Mamdani was 3-0 last night for his Congressional nomination endorsements, and DSA candidates won many state level races in New York. It was a decisive win for true progressives in NYC.
A growing number of progressive voters are not only disgusted by Trump’s GOP, they are tired of ineffectual corporate Democrats. There is a reason the approval rating for the Democratic Party is not much better than Trump’s rating. Maybe that will change as the Party gets some new fresh ideas and energy from these new young, truly progressive leaders.
For way too long the Dem “big tent”has opened to the right and has at best obstructed the left side entrance. The corporate Dems rally against Mamdani in his race was only one example. Hopefully that will change too.
Finally, *finally!*, we're not freaking out about the s-word, socialism, or its parliamentary cousin, social democracy. The New Deal and what followed was (somewhat euphemistically) referred to as a "mixed economy," but it had many social-democratic traits. Unfortunately it was also racist AF, and that proved to be the faultline that allowed Big Capital to reassert control: Would we have had Reagan, Reaganomics, and everything that followed without the white working- and middle-class-and-up vote? And would we have got Trump I without the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision and what journalist Dana Milbank calls "the 25-Year Crack-up of the Republican Party"? I doubt it.
It's long past time for us to pay closer attention to economic power. It's not one of the three branches of government, it's not in the Constitution, but it'll eat all of the above alive if given half a chance, and it's been doing exactly that.
Yes! I see this new movement as taking the best parts of the New Deal from an honest multicultural. diverse approach, adapted to 21st century needs and problems.
It's also important to recognize that multiculturalism and diversity are nothing new. Those very principles were built into our Constitution, and that wasn't even a secret at the time. James Madison candidly explained that diversity, equity and inclusion are essential to our Constitution. They are vital to the strength of our Constitution and our nation.
In Federalist No. 51 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493427), Madison directly and expressly emphasized that our diversity is one of the vital strengths of our union, and diversity helps ensure equity and justice. Madison emphasized (repeatedly) that "Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government." So Madison expressly highlighted that diversity was essential to the security of both "civil rights" and "religious rights" and the security was provided by ensuring "the multiplicity of interests" and "the multiplicity of sects."
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."
"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
Diversity, equity and inclusion was the point of one of the best-known structural aspects of our Constitution, i.e., "federalism" (allocating limited power to the national government while (as the 10th Amendment expressly emphasizes) other "powers" are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). Protecting diversity, equity and inclusion also is the point of the entire First Amendment.
Interesting theory, but riddle me this: If “multiculturalism and diversity” were built into the Constitution, why did it take a civil war to end slavery and another century for Black people in most of the country to get access to the ballot and basic human rights? And why did the fight for women’s suffrage not get seriously under way till some 60 years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or achieve its goal till 70 years after that?
And do point me to where Madison used the phrase “diversity, equity and inclusion” or something comparable to it.
Susanna, in addition to considering how Madison addressed the defects in human nature and the potential remedies in Federalist 51, it is well worth considering the same in Federalist 10. Madison highlighted how people focus on "the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions" precisely "to kindle [the most] unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Anything "interesting to the human passions" can be "inflamed" to make people "much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." Much of Madison's writing in Federalist 10 and 51 is highly relevant today (and it always will be).
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, [regarding either] speculation [or] practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
"Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."
"To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." Our Constitution was designed to provide "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government."
Susanna, the answer to your first question is simple and obvious: human nature. People with power often are loathe to share it or give it up. Madison even highlighted this very problem in Federalist 51:
"It [is[ a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Madison's allusion to "such devices," above, is to the devices written into our Constitution (and amendments thereto) and our written laws. A written Constitution is an express acknowledgment that human nature is such that many people with power will abuse it and try to usurp even more than they were given. As a result, Madison also highlighted in the very next sentence, "[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Susanna, your final request highlights the problem. Even when the words stating principles are highlighted, they still are overlooked. As I showed above, Madison highlighted the following:
"Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government."
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
Madison also was famously known as the Father of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments). As I said above, the Tenth Amendment expressly secures diversity, equity and inclusion by highlighting that many "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" were " reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And protecting diversity, equity and inclusion is the implicit point of the entire First Amendment.
Susanna, Madison used words essentially the same in meaning as diversity, equity and inclusion.
"Justice" is another word used to express the principle expressed by the word "equity."
Madison explained how our Constitution used diversity and inclusion to help (and to help us) secure justice:
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."
The act of "creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the [whole] society" is what the People did by creating our own written Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the prohibition on religious tests in Article VI and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments and the many ways that our Constitution included states and preserved the power of the people of individual states were expressly directed at using our Constitution to secure and promote diversity and inclusion (and thereby promote equity/justice).
The second method, above ("comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable") is diversity and inclusion. That was the primary principle underlying the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments Each such amendment clarified or changed the meaning of the expression "We the People" at the beginning of our Constitution.
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government." Diversity is the same as "the multiplicity of interests." "Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens." Inclusion was of "the extent of country and number of people" and of "the multiplicity of interests" of "different classes of citizens."
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government."
Nowhere in the 51st Federalist Paper is the word "diversity" used. That essay concerns itself with checks and balances. To read into an historical document the interests a later commenter may have, is poor scholarship. We can parse and extrapolate and look for evidence in a document that might support our own views, but it's still sloppy scholarship. No matter how many words from the document are pasted/ quoted.
Of course multiculturalism and diversity aren't new! They were of course realities of colonial American life. But they found few words of recognition in our Constitution as originally ratified. Susanna, periodically Jack Jordan goes off on one of his Federalist Papers 'things' and I guess yesterday was one of those times.
Exactly. If you poll in an apolitical way and ask the right questions--ones that are not pinned to reflect one political side or the other--what you get is a true measure of people in the USA who largely embrace so-called progressive policies but which are in fact simply ones that benefit humanity as a whole rather than the monied interests of a few ultra-rich spoiled brat-boyz.
Ahhhh your bias and willingness to blame those you choose to call corporate dems is showing your blindspot.
Your blindspot is ignorance of the fact that every dem admin has used regulated capitalism and filed Federal lawsuits against corporations for price-fixing, monopoly behavior, et al.
OTOH, every GOP admin since Reagan has used unregulated Capitalism and gifts of tax cuts and tax loopholes that ONLY benefit the rich.
You ONLY base the phrase "corporate dems" on whether or not dems accept donations from the rich. Well, the rich are not stupid and do not want to be labelled as biassed.
Have you ever compared how much the rich spend on GOP vs Dem? Or have you just believed what mainstream news journalists spout?
If the answer is yes, you have been purposefully misinformed or not fully informed by journalists. WHY? Because Reagan ended the Fairness Doc, allowed Outrageous FOX News to be started in the US, and behind that noise, 90% of journalists slid into the pockets of the GOP.
From that point forward, facts & evidence disappeared from the "news" replaced by opinions and beliefs. From that point forward, negative reports on GOP rarely appeared - while positive reports on DEM rarely appeared. By the time T came down the escalator truth no longer mattered. With social media and mainstream media only opinions and beliefs mattered.
