could operate (in that American revolution kind of way).
I think that "redistributing" wealth after the fact is less desirable than preventing the wealth from being unequally given to one small group in the first place.
I think you’re wrong, respectfully. Unitedstatesians do love criminals, hatred, cruelty, envy… I have yet to see a MAGAt or a Republican who is compassionate, has self awareness, isn’t full of arrogance and hate. It’s not the Democrats, it’s everyone else’s lack of morals.
I respectfully disagree. There is a majority of us who are too tired or too discouraged to speak. Those who have an axe to grind will always be the most vocal.
Yes, it's the Republicans. But the Democrats owe us this much: a viable solution. And they're too busy counting their ill-gotten gains to do the job we want from them.
Agree, except that redistribution of wealth does have to be an important part of the solution. Government needs money, and preferential tax rates directed at the highest reservoir of personal wealth is just wrong.
If military expenditures were to end, our economy would collapse. But unlike spending on a highway, a bridge, or a hospital, the public rarely gets any actual usable asset from military spending. We have a huge workforce in the US armed forces. Perhaps a place to begin a transformation is to add supplying public services and facilities to the role of our military. Founding organizations like the CCC could follow.
Nobody seems to oppose the existence of the VA, but somehow our non-military citizens don't deserve a similar approach to healthcare? I'm not saying it's perfect, but the VA is closer to any acceptable model of public healthcare than any other we have in the US.
You’re pumping Saikat— a candidate that won’t say a mumbling word about the daily massacre of children in Palestine anywhere on his website, and instead dreams about wanting to *lead* the openly genocidal dEmOcRaTiC party?
His campaign may as well jump off the nearest San Francisco pier because nobody gives a single f*ck about a candidate with the moral backbone of a jellyfish.
He spoken a lot about the genocide in Gaza. As have I. I don’t know what to do to stop the US from backing genocides or war lords or killing millions of Iraqi and Afghanis other than to try to restore some control to our Democratic process. I think given accurate information and visual demonstrations of what’s happening in these atrocities whether it’s Myanmar, the Sudan, Yemen, or Gaza or even the West Bank the American people would recoil.
“That's not because Americans love criminals—it's because they've lost faith in the alternative.”
Wrong! It’s because Americans chose racism, bigotry, and grievance. Nothing we can do for them, a great economy, infrastructure projects in their red states, health care, jobs, nothing will make them give up their hatred. We don’t win by giving in to them or by doing things for them. We win by defeating them.
With appreciation, respect, and some resonance with the sentiment underneath this comment, as I see it, there is actually no “them.”
Not being airy-fairy here.
Literally, there is no such thing as “us” or “them.” In literal physical or social reality, it’s a perceptual, and ultimately conceptual, fiction.
When we go around defeating any perceived “them” we uncover damage done to ourselves in one way or another.
It’s unavoidable. We are intimately connected and there is literally no one place to draw a line between any “me” and any “other.”
I am thoroughly engaged in a massive, weird, and unavoidable We thing.
As my version of ego sees it, if we’re going to engage the level of discourse being invited by this essay, this brain thinks we would benefit most by recognizing that we are definitely all in this together. And the idea that it’s all about some version of somebody losing in order for somebody else to win is a formula for the destruction of it all. Competition may be fine for games of fun and sportsmanship. But I think of we idolize it too much, it is at our own peril.
That’s part of what I find appealing about this essay, even if I will need to work my way through some of the aspects of it. Trent is expressing something vital about the power of us, The People, taking charge and not only writing laws that benefit the public good, but taking that a step further into participating actively in the competitive economy as a viable player.
Not that this hasn't been done, but if taken on as a central organizing principle, it would be revolutionary indeed compared to the status quo we've been struggling under for generations now.
I for one am a fan of Medicare for All and single payer and have been for decades. But I also like this idea of actually building the hospitals and the clinics and hiring the healthcare staff, not to completely erase the private entrants, but to lower the costs and raise the standards of care.
And yes, I agree that hate and bigotry have played a role, but that is also something that was taught by the industrialists in the wake of the Civil War, for example. If poor Whites and poor Blacks got together and organized, it could have countered the huge power of the capital held by the industrialists of the late 19th century.
I don’t think there is anything innate or natural about hate or prejudice. When we learn life isn’t a zero sum game, things shift.
I disagree that the majority of Americans are rabid haters. You're looking at a vocal minority and extrapolating to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. And insulting to boot.