Instead of explaining (as Mamdani has done in NYC), Sanders and Hogg screamed against capitalismas , arrogantly used the word socialism (without Mamdani's explanations) and blamed corporate dems. The result: citizens learned nothing. They already did not know the meaning of capitalism & socialism and anger & misinformation do NOT invite interest in learning.
IF It is true that there are more progressives now, it is solely because of Mamdani and AOC. It was Pelosi who helped AOC to become better at speaking about progressive ideas. The change was noticeable. She began "teaching" during her statements on the floor of the House - not pontificating - but by clearly demonstrating what corporate leaders were doing. She tore apart every step of the CVS corporation. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS TO VOTERS. They do not care who you blame or hate. And blaming corporate dems did NOT aid your cause within the party. It turned voters away from you. So then you act like children and do not vote for HRC & Harris because neither woman was good enough for you. THAT HELPED T TO BECOME PRESIDENT IN 2016 and 2024 dragging us deeper in debt and possibly ending our democracy.
I AM A PROGRESSIVE and long before the majority of you. The inability of progressives and democratic socialists to see beyond what THEY want in order to understand what needs to be done not only stalls progress, it can stop it.
The GOP remains in control of every part of the gov't AND our armed forces. Removing T will NOT end the danger we are in. That danger is increasing. The maga/fascist party will do EVERYTHING to stop or control the election in November.
IF we get a chance to vote, then we must vote for whatever Dem can win in any district - no matter what type of dem it is. A progressive will NOT win Schumer's district. Beware also that the GOP has set up organizations promoting supposedly "progressive" candidates but are just candidates that the GOP knows they can beat.
That rant probably sounded better in your head than it does in print.
You don't know what i think or what I am talking about any more than you know what you're talking about.
Ps - Schumer doesn't have a district, he's a Senator.
And, the NYC neighborhood where Schumer lives in NYC was just won decisively by the very progressive Brand Lander over the AIPAC recipient Dan Goldman.
My "rant" is quite accurate except for my blunder of using the word district with respect to Schumer who, of course, is a Senator not a representative. Lander did not win a seat. He won a primary and will move on for the next vote. I know Lander and he is an excellent candidate. It is unfortunate when someone responds to a post in a way that just dismisses what someone else says. That's exactly what I expect from someone who cannot hear or consider a different point of view.
No,I responded to your rant in that fashion because that’s exactly what it is, a floundering, sputtering diatribe that is barely coherent and full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. I don’t need to waste my time when there are other thoughtful comments here worthy of responses.
You know, you might want to take ten seconds, stop patting yourself on the back for your soi disant superior acumen, and pay attention to someone else for ten seconds. But, to date, the willingness to do that has not been a hallmark of the bros.
No idea how old you are, but I was - putting it bluntly - getting the crap kicked out of me in NYC in 1968 with my Black Power friends in clashes with the cops over Viet Nam. Check your privilege at the door, son. It's feeling as old as I am.
THANK YOU. Bernie Sanders was manipulated by the ever so not "progressive" Tad Devine - former partner in Ukraine of Paul Manafort and whose only actual political success story was engineering the election of Viktor Yanukovich - into running against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The result was Sanders convincing roughly 30% of his devoted base to stay home. Anyone in that camp take ownership for helping Trump grab the Oval Office yet? :::crickets:::
But I suspect the noisy bro contingent in here will try and condescend, tell you you don't know what you're talking about, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm also willing to bet none of them were born before Watergate. Done here. (Edited for a missing "s")
Thank you so much. There's a part of my brain that's saying that I knew this once upon a time, but if I did it sure was hiding. And yes the bro team get horrified when I provide them with info that they do not want to hear.
I like some of what you said. But when Sanders was up the DNC pushed Clinton. At that time, not being aware of Sanders, i watched many of his speeches from years back and was struck by the fact that he has always been exactly like he is.
“Corporate dems” are the ones who seek money, political power and influence ahead of representing their constituents.
As for the goo in Ohio, i have Husted and Moreno, neither of whom represent any of their democratic constituents.
I am old and have known who Bernie was for a very long time. Still I looked up his Vermont and Senate records. What had he accomplished? NOTHING SIGNIFICANT. His name was on a few bills. And he talked a lot, but results were missing.
I understand why young people caught up in an increasingly difficult economic situation would hear Bernie and see him as a hero while neglecting to notice his poor strategies that turned many voters away.
There are 2 reasons Sanders failed to win the Democratic primaries.
1) Simple statistics. The majority of the people in the democratic party are in the center of that party. Independents who vote in our primaries are in the center of normal political ideas. With millions of people voting, the voting results will essentially end up as a Bell curve. As a result, the candidate who wins the primary will be closer to the center of the party. In 2016, that was HRC. In 2020, that was Biden. Given the timing of Biden ending his campaign, choosing Harris as the candidate as he requested was the right choice.
2) Bernie's rants, misinformation, and arrogance. He, himself, did not understand the meaning of capitalism - yet he blamed it for our economic troubles. Our news media (in the pockets of the GOP since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc) taught loved this - it gave them so much fodder to use against HRC. Bernie, like many candidates, chose "blame" as his theme. In that way, he could be the messiah and rescue everyone. His tactics backfired.
If you want to change the minds of people, you need to bring the facts and the evidence - otherwise, they will NOT trust you. Bernie did not speak the truth and did not explain the words capitalism, socialism, and democratic socialism (words that very few people understand accurately). The GOP pushed the split - knowing that this would help them beat HRC. Bernie was touted for his HC for ALL ideas, but it was HILARY who created the first comprehensive health plan for Americans during her husband's term. It was Obama that had made strides forward in getting a HC plan to ensure everyone was covered. Then somehow Bernie shows up with claim that he alone knows what to do. Bernie has always had ideas, but he has never done the work to actually get anything accomplished.
When AOC came back after that campaign, she was different. Pelosi had taken her under her wing and helped her to understand a better way of communicating her ideas to the public. They were the same strategies that Mamdani used when he ran for Mayor. NOW people can listen and see what progressive ideas actually look like. NO DRAMA, no blame, no rants - just FACTS & EVIDENCE. The question now is "Is it too late?" Will we lose our democracy because dem socialists and progressives could not be bothered to vote for HRC and Harris because THEY were not perfect for them?
I’m 73, a Clevelander, not a Bernie bro, been voting democratic since my first vote which was after Kent State. No purity test here. Just my view that the DNC is out of touch and run by money and power. The grassroots is where the rubber meets the road.
Yep. My husband has always called him the Photobomber, for his propensity for showing up at the announcements and signings of other peoples' ideas into legislation, as if he had somehow been part of it.
I'm also rather bitterly amused at the apparent ignorance of the Sanders' supporters of the man's pro-gun stance - especially after so much "I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU KNOW NOTHING" being spouted above. He was one of the loudest voices in the passage of 2005's heinous Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, the one that protects gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits when the survivors or living families of those killed by their death toys tryforcing them into corporate (ahem) accountability. The NRA called it one of the most gun-friendly pieces of legislation on the new century at the time, and thanked him publicly for his efforts. And then the little tool doubled down on it, when he was asked whether the families of those slaughtered at Sandy Hook should be allowed to sue, and he said no.
He is not the brightest star in the firmament. But enough noisy finger-jabbing populism will convince people otherwise. Hell, it worked for Trump.
You don't sound much like any Progressive I've seen. The Dems have done as much damage to Democracy as the GOP and have gone along with the GOP on their assault to our country.
Why? Because I challenge Bernie's approach and incorrect statements?
Please tell me about the damage that has been done to our democracy by the Democratic party that is in any way equivalent to the GOP's assault. The latter started moving right starting with Reagan and his reintroduction of insidious racism. Reagan liked Heritage Society ideas. He ended the Fairness Doc and allowed Fox News to have a place on TV. As a result, the mainstream news media/journalists started slipping into the pockets of the GOP. Do you know who else did something similar? Hitler took control of German newspapers in 1933 to push his lies and hate. Fox News did this for the GOP. 90% of the rest of the news media were more discreet. But they STOPPED using facts & evidence in their reports and focussed on opinions and beliefs. They told you both sides were the same. (False) They told you that the GOP was better for the economy BUT did not tell you that they only enriched the rich. I honestly do want to know what facts you have that prove they are the same.
If the Progressives take over my party, I become an Independent. I will, of course, support Dem in the general against the MAGA and those who have let it flourish. But I find many Progressives to be ideologically rigid. That is what destroyed the Republican party. I am tired of being denigrated if I don't agree with Progressives on every issue. I don't want to be put in a box.
Yes. Mamdani has worked closely with the moderate Hochul on many successful initiatives already, and has even compromised with some right leaning leaders at times, including his police commissioner.
I'm really liking Mamdani, by and large. The man walks the walk. But he is not most of the progressive wing in congress. They have, since 2016, indulged in the kind of political purity tests that have saddled us with the mess we're in.
Progressiveness: Belief in science; economic equality for all; voting is a right and a responsibility; healthcare is a right and should be available to everyone; lobbyists and corporations are not people and should not be able to bribe politicians; diversity is one of our greatest strengths; public education and educators should be supported equally and not by zip code; SS and Medicare are not entitlements; the rich should pay their fair share; the government should not dictate who we love or support one religion over another; reproductive freedom is essential to women and their health; and no one should be fearful that they may be shot in a public setting or in a school.
If anyone actually stood fast and hard against corruption, and meant it, we could change the tone of our party and politics for real. Why is it so hard to be honest?
We have to overturn Citizens United. Progressives, Democrats, Independents all.
While I am a Jew who is thrilled with stomping all over AIPAC and removing the enormous influence the state of Israel has over us, I would be a progressive liberal if attention was focused on eliminating corruption.
You don’t seem to understand that “moderate” or “centrist” are ideologically rigid boxes.
I guess Vote Blue No Matter Who is a one way street? Or the big tent should only open one way?
“Moderates” can accept that Mamdani is by far the most exciting, energy creating Democrat in the US today…or not. And it’s not just because of his own unique political skills.
(PS - pretty 'funny' to say you are against being ideologically rigid', then take a very openly rigid position yourself.)
Jason, I think you're only helping prove Joyce's point in multiple respects. Because she expressed opposition to being pigeon-holed, you attacked her as being "ideologically rigid." You (not she) also invoked labels that put people in ideologically-rigid boxes.
Joyce, not me, said she would actually leave the party if progressive candidates became more popular. what could possibly be more 'ideologically rigid' than that? She used the obvious 'pigeonhole' of the 'Progressive' label as a denigration.
Myself, like most progressives, have voted for moderate candidates over and over. Meanwhile, in NYC, when Mamdani clearly won the Democratic nomination, not only did big leading dems like Bill Clinton and Mike Bloomberg pour millions to support the candidate he soundly defeated, but 'moderate' Dems all across the city refused to support him. That is far from an isolated case.
Progressive voters and candidates are constantly, relentless, 'pigeonholed' by 'centrist' Democrats, and are constantly scolded by the party leadership.
Jason, you raise some fair points. So-called moderates sometimes offer little better than support for the usual suspects. Too often, "moderate" means merely supporting the kind of people who have been in power.
I also don't care for labels, in part, because they don't tell us exactly what anyone means by any label that they use.
You're not wrong..we use labels I suppose since it's a lot to describe every facet of everyone all the time..but fair enough.
I can say, in NYC, with this rae as well as last year's mayor's race, there are some specific issues that are deep dividing lines. Israel and the Occupied Territories of course is a big one here., but so is wealth inequality, affordability, and ICE, among other issues...in all these cases, the DSA candidates simply showed they held the views most aligned with their constituents.
But also, as others have said ehre, the DSA and its allied progressive groups put in the work, and are campaigning in an old fashioned grassroots, personal, street level style that is paying big dividends. As I mentioned above, i even got a personal call from my DSA affiliated Assembly candidate, who went on to win. Never in my life have I received a call like that.
Jason, you seem to have misunderstood Joyce's words. She clearly did not say anything even close to your misrepresentation that "she would actually leave the party if progressive candidates became more popular." She said, "If the Progressives TAKE OVER my party, I become an Independent" but she "will, of course, support Dem in the general against the MAGA and those who have let it flourish."
I agree somewhat with your sentiment. For example - and I am not from NY and not up on all the issues there - but I have thought highly of Rep. Dan Goldman from his work on the impeachment of Trump to his fairly frequent comments expressed in news interviews, and yet I see he’s been, shall we say, ‘run under the bus’. Again, I know nothing about the candidate who defeated him, but I would think someone like him would be a valued contributor to the cause of liberal, inclusive democracy.
Brad Lander has shown himself to be principled and steady in his stance and fight against Trump's policies, particularly ICE. He had run for (comptroller, if I'm remembering correctly) and even after he lost, he continued to show up at the courthouses of NY where ICE agents were appearing in order to arrest immigrants as they appeared for their appointments at the court. He was hassled and arrested at protests and continued to protect these vulnerable individuals and families.
The problem, I see is that by running good candidates against equally good incumbents, we are creating a division where there not need be one. It feeds into the media coverage as has been so well exposed by Ms. Rubin.
All of those who lost against the Mamdani endorsed candidates were "progressives" as well. Some had a record of accomplishments that demonstrate who they are, against the "Mamdani candidates" who had little or none.
I think we need to search for what exactly made the difference and if it was the endorsement; does it say that Democratic Socialism is more progressive than a Progressive?
Well, that's why we have primaries, so the base voters can pick their favorite candidate. No candidate is owed anything for incumbency.
Lander was NYC Comptroller (he did not lose), and before that he was a city council member for many years. He ran for mayor, but then joined forces with Mamdani through NYC's ranked choice vote system.