Then perhaps the haters have the biggest mouths and the loudest cussing because they are in keeping with the president and his regime and their noises are amplified. That’s about all that is heard these days, unless one listens quietly to a Democrat. They actually care about the people, but don’t waste their time screaming and insulting but actually do the work.
What about the ownership of means of production and capital? Don't we need to redistribute it? Isn't it that selfish pursuit of interests of those few owning means of production and today create all these problems you're talking about? And you're not mentioning it at all? You kill a snake by hitting her in the head not by chopping it from the tail.
Every word you said is exactly what I believe, except for your statement that your suggestions aren't socialism. Of course you have to deny socialism because of the American bugaboo about "socialism," but this is the good socialism, not the totalitarian one that we fear. The real totalitarianism is coming disguised as market forces.
I am just an ordinary American, without any platform or exceptional power, and I have been thinking these things for about 50 years.
It's as though you read my mind and published my thoughts. No, you're not fringe, or if you are, I'm there with you.
Now those who agree with these ideas need to get together and I don't care if they identify themselves as "right" or "left." We need all of us to turn the Titanic around.
It's all hands on deck, because we are all in this boat together. We will all go down together if the crew is infighting instead of working to save the ship.
We need to direct our energy at the true "enemy"...the extractors...not our fellow citizens..
Absolutely! But this will be a two-step process:
1) Fighting off the propaganda that continually tells us to blame our neighbors, and
2) defining who the extractors are, hidden beneath the layers of shell companies and figureheads who shelter the enemy.
Fully agree. ✊
I think you are right on in saying that government needs to compete with private industry to reduce prices overall. So glad someone actually recognizes this. I was a career government employee. The last 20 years I ran the fleet department for my specific agency. We had over 300 vehicles and heavy equipment. We had our own auto shop staffed with 3-5 full time mechanics. We did most all maintenance and repairs, farming out only overflow and larger, specialized repairs. But, we utilized all local parts houses and local mechanics as needed. All was great. Our mechanics knew the vehicles and their operations. They did an annual service on everything. They were able to anticipate repair needs based on vehicle use and the actual operators. They were also there to re-train operators as needed. During Clinton-Gore, we were forced to compete against private contractors. Only thing in the bid was wages, our shop, all tools, service truckers, etc would go to the winner. Of course it was rigged, we had to stay with our government wage scale, contractor did not. They won, they stopped using local parts and shops, repairs were constantly behind schedule, customers couldn’t get their vehicles, fire and police units went un-repaired during fire season. Overall budget increased 25% before end of probation period. They were fired after 1 yr., but the damage was done. Mechanics had moved on, tools were sold. Customers now had to handle their own maintenance and repairs. It was a mess, cost continued to increase. This is just one example. Government shot itself and the taxpayers in the foot. Costing them sustainably more money, by no longer competing with private industry.
Same story all over the place. Thanks for sharing this insight.
“Outsourcing “ is the bane of efficiency. Reagan really accelerated the movement with his “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.” It created an environment where they could brazenly lie about reducing the cost of government, while enriching their wealthy owners! One example is private prisons.
Goods and services produced and sold at their efficient cost of production reflect real cost and value. That is the function of competition. Goods and services which cost far beyond the cost to produce them are extractive. Monopolies set their own extractive prices far above actual costs. Their prices are not determined by market competition.
Problem with your article is you don’t address the issue of our politicians continuing to support wars, rather than what we people want. For example, a clear majority of our citizens are opposed to our support of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. I wish I could just blame this on Republicans but Genocide Joe Biden could have stopped this carnage before the end of October 2023! And the Islamophobic Racist Kamala Harris refused to break with Biden’s Zionism and thereby lost the election to a convicted felon! She didn’t receive over 3 million from votes that Joe Biden received! Her total support from the Nazi AIPAC handlers caused her to REFuSE to see the error of her ways! I am no longer a Democrat because of their rank stupidity! And it’s not just those 2! Jeffries, chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, my two Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey as well as my Representative from MA 9th C. D. Bill Keating are all sellouts who support the fascist government of Israel! Explore that issue and you will really be hitting the nail on the head!
I reckon that we need to restore representative democracy. Fix a lot of the issues with registration and voting and gerrymandering. Maybe that’s how we stop the war machine.
Ditto! 100%
I always learn so much for your pieces. You never fail to bring a fresh perspective or put a slightly different spin on an issue I thought I’d seen from every side. Keep up the great work.