One big reason Democratic voters soured on Goldman is his opposition to Mamdani, refusing to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination, including a lopsided win in Goldman's district. He was also a major AIPAC recipient, where Lander (who is also Jewish) is not afraid to condemn israel's war crimes.
Again, the 'big tent' Democrats like Goldman claim to support only goes one way, and many voters are sick of it. And, for the record, it was not even remotely close. Lander beat Goldman by over 30 points..so it was not simply 'progressives' supporting Lander.
OK, I did misremember: Landler ran for Mayor and lost.
I'm not criticizing a primary where the "less of 2 evils" is replaced by a welcome "better of 2 goods".
The fact that the results hinged on Isreal, and that it became the main if not sole dividing line between the 2 candidates is disturbing. It's not that AIPAC does not deserve the criticism, or that their stance on Netanyahu and the politics of Isreal should not be examined. And if that is a voter's over-riding concern fine. The "some of my best (supporters) friends" are Jewish is a facile explanation, while Lander's position is not. Funding by AIPAC is being used as an antisemitic trope in other venues, so I think we have to be careful when a stance on Isreal, and its politics, becomes a referendum on Jewishness.
Rubin and The Contrarian rally against 'funding by AIPAC' almost daily these days, although the criticism here is almost entirely when that funding is directed against ostensibly pro-ISrael candidates like Tom Malinowksi. Would you say The Contrarian is using this as an 'antisemitic trope'?
Criticism of AIPAC absolutely isn't a 'referendum on Jewishness'. Madani and practically every other progressive critic of ISrael makes the point constantly that Israel is a state, not a religion, and criticizing Israel has zerto to do with any 'referendum of Jewishness'. That idea is entirely pushed and weaponized by Israel's defenders, who so often use cynical and untrue charges of antisemitism to defend a state that has committed genocide and enforced apartheid for the whole world to see. It is the stalwart supporters of Israel's terrible policies that turn it into 'a referendum on Jewishness' for their own ends.
Like it or not, Israel and the Occupied Territories is a huge issue in New York and that goes both ways. Mamdani spent every day of his campaign defending his pro-Palestinian views and deflecting false charges of antisemitism.
And again, that is directly related to a big factor why Goldman lost..he refused to endorse Mamdani even after his own district overwhelmingly voted for him. primarily because of Mamdani's pro-Palestinian views., and he said as much.
But, this can all be looked at a bit more simply,. like you mention above..about this election, Mamdani said "“It’s not just a question of electing more Democrats. It’s a question of electing better Democrats. When I look at these candidacies, I see in them a willingness to also put working people back at the heart of our politics.”"
No. One of the reason that progressive dems may win - especially those without experience is that the GOP is spending money to help them win the primaries. They started pacs that they are pretending are Democratic backed. They are not. After the weaker person wins the Dem party, they think their GOP candidate will be the victor.
You should find out more about the candidate who defeated him then, since you know nothing about him. He is very much a 'a valued contributor to the cause of liberal, inclusive democracy.' who also is not afraid to criticize Israel's war crimes , has put his body on the line to fight ICE, and has a long history in NYC. The vote for Lander wasn't even close. Simply being against Trump isn't enough.
Brad Lander will be an excellent Congressman, who will fight Trump just as hard as anyone while also supporting issues base NYC Democratic votes believe in, and will also support progressive candidates like Mamdani, who Goldman refused to endorse even after he clearly won the Democratic nomination.
Good to know. Here in Minneapolis we have had some issues with DSA city and council members going well beyond solid progressive stances, with some being defeated as a result. Dialogue about where that elusive line is between the ideal and the actually possible is healthy.
Dan Goldman suffered from anti-Israel sentiment in his district, I believe. Also, Brad Lander was well known and liked, especially for trying to assist immigrants and for supporting Mayor Mamdani. There was also a clear desire for something new and different, rather than the status quo, especially in certain NYC districts.
Remember that those doing the reporting are basing everything on opinions & beliefs - not facts & evidence. The NEWS journalists have been in the pockets of GOP SINCE reagan ended the Fairness Doc. As a result, they made erroneous claims about the Dem party.
90% of journalists have claimed that progressives were far left. They did this to protect the GOP because there were citizens who were noticing just how far right the GOP was moving. In fact with T, the reality that the former party of Ike no longer existed was becoming obvious.
In fact, the GOP INCREASINGLY actED like Hitler's nazi party. Instead of the Jewish people being the target, the target became our immigrants. Even the LANGUAGE that T and Miller have used has been identical to Hitler's language of hate.
The concentration camps are a visual reminder where cruelty to men women and children occurs daily. The trauma will NEVER be erased.
There are NO far left in the Dem party. There are NO pure socialists in the Dem party.
Dem admins still use regulated capitalism, repaired the messes left by GOP and CLINTON OBAMA & BIDEN REDUCED THE DEFICIT.
The GOP Admins since Reagan have used unregulated capitalism and ONLY enriched the rich.
Dem admins have filed federal lawsuits against companies ignoring regulations.
The GOP has deregulated industries like the housing and loan industry causing enormous damage to anyone who is not rich.
I LIKE progressive ideas - they are valuable. Mamdani and AOC are not FAR left. Their ideas are common sense, FAIR and logical for all citizens. Take the time to view AOC's take down of CVS in the House. Take the time to listen to every answer Mamdani gives to questions about his policies.
Very rich greedy white racist males tried to stop the regulations put in by FDR et al. The Heritage Society has always had plans like P2025. They started to succeed when Reagan was elected. And yes he approved of Heritage Society ideas
I fully agree with you. Progressives are an example of the pendulum swinging in the opposite and equal direction of the far-right tRump party. Now we will have to deal with the far-left equally awful far-leftists. Think Germany in the 1930s.
Correct. Germany led by Hitler is akin to the tRump administration. The far-left is akin to the communists. Both hated each other. Guess who was in the middle?
I live in district 10. Mamdani helped these candidates but I want to caution against saying he’s the reason they won. Not because I don’t think he’s talented, but because I think we then lose sight of the real work it took to achieve these victories and how to replicate them.
Lander has had deep ties to this community for decades and shows up authentically for constituents. He did a great job on city council and as comptroller. Mamdani endorsed these candidates because they lead, he didn’t make them leaders.
I'd like to add something to what I wrote earlier. Although frustration with corporate Dems is an important factor in these wins, it may be less important than the fact that Mamdani, these other DSA and progressive candidates, and most importantly, their supporters, passionately believe in their ideas. They are for something and not only against something.
Neither corporate Dems or the GOP have a response to the old fashioned grassroots campaigning the DSA has led in NYC and elsewhere...with thousands of street level volunteers going door to door, talking to people everywhere...I myself got a personal phone call from my district's candidate, David Orkin, and we talked for several minutes.
These wins weren't the result of consultant-driven polling based triangulation, or dark money driven advertising. The DSA wins show what community politics can be and should be.
Yes. People are not happy with the mainstream Democratic party, not because it is "too left", but because it is "too right". By most definitions, mainstream Democrats are conservatives and Republicans are alt-right radicals. And most US citizens are central to far left. Progressives. With no party that represents them.
I think you’re right. There is no party that represents most US citizens. We vote dem not only because many candidates are good but also knowing that voting republican is definitely against a democratic country.
Great analysis by Ms. Rubin. The MSM refuses to report what is really going on. That's why we need independent voices like Substack. MAGA types hold views that are against the Constitution and against democratic values. MAGA types are not bothered that rights are bring stripped from citizens. MAGA types love to see "the other" perdecuted.
The legacy media, the traditional pundits, whatever you want to call passes for mainstream political analysis these days is not on target, as Ms. Rubin aptly points out. Because there is virtually no professional and widely available local political reporting, these national pundits are just recycling their preferred narratives. Talarico is slightly ahead of Paxton? The pundit take? Oh, well it's Texas, so he can't win. Where's Paul Harvey when we need him to give us "the rest of the story"?
As I head to the Texas Democratic Convention this week, let me give y'all some first-hand reporting from my perspective. First, it matters to Texans, both Democratic, Republican and everything in-between that Paxton is not from Texas and Talarico is an eighth-generation Texans. So much of Talarico's messaging subtly and not-so subtly plays up Paxton's carpet bagger status. This is local politics in action. National pundits miss this factor. So, that's just kind of a vibe thing, but I think it is going to matter. (The down-ballot races also pit native Texans against out of state MAGA opportunists)
Second, this is a verifiable fact. The Texas Republican convention had 7k sign up to attend. Actual attendance was probably less than 2k. Texas Democrats have 8,700 signed up so far. Will they all show? I don't know, but I'm watching hotels get filled up as the convention website tries to help people find places to stay in Corpus Christi. It might be worthwhile to watch us on CSPAN June 25-27 and see who y'all think has the most energy going into this election.
As for the state of progressivism in Texas, here's something to make you go "hmmm...." The Texas Democratic platform is the most progressive in the country, i.e. more progressive than Blue states. Progressivism/populism started in the Gilded Age in Texas and has never really gone away, if you know where to look. We have Bernie Sanders coming to address the convention. If Texans are so allergic to progressivism, would 8,700 people decide to come?
I would love you to be right, but this lifelong resident of the Northeast isn't so sure. People have been voting against their own interests in Texas for so long that I can't imagine that they have finally hit a breaking point. Paxton may not be a Texan, but he is just so horrible that I have a hard time thinking that Texas Republicans will vote against him; yup, ironic but......
The topic here is whether progressivism is popular. My post is narrowly focused on that. It provides my insight into a couple of material matters that support that thesis. As far as the future behavior of Texans, I see no point in arguing that hypothetical. I'm going to try to elect as many Democrats as I can regardless of popular theories about what people will do. Let's just find out what they do.
I don't think David was attacking you or post, Cynthia. He's merely pointing out that TX has been the Great White Whale of democrats for many election cycles, only to have those hopes dashed on Election Day. That said, I think the political climate has sufficiently shifted that Talarico has a real shot. Fingers crossed.
Thanks Jane. I understood that, and I acknowledge that it is a material fact that people have seen Texans voting like blithering idiots for a long time. However, the fact that David starts with stating he is in the Northeast begs the question as to whether he is following the national pundit narrative or willing to assess new facts and circumstances here and then wait for the outcome in this election. No offense was taken. I am just trying to engage in some constructive dialog.
Ms. Rubin’s premise here is that there are things happening in the middle of the country regarding progressivism which aren’t being seen. There are myriads of political insider stuff specific to Texas I could discuss as to predicting the election outcome. But ultimately, what Texans are and what they will do just seems unhelpful. They’ll do what they do. But, there is a progressive groundswell happening here, in my not so humble (ha) opinion.
I suspect there are all kinds of things going on in NC that aren’t visible to outsiders as well. Thank you for your kind words, Jane.
No worries, Cynthia. Appreciate your comment. I'm originally from the Mid-Atlantic, now living in NC. But please understand, the comments like the one from David come from a place of pulling for you - HARD - not trying to tear you down.
Why limit yourself? People have been voting against their own intersts across the whole country for years. This is one reason why we are in the condition we are in today.
Most TX republicans will vote for Paxton, but the question is whether enough won't, and there seems to a falling off in republican leaning because of the economy, but mostly over data centers. The other big question is where independents will fall, and right now Trump and the republicans are polling like ebola among Indies.
"Talarico is slightly ahead of Paxton? The pundit take? Oh, well it's Texas, so he can't win. Where's Paul Harvey when we need him to give us "the rest of the story"?"
Where's anyone who will give us the whole story instead of a partisan narrative? Someone who can play the role of umpire instead of cheerleader. The late Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" was superb at putting both Dems and Repubs alike in the hot seat every Sunday. No one today even comes close.
When you actually talk to people about their ideals, they generally want progressive/leftist policy, not the establishment garbage we've been dealing with all our lives. My family is conservative, but when I talk to them about what they think the role of government should be, they end up sounding like Mamdami leftists.
Ask people what they want and we pretty much all want the same things: universal healthcare, child care, a living wage, free education, Social Security secured, etc. seems only MAGA don’t want separation of church and state. All of US have a great deal in common with all of US in spite of the Division Propaganda touted by Trump & Associates. To say that’s progressive is a misnomer: that’s For The People who pay enough taxes to have all of this AND we need the billions of dollars immigrants pay into the system (many of them without any benefits). In America it’s all about money while tossing common sense and equal good into the propaganda fire.
All politics is (and are) local. It's nice that New Yorkers are happy. But here in Baghdad By the Sea, and in flyover America, be careful with what you wish (for).
The Democratic Party needs to have a bigger tent. We need to attract independents, even dissenting Rinos who are MAGA victims.
The election will be won or lost in places like Ohio and Iowa, where we need Rinos.
I live in MI, which is no longer a reliably blue state, so I know what you mean. But what appealing to a "bigger" tent quite often does is muddy or water down the message, in an effort to please the most number of people.
MAGAs do not do that. They are unabashedly their awful selves, and somehow people like Trump attracted Latinos, nonvoters, young men - even Black men! - and those who may like only ONE aspect of their programs, e.g. lower taxes, but vote for them anyway despite all the other baggage.
When it comes to Democrats, they are expected to present a comprehensive "package" of attractiveness, of sound thought-out policy - but not too wonky! - and if any part of it doesn't appeal to the multitudes, they're accused of poor messaging and being too "something" - too far left, not far left enough, and all sorts of variations in between.
And the media piles on.
Personally, I think it should be very simple. If you don't like all the lawlessness, the cowardly fecklessness, the incompetence, the turning away from science and evidence, or all of the other attributes of the modern-day GOP mess, then vote for Democrats. Don't expect perfection, don't expect complete alignment of all views, don't expect miracles! Just give them a chance to undo some of the damage and do some good for the country.