I was totally with you until you used the misogynistic slur “pussified.” Leave that out next time, dude.
I feel ya. You get my meaning though, yeah?
Were we a matriarchal society, sweetie, none of this would be happening.
Yeah, we need to ditch the language (and the thinking expressed by the language, really) that denigrates the feminine and feminine qualities. The suppression of the feminine for thousands of years of human history is very much part of the mess we're in, and confronting that will be part of the solution. I like the ideas overall though, and I continue to learn how to be anti-racist as a white woman, so I'm going to say it's a teachable moment for white men w/ good intentions. Boys, don't say or believe ppl you don't agree w/ are pussies. Weak thinking.
I believe that they are cowards.
Well, why don't you say so, instead of using a sexist slur?
Healthcare, medicines, everything costs more in this country with less positive outcomes. Why? GREED. That is the principle that underlies Capitalism and this country. As it stands in this country, corporations tell us what we want and dictate what we will pay for it. That is the crux… we have no control over this and over time, we become angry and bitter and want “our share”. Greed infests and takes our mind off the rest of humanity.
Just what if? What if Exxon-Mobil admitted to global warming and acknowledged it with a plan to stop drilling by year x? Or if Big Pharma acknowledged that cancer drugs cost too much and lowered the prices. What if corporations showed a little humanity towards consumers, paid CEO’s less, made less profit, cut prices, and lessened some of the desperate financial problems besetting Americans. Wouldn’t we then be freed enough from financial burdens and competition with “the other” to start BELIEVING the constitution that all are created equal, to start LIVING the Christian tenet that God loves all people? Maybe then we will recover some of our humanity and accept others as human beings with dignity.
I just don’t think that’s the role of businesses. I don’t think of business is ever going to willfully reduce their prices out of some patriotic or sociological duty. It’s just not what they exist to do. That’s what government is for. That’s the balance the government supposed to provide with regard to the business sector. That’s why I talk about power or imbalances.
Respectfully, I think it is. Every corporation benefits from the roads, rails, communications infrastructure, airports, etc., that society provides. Not to mention the ongoing maintenance of all the above. They are part of this society and therefore should have cooperative interests.
That would be great. But I think you have to rein them in due to that ot being the case. Imo
They don't see themselves that way, nor is it a corporation's goal to act cooperatively, given the basic tenets of capitalism.
They would say, if asked about cooperative interests, that they aren't a social service agency. They are there to make money.
The basic tenet of capitalism is competition, not cooperation.
Corporations can and do make huge profits while acting in the best interests of society. The concept of electric vehicles has made Musk the world’s richest person, for heaven’s sake!
You must have been on vacation for the last several weeks and I certainly hope that it was an enjoyable experience.
Otherwise, I can't account for your advancement of Musk and the Tesla as being in the best interests of society.
Moreover, Musk made far more money from his multiple contracts with the military industry than he did from making cars.
Wow! You said it all! Clear and compelling! Kudos for a powerful essay!
So, how do we go about uniting all those disparate groups that are clamoring for change but don't have enough critical mass as separate entities to make it happen? And how do we get so many of them to drop their well meaning but mistaken beliefs in patching present systems instead of fundamentally rebuilding them from scratch?
If you, or someone like you, would step forward with a plan to make it happen, I'd be eager to get behind it. And I'll bet there are millions more like me who are just waiting for that leader to emerge.
P.S. Why are you asking someone else to do the work of coming up with a plan?
I believe that this is a fundamental problem in the US today: we clamor for a "leader" to do our thinking for us and then we are shocked when we end up with a demagogue.
What's your idea? Write it and publish it here on Substack in the marketplace of ideas and we can compare it with other ideas. That's how the Declaration of Independence was written. That's how the Constitution was written. They debated and disputed every point.
Maybe that's what's holding you and so many other Americans back from putting their ideas out there: they fear the dispute and discussion that would follow. This is why we aren't "the land of the brave and the home of the free" any more: we aren't free because we aren't brave. We're scared.
Dr Gene Sharp said, "Fear breeds submission."
I’m working on it. It’s quite the undertaking as you might imagine.
Watch how a beat gets going. Starts simple and clear enough so others can easily hear it and find something in it to move to. It grows gradually, and if it's foundational enough to relate to and feel good about participating with, growth is inevitable. Hope you don't mind the metaphor, but in reality, it's actually not a metaphor but literally how this stuff works (I know you know this, so apologies again, btw..).