We have to keep the eye on the prize -- get rid of the tyrant first.
I used to do some work in MI, and the mentality in Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo is completely different than say Detroit. Even a Gerald Ford Republican should oppose MAGA on multiple grounds. The message should be different in Amway country than in diverse urban areas.
I personally would vote for a yellow dog (preferably a golden retriever) than vote for ANY Republican.
Many RINOs discovered their inner progressive at the grocery store and at the gas station over the last months. Somehow, even for MAGAs, the “satisfaction” of a loudmouth boor president and sycophants who share one’s prejudices seems less attractive when you can’t buy food, fuel the car, or get adequate healthcare.
I've said from the beginning that when the personal pocketbook gets pinched, there would come a realization that what the people were supporting was harming them. This seems to have dawned on many.
Daniel, I think the people I know who are running for office in Florida understand that they need the votes of people who voted for Trump in 2024, They are leaning toward pragmatic and away from dogmatic.
Daniel, I think Leela Gray, here in St Pete, fully understands, as does Alex Vindman, and Bale Dalton.
Earle Ford, who's running for State CFO, could be the best retail politiician I've ever seen. He writes all of his emails himself, the only one so far as I can tell from the avalanch I get daily. If you get a chance, meet him.
We have some wonderful people runing this time. I'm very much encouraged.
I apologize for taking this space with Florida-centric observations hoping that they are within the bounds of what ought to be written here.
We have problems...Cuba,Venezuela are primary and everything else is secondary. We have 3 Batistianos representing Dem majority districts -- now reengineered by the DeSantis maps. We have a registration/purgation problem.
I live in a red state, and although the news hasn't covered it, in the recent Republican primaries, all of the radical MAGA candidates lost to more "traditional" Republicans. In the main election, due to gerrymandering, of course these candidates will defeat the Democrats, but I think this is a good sign: rejection of alt-right radicalism across the board.
Daniel, I used Claude, but even it cannot tell me where Baghdad by the Sea is in the USA! Herb Caen coined Baghdad by the Bay, for San Francisco and someone else called Houston a similar name. What city does your Baghdad refer to?
A message of good cheer! Thank you. I was obsessing about the concerted attacks on our right to vote/voting by mail—so I hope the progressives, lawyers, and independent pundits will prevail for freedom, the Constitution, and a pluralistic America. I am fired up to finish my current batch of voter postcards.
Trump is everything he's been described to be. A wind bag of anti-American insults plus his heinous executive orders chipping away at 80 years of social progress and equality in America. He's not just the "dotard" Kim Jong Un described. He's an outsized malevolent, zombie like force in our civilization. And what does he care about these days? Yes the $$$s. But also the global headlines..good (none) or bad (all). This is his daily/hourly dose of heroine. Apparently, being the most reviled person on the planet, really makes his day.
The Republican party is hopefully going to learn that in November. Even in Alabama we have an Independent running in the U.S. Senate race. He has called out the Republican nominee on his voting record in the house. It will make the race interesting. People don’t like their rights being violated and fumbled with by the U.S. Supreme Court either. It’s past time to impose term limits.
Let's hope democrats read your essay Ms. Rubin and take it to heart. It's way past time the "establishment" get their heads on straight about what We the People, at least a super majority of us are striving not just to protect against Maga but to reinvigorate and re-establish as who we want to strive to become as a nation. PPRI certainly has provided a terrific snapshot to lift up our hearts and strengthen our resolve.
Thanks a million for this uplifting post. We are a collection of communities wanting democratic ideals for our diverse population. We're happy to be Americans while trumpians are angry, rude & bitter.
Flawed, not perfect Dem is at least an order of magnitude better than the Trump & Co packs of depraved sociopaths. Resist corrupt authoritarians & Vote Blue! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_i38-qjtbI Please, 86 47 & his capos with a Blue Tsunami.
I am really lucky - I have 2 senators from the Legion of Super Heroes - Ossoff and Warnock. Would that so many of the hand wringers in the party would take a cue and speak out. We are just going to have to hold the feet of the passive ones to the fire and demand that they do better. At some level, most of the rethugs know they are peddling unpopular nonsense, but they are so in thrall to tRump they just cannot break. That makes them easier for people to vote against.
Surveys do show that a majority of Americans like many progressive ideas. And yet surveys also show that the Dems remain insufficiently popular. What Mamdani and the progressives accomplished in blue districts will not necessarily translate to more hard fought districts, the gerrymandered districts, or an Electoral College which favors the Red states. Dems will need to champion the popular positions while avoiding making themselves easy targets for MAGA propaganda, something they haven't done well at in the past. I appeal to the left wing of the party to "read the room" and keep that in mind when coming up with things like "Defund the Police" and "Drag Queen Story Hour."
Mamdani showed the way. The people want progressive. Me too!
Mamdani was 3-0 last night for his Congressional nomination endorsements, and DSA candidates won many state level races in New York. It was a decisive win for true progressives in NYC.
A growing number of progressive voters are not only disgusted by Trump’s GOP, they are tired of ineffectual corporate Democrats. There is a reason the approval rating for the Democratic Party is not much better than Trump’s rating. Maybe that will change as the Party gets some new fresh ideas and energy from these new young, truly progressive leaders.
For way too long the Dem “big tent”has opened to the right and has at best obstructed the left side entrance. The corporate Dems rally against Mamdani in his race was only one example. Hopefully that will change too.
Finally, *finally!*, we're not freaking out about the s-word, socialism, or its parliamentary cousin, social democracy. The New Deal and what followed was (somewhat euphemistically) referred to as a "mixed economy," but it had many social-democratic traits. Unfortunately it was also racist AF, and that proved to be the faultline that allowed Big Capital to reassert control: Would we have had Reagan, Reaganomics, and everything that followed without the white working- and middle-class-and-up vote? And would we have got Trump I without the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision and what journalist Dana Milbank calls "the 25-Year Crack-up of the Republican Party"? I doubt it.
It's long past time for us to pay closer attention to economic power. It's not one of the three branches of government, it's not in the Constitution, but it'll eat all of the above alive if given half a chance, and it's been doing exactly that.
Yes! I see this new movement as taking the best parts of the New Deal from an honest multicultural. diverse approach, adapted to 21st century needs and problems.
It's also important to recognize that multiculturalism and diversity are nothing new. Those very principles were built into our Constitution, and that wasn't even a secret at the time. James Madison candidly explained that diversity, equity and inclusion are essential to our Constitution. They are vital to the strength of our Constitution and our nation.
In Federalist No. 51 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493427), Madison directly and expressly emphasized that our diversity is one of the vital strengths of our union, and diversity helps ensure equity and justice. Madison emphasized (repeatedly) that "Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government." So Madison expressly highlighted that diversity was essential to the security of both "civil rights" and "religious rights" and the security was provided by ensuring "the multiplicity of interests" and "the multiplicity of sects."