I think your proposal here is one that enough people could resonate with that it could grow legs. You'll run into resistance around "socializing," "nationalizing," and "unfair competition", but if it's spoken of as creating job, raising standards, lowering costs, spurring innovation, increasing global competitiveness, etc. I think that's a pretty good product to offer voters.
I also think campaign finance reform (i.e. something like clean election reform) should also be a core part of the message. Nobody trusts anything politicians say without real movement to minimize the influence of private $. Again, my .02.
MoveToAmend.org
Caitlin Johnstone wrote an article (I think it was published on her website in September 2021) titled The Left Will Never Achieve Its Goals Until It Confronts the Establishment Propaganda.
All of your questions about "their well-meaning but mistaken beliefs" are caused by this propaganda that they hear on their nightly news shows, yet you don't address the Elephant In The Room: the establishment propaganda.
You will go a long way towards the unity you honestly want by facing this enemy of your goals.
Honest, well-meaning people get elected and become “politicians,” drunk on their perceived power (not the good kind), meet lobbyists, get sidelined by older politicians who “clue them in” to the way “things are done” in Washington. Get the $$$$ out and impose term limits. Those seem to be the biggest impediments to giving the people (you know: the ones living paycheck to paycheck, who’ll never be able to afford a house and don’t dare have kids cuz they won’t be able to support them) what they deserve.
I agree in general, especially the part about the corrupting influence of power, and that's why it seems to me one of the core problems is that govt isn't as accountable to The People as it is to the dollars that pay for their election campaigns. My ideal on that is that private money has no business at all in the mechanism by which the people's representatives are selected for public office. While it's difficult to regulate what people can spend independently to support Candidate A, B, or C, I'd be in favor of a system in which private money supporting candidates is minimized.
Also, while there's an understandable appeal to term limits, they would have an effect that discourages accountability to voters. If House reps were limited to 2 terms, for example, pretty soon half the house would have no structural incentive to vote in the interest of the people. Many of them might be being recruited by one industry or another for when they leave office (as happens now all the time anyway) and they would have little incentive to represent their voting constituents anymore.
I'd like to see people who DO represent their votes to continue to be rewarded if they deserve by being put back in office (based on fair and competitive primaries and general elections). .02.
"Get the $$$$ out" ... I was wondering why there is no party that only puts up candidates who dont take money from oligarchs and corporations. Is the problem that without money one cannot campaign, or is the problem that voters think that money is a sign of success and one therefore should vote for the money?
No. Bernie proved “the people” will support a candidate who refuses to take corporate $$$. The oligarchy wouldn’t stand for it, and the DNC screwed him both times he ran.
Bernie took money from pharma.
During the 2019-2020 election cycle, Sanders received roughly $1.4 million from individuals employed in the "pharmaceuticals/health products" field and about $400,000 from those in "pharmaceutical manufacturing", according to OpenSecrets.
It's crucial to note that this money came from individuals working in various capacities within these fields, not directly from pharmaceutical corporations or their Political Action Committees (PACs).
It's very difficult to someone without access to exceeding wealth to run a campaign for public office, especially when you get past local and state legislative elections.
I'd like to see most all election campaigns for public office to be publicly funded. There are models for that for different kinds of races at the state level. It's tricky, but possible, and this would go a long way, imo, toward having people run who have good ideas, good hearts for public service, and the ability to communicate those ideas effectively.
This is an interesting idea. Maybe I am to pessimistic here, but it seems to me that too many Americans hate anything that is publicly funded. Tax is theft. Government is bad. Etc. This mindset is very strong ...
Yes, you’re right about that. One of the points I have often made is that if there is anything whatsoever that is funded fully by government, it should be the process by which the representatives of the people in public office are chosen.
Then those folks could decide, based on the merits of arguments, on how best to finance everything else.
I know that’s an idealistic vision, but that’s the direction that would seem the most in integrity, it seems to me.
Big challenge, obviously, on how to get there from where we are, but it’s a direction I’d love to see us to consider.
Those who run for office aren't "honest, well-meaning people." Many studies have shown that they are usually psychopaths who have the necessary force of personality to go through the process of getting elected.
There are certainly plenty of those types of folks in public office. There are also a lot of folks with good hearts for public service. It's like most any career, it seems to me, there's all kinds.
You are certainly being generous. There is such a thing as toxic positivity, however.
If I can find those studies and learn how to link to them, I will post them here.
It doesn’t matter how good a candidate is, anyone running under a D or R, I would NEVER vote for either— two sides of a very corrupt, rigged system! We were warned how parties become divisive, and here we are. People would rather save their Party than themselves. Bananas!
I was suggesting running in Democratic primaries and in general elections as independents. I think it would need to be an overt strategy to utilize the effective primary structures and then run independents as well.
We tried that before, as you eloquently stated. Doing it again is the proverbial definition of insanity. After 2 rounds of general elections, I can tell you now, people have lost trust in the dino-Democrats. When you lose the immigrant base and ADOS, there is no way winning over suburban whites will overcome that.
Yet another circular firing squad Democratic “analysis”, wholly ignoring that Harris got only a percentage point less than Trump. Or ignoring the devastating effect of Trump’s trans ads and not responding to the far right culture wars stuff. Our failure is not supporting the so-called “status quo”. MAGA doesn’t support it at all. I live in a red state where registered Dems outnumber GOP, yet the non voters have a huge hand in electing retrograde GOPPERs.
We’re not gonna get much done with one or two percentage points. We’re gonna get something done when we have broadbase support across the American electric. Transformational change takes transformational ideas. That would result in massive electoral victories. What we need are massive majorities like we had in the 30s and 40s and 50s
If disgruntled Bernie Bros hadn’t gone with Jill Stein in Michigan and Wisconsin, or failed to vote because Hillary was “too establishment, we would have had a President Clinton and Trump would have been out of our hair for good.
Good grief.
You’re as propagandized as the average Trump voter.
This was my first reaction as well, but I do think it taps the underlying problem, which is essentially an economic one. It is also a profoundly democratic one. It taps on the possibility of addressing private money in public politics, and it also taps on the possibility of creating a functional alternative to the economic power maldistribution we are up against.
Democracy has always been, imo, an effort to provide an effective counterweight to the power of capital. If the government doesn’t do that, it is not fulfilling its core function, as I see it. I think most of us recognize that, but our strategies for fixing that are different depending on our political orientation.
That’s what I see in this analysis, is that the ultimate grievance is about that economic power imbalance.
and Trent‘s proposal to encourage government not only to redistribute wealth, but to engage in the economic game as a player in the capitalist system is an intriguing one, I think.
And yes, it is what FDR did, and the New York City example is interesting too. The US Postal Service and public education system and the public highway system, NASA, the TVA, all examples of the government playing an active role in not only job creation, but productive advancement.
From an individual standpoint, pitching in on all those things feels like an economic hit at tax time, but the benefits to the economy we exist in our huge, even if we don’t always recognize them all.
I also like the idea of initiating new ideas rather than just recycling the old ones that have continued to fail to appeal to the vast majority of the population election after election, decade after decade.
The fact that Harris only lost because of "this reason or that" is a testament to the very problem Trent raises.
People are supremely pissed off that in a country as wealthy as these United States, that so many things, including just having a decent life, some sense of financial security, and an reasonable expectation that their kids lives will be better, are still so seemingly unreachable.
I do think we can do much better. MUCH better. And while I too, would encourage us not to get too fierce in any of our opinions to the point of that circular firing squad dynamic you mentioned, I do think that creative ideas like this one are territory worth exploring as we seek the kinds of solutions that many more Americans could genuinely be attracted to.
It’s going to take more than doing just well enough to win elections. Feels time to fundamentally rethink how this potentially revolutionary society could operate (in that American revolution kind of way).
🙏
I think that "redistributing" wealth after the fact is less desirable than preventing the wealth from being unequally given to one small group in the first place.
Harris also lost because of race and gender.
So you are confessing you are part of the problem. Do you like the candidate you elected?
That is such a typical democrat reply. It has nothing to do with reality. Dem= Repub .
I think you’re wrong, respectfully. Unitedstatesians do love criminals, hatred, cruelty, envy… I have yet to see a MAGAt or a Republican who is compassionate, has self awareness, isn’t full of arrogance and hate. It’s not the Democrats, it’s everyone else’s lack of morals.
I respectfully disagree. There is a majority of us who are too tired or too discouraged to speak. Those who have an axe to grind will always be the most vocal.
Yes, it's the Republicans. But the Democrats owe us this much: a viable solution. And they're too busy counting their ill-gotten gains to do the job we want from them.
Agree, except that redistribution of wealth does have to be an important part of the solution. Government needs money, and preferential tax rates directed at the highest reservoir of personal wealth is just wrong.