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."
"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
Diversity, equity and inclusion was the point of one of the best-known structural aspects of our Constitution, i.e., "federalism" (allocating limited power to the national government while (as the 10th Amendment expressly emphasizes) other "powers" are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). Protecting diversity, equity and inclusion also is the point of the entire First Amendment.
Interesting theory, but riddle me this: If “multiculturalism and diversity” were built into the Constitution, why did it take a civil war to end slavery and another century for Black people in most of the country to get access to the ballot and basic human rights? And why did the fight for women’s suffrage not get seriously under way till some 60 years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or achieve its goal till 70 years after that?
And do point me to where Madison used the phrase “diversity, equity and inclusion” or something comparable to it.
Susanna, in addition to considering how Madison addressed the defects in human nature and the potential remedies in Federalist 51, it is well worth considering the same in Federalist 10. Madison highlighted how people focus on "the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions" precisely "to kindle [the most] unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Anything "interesting to the human passions" can be "inflamed" to make people "much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." Much of Madison's writing in Federalist 10 and 51 is highly relevant today (and it always will be).
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, [regarding either] speculation [or] practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
"Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."
"To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." Our Constitution was designed to provide "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government."
Susanna, the answer to your first question is simple and obvious: human nature. People with power often are loathe to share it or give it up. Madison even highlighted this very problem in Federalist 51:
"It [is[ a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Madison's allusion to "such devices," above, is to the devices written into our Constitution (and amendments thereto) and our written laws. A written Constitution is an express acknowledgment that human nature is such that many people with power will abuse it and try to usurp even more than they were given. As a result, Madison also highlighted in the very next sentence, "[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Susanna, your final request highlights the problem. Even when the words stating principles are highlighted, they still are overlooked. As I showed above, Madison highlighted the following:
"Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government."
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
Madison also was famously known as the Father of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments). As I said above, the Tenth Amendment expressly secures diversity, equity and inclusion by highlighting that many "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" were " reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And protecting diversity, equity and inclusion is the implicit point of the entire First Amendment.
Susanna, Madison used words essentially the same in meaning as diversity, equity and inclusion.
"Justice" is another word used to express the principle expressed by the word "equity."
Madison explained how our Constitution used diversity and inclusion to help (and to help us) secure justice:
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."
The act of "creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the [whole] society" is what the People did by creating our own written Constitution. The 1st Amendment and the prohibition on religious tests in Article VI and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments and the many ways that our Constitution included states and preserved the power of the people of individual states were expressly directed at using our Constitution to secure and promote diversity and inclusion (and thereby promote equity/justice).
The second method, above ("comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable") is diversity and inclusion. That was the primary principle underlying the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments Each such amendment clarified or changed the meaning of the expression "We the People" at the beginning of our Constitution.
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government." Diversity is the same as "the multiplicity of interests." "Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens." Inclusion was of "the extent of country and number of people" and of "the multiplicity of interests" of "different classes of citizens."
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government."
Nowhere in the 51st Federalist Paper is the word "diversity" used. That essay concerns itself with checks and balances. To read into an historical document the interests a later commenter may have, is poor scholarship. We can parse and extrapolate and look for evidence in a document that might support our own views, but it's still sloppy scholarship. No matter how many words from the document are pasted/ quoted.
Of course multiculturalism and diversity aren't new! They were of course realities of colonial American life. But they found few words of recognition in our Constitution as originally ratified. Susanna, periodically Jack Jordan goes off on one of his Federalist Papers 'things' and I guess yesterday was one of those times.
Yes, ineffectual corporate Democrats whe seem to sleep through the most outrageous poltical assaults on the integrity of our democracy.
Exactly. If you poll in an apolitical way and ask the right questions--ones that are not pinned to reflect one political side or the other--what you get is a true measure of people in the USA who largely embrace so-called progressive policies but which are in fact simply ones that benefit humanity as a whole rather than the monied interests of a few ultra-rich spoiled brat-boyz.
My views exactly. Thanks for the clear and concise summary of the issue!
It’s nice to get a little good news these days!
Ahhhh your bias and willingness to blame those you choose to call corporate dems is showing your blindspot.
Your blindspot is ignorance of the fact that every dem admin has used regulated capitalism and filed Federal lawsuits against corporations for price-fixing, monopoly behavior, et al.
OTOH, every GOP admin since Reagan has used unregulated Capitalism and gifts of tax cuts and tax loopholes that ONLY benefit the rich.
You ONLY base the phrase "corporate dems" on whether or not dems accept donations from the rich. Well, the rich are not stupid and do not want to be labelled as biassed.
Have you ever compared how much the rich spend on GOP vs Dem? Or have you just believed what mainstream news journalists spout?
If the answer is yes, you have been purposefully misinformed or not fully informed by journalists. WHY? Because Reagan ended the Fairness Doc, allowed Outrageous FOX News to be started in the US, and behind that noise, 90% of journalists slid into the pockets of the GOP.
From that point forward, facts & evidence disappeared from the "news" replaced by opinions and beliefs. From that point forward, negative reports on GOP rarely appeared - while positive reports on DEM rarely appeared. By the time T came down the escalator truth no longer mattered. With social media and mainstream media only opinions and beliefs mattered.
Instead of explaining (as Mamdani has done in NYC), Sanders and Hogg screamed against capitalismas , arrogantly used the word socialism (without Mamdani's explanations) and blamed corporate dems. The result: citizens learned nothing. They already did not know the meaning of capitalism & socialism and anger & misinformation do NOT invite interest in learning.
IF It is true that there are more progressives now, it is solely because of Mamdani and AOC. It was Pelosi who helped AOC to become better at speaking about progressive ideas. The change was noticeable. She began "teaching" during her statements on the floor of the House - not pontificating - but by clearly demonstrating what corporate leaders were doing. She tore apart every step of the CVS corporation. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS TO VOTERS. They do not care who you blame or hate. And blaming corporate dems did NOT aid your cause within the party. It turned voters away from you. So then you act like children and do not vote for HRC & Harris because neither woman was good enough for you. THAT HELPED T TO BECOME PRESIDENT IN 2016 and 2024 dragging us deeper in debt and possibly ending our democracy.
I AM A PROGRESSIVE and long before the majority of you. The inability of progressives and democratic socialists to see beyond what THEY want in order to understand what needs to be done not only stalls progress, it can stop it.
The GOP remains in control of every part of the gov't AND our armed forces. Removing T will NOT end the danger we are in. That danger is increasing. The maga/fascist party will do EVERYTHING to stop or control the election in November.
IF we get a chance to vote, then we must vote for whatever Dem can win in any district - no matter what type of dem it is. A progressive will NOT win Schumer's district. Beware also that the GOP has set up organizations promoting supposedly "progressive" candidates but are just candidates that the GOP knows they can beat.
That rant probably sounded better in your head than it does in print.
You don't know what i think or what I am talking about any more than you know what you're talking about.