If military expenditures were to end, our economy would collapse. But unlike spending on a highway, a bridge, or a hospital, the public rarely gets any actual usable asset from military spending. We have a huge workforce in the US armed forces. Perhaps a place to begin a transformation is to add supplying public services and facilities to the role of our military. Founding organizations like the CCC could follow.
Nobody seems to oppose the existence of the VA, but somehow our non-military citizens don't deserve a similar approach to healthcare? I'm not saying it's perfect, but the VA is closer to any acceptable model of public healthcare than any other we have in the US.
You’re pumping Saikat— a candidate that won’t say a mumbling word about the daily massacre of children in Palestine anywhere on his website, and instead dreams about wanting to *lead* the openly genocidal dEmOcRaTiC party?
His campaign may as well jump off the nearest San Francisco pier because nobody gives a single f*ck about a candidate with the moral backbone of a jellyfish.
He spoken a lot about the genocide in Gaza. As have I. I don’t know what to do to stop the US from backing genocides or war lords or killing millions of Iraqi and Afghanis other than to try to restore some control to our Democratic process. I think given accurate information and visual demonstrations of what’s happening in these atrocities whether it’s Myanmar, the Sudan, Yemen, or Gaza or even the West Bank the American people would recoil.
“That's not because Americans love criminals—it's because they've lost faith in the alternative.”
Wrong! It’s because Americans chose racism, bigotry, and grievance. Nothing we can do for them, a great economy, infrastructure projects in their red states, health care, jobs, nothing will make them give up their hatred. We don’t win by giving in to them or by doing things for them. We win by defeating them.
Defeating whom? 80, 90, 100 million Americans? Can’t we defeat the ideology?
With appreciation, respect, and some resonance with the sentiment underneath this comment, as I see it, there is actually no “them.”
Not being airy-fairy here.
Literally, there is no such thing as “us” or “them.” In literal physical or social reality, it’s a perceptual, and ultimately conceptual, fiction.
When we go around defeating any perceived “them” we uncover damage done to ourselves in one way or another.
It’s unavoidable. We are intimately connected and there is literally no one place to draw a line between any “me” and any “other.”
I am thoroughly engaged in a massive, weird, and unavoidable We thing.
As my version of ego sees it, if we’re going to engage the level of discourse being invited by this essay, this brain thinks we would benefit most by recognizing that we are definitely all in this together. And the idea that it’s all about some version of somebody losing in order for somebody else to win is a formula for the destruction of it all. Competition may be fine for games of fun and sportsmanship. But I think of we idolize it too much, it is at our own peril.
That’s part of what I find appealing about this essay, even if I will need to work my way through some of the aspects of it. Trent is expressing something vital about the power of us, The People, taking charge and not only writing laws that benefit the public good, but taking that a step further into participating actively in the competitive economy as a viable player.
Not that this hasn't been done, but if taken on as a central organizing principle, it would be revolutionary indeed compared to the status quo we've been struggling under for generations now.
I for one am a fan of Medicare for All and single payer and have been for decades. But I also like this idea of actually building the hospitals and the clinics and hiring the healthcare staff, not to completely erase the private entrants, but to lower the costs and raise the standards of care.
And yes, I agree that hate and bigotry have played a role, but that is also something that was taught by the industrialists in the wake of the Civil War, for example. If poor Whites and poor Blacks got together and organized, it could have countered the huge power of the capital held by the industrialists of the late 19th century.
I don’t think there is anything innate or natural about hate or prejudice. When we learn life isn’t a zero sum game, things shift.
My .02.
"single payer," not "single pair," although Spell Check might have done it to you
Thanks! that was voice dictation playing its subversive little games and I didn't catch it (corrected).
Petty often or always?
I disagree that the majority of Americans are rabid haters. You're looking at a vocal minority and extrapolating to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. And insulting to boot.
Yes, but if you add up the people who are with Trump and the people who don’t care, that’s more than half the country.
Then perhaps the haters have the biggest mouths and the loudest cussing because they are in keeping with the president and his regime and their noises are amplified. That’s about all that is heard these days, unless one listens quietly to a Democrat. They actually care about the people, but don’t waste their time screaming and insulting but actually do the work.
What about the ownership of means of production and capital? Don't we need to redistribute it? Isn't it that selfish pursuit of interests of those few owning means of production and today create all these problems you're talking about? And you're not mentioning it at all? You kill a snake by hitting her in the head not by chopping it from the tail.
I mention it a lot in the delivery of healthcare example.