Ps - Schumer doesn't have a district, he's a Senator.
And, the NYC neighborhood where Schumer lives in NYC was just won decisively by the very progressive Brand Lander over the AIPAC recipient Dan Goldman.
My "rant" is quite accurate except for my blunder of using the word district with respect to Schumer who, of course, is a Senator not a representative. Lander did not win a seat. He won a primary and will move on for the next vote. I know Lander and he is an excellent candidate. It is unfortunate when someone responds to a post in a way that just dismisses what someone else says. That's exactly what I expect from someone who cannot hear or consider a different point of view.
No,I responded to your rant in that fashion because that’s exactly what it is, a floundering, sputtering diatribe that is barely coherent and full of misrepresentations and falsehoods. I don’t need to waste my time when there are other thoughtful comments here worthy of responses.
You know, you might want to take ten seconds, stop patting yourself on the back for your soi disant superior acumen, and pay attention to someone else for ten seconds. But, to date, the willingness to do that has not been a hallmark of the bros.
No idea how old you are, but I was - putting it bluntly - getting the crap kicked out of me in NYC in 1968 with my Black Power friends in clashes with the cops over Viet Nam. Check your privilege at the door, son. It's feeling as old as I am.
THANK YOU. Bernie Sanders was manipulated by the ever so not "progressive" Tad Devine - former partner in Ukraine of Paul Manafort and whose only actual political success story was engineering the election of Viktor Yanukovich - into running against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The result was Sanders convincing roughly 30% of his devoted base to stay home. Anyone in that camp take ownership for helping Trump grab the Oval Office yet? :::crickets:::
But I suspect the noisy bro contingent in here will try and condescend, tell you you don't know what you're talking about, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm also willing to bet none of them were born before Watergate. Done here. (Edited for a missing "s")
Thank you so much. There's a part of my brain that's saying that I knew this once upon a time, but if I did it sure was hiding. And yes the bro team get horrified when I provide them with info that they do not want to hear.
I like some of what you said. But when Sanders was up the DNC pushed Clinton. At that time, not being aware of Sanders, i watched many of his speeches from years back and was struck by the fact that he has always been exactly like he is.
“Corporate dems” are the ones who seek money, political power and influence ahead of representing their constituents.
As for the goo in Ohio, i have Husted and Moreno, neither of whom represent any of their democratic constituents.
Thank you.
I am old and have known who Bernie was for a very long time. Still I looked up his Vermont and Senate records. What had he accomplished? NOTHING SIGNIFICANT. His name was on a few bills. And he talked a lot, but results were missing.
I understand why young people caught up in an increasingly difficult economic situation would hear Bernie and see him as a hero while neglecting to notice his poor strategies that turned many voters away.
There are 2 reasons Sanders failed to win the Democratic primaries.
1) Simple statistics. The majority of the people in the democratic party are in the center of that party. Independents who vote in our primaries are in the center of normal political ideas. With millions of people voting, the voting results will essentially end up as a Bell curve. As a result, the candidate who wins the primary will be closer to the center of the party. In 2016, that was HRC. In 2020, that was Biden. Given the timing of Biden ending his campaign, choosing Harris as the candidate as he requested was the right choice.
2) Bernie's rants, misinformation, and arrogance. He, himself, did not understand the meaning of capitalism - yet he blamed it for our economic troubles. Our news media (in the pockets of the GOP since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc) taught loved this - it gave them so much fodder to use against HRC. Bernie, like many candidates, chose "blame" as his theme. In that way, he could be the messiah and rescue everyone. His tactics backfired.
If you want to change the minds of people, you need to bring the facts and the evidence - otherwise, they will NOT trust you. Bernie did not speak the truth and did not explain the words capitalism, socialism, and democratic socialism (words that very few people understand accurately). The GOP pushed the split - knowing that this would help them beat HRC. Bernie was touted for his HC for ALL ideas, but it was HILARY who created the first comprehensive health plan for Americans during her husband's term. It was Obama that had made strides forward in getting a HC plan to ensure everyone was covered. Then somehow Bernie shows up with claim that he alone knows what to do. Bernie has always had ideas, but he has never done the work to actually get anything accomplished.
When AOC came back after that campaign, she was different. Pelosi had taken her under her wing and helped her to understand a better way of communicating her ideas to the public. They were the same strategies that Mamdani used when he ran for Mayor. NOW people can listen and see what progressive ideas actually look like. NO DRAMA, no blame, no rants - just FACTS & EVIDENCE. The question now is "Is it too late?" Will we lose our democracy because dem socialists and progressives could not be bothered to vote for HRC and Harris because THEY were not perfect for them?
I’m 73, a Clevelander, not a Bernie bro, been voting democratic since my first vote which was after Kent State. No purity test here. Just my view that the DNC is out of touch and run by money and power. The grassroots is where the rubber meets the road.
Yep. My husband has always called him the Photobomber, for his propensity for showing up at the announcements and signings of other peoples' ideas into legislation, as if he had somehow been part of it.
I'm also rather bitterly amused at the apparent ignorance of the Sanders' supporters of the man's pro-gun stance - especially after so much "I KNOW EVERYTHING AND YOU KNOW NOTHING" being spouted above. He was one of the loudest voices in the passage of 2005's heinous Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, the one that protects gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits when the survivors or living families of those killed by their death toys tryforcing them into corporate (ahem) accountability. The NRA called it one of the most gun-friendly pieces of legislation on the new century at the time, and thanked him publicly for his efforts. And then the little tool doubled down on it, when he was asked whether the families of those slaughtered at Sandy Hook should be allowed to sue, and he said no.
He is not the brightest star in the firmament. But enough noisy finger-jabbing populism will convince people otherwise. Hell, it worked for Trump.
You don't sound much like any Progressive I've seen. The Dems have done as much damage to Democracy as the GOP and have gone along with the GOP on their assault to our country.
Why? Because I challenge Bernie's approach and incorrect statements?
Please tell me about the damage that has been done to our democracy by the Democratic party that is in any way equivalent to the GOP's assault. The latter started moving right starting with Reagan and his reintroduction of insidious racism. Reagan liked Heritage Society ideas. He ended the Fairness Doc and allowed Fox News to have a place on TV. As a result, the mainstream news media/journalists started slipping into the pockets of the GOP. Do you know who else did something similar? Hitler took control of German newspapers in 1933 to push his lies and hate. Fox News did this for the GOP. 90% of the rest of the news media were more discreet. But they STOPPED using facts & evidence in their reports and focussed on opinions and beliefs. They told you both sides were the same. (False) They told you that the GOP was better for the economy BUT did not tell you that they only enriched the rich. I honestly do want to know what facts you have that prove they are the same.
If the Progressives take over my party, I become an Independent. I will, of course, support Dem in the general against the MAGA and those who have let it flourish. But I find many Progressives to be ideologically rigid. That is what destroyed the Republican party. I am tired of being denigrated if I don't agree with Progressives on every issue. I don't want to be put in a box.
I don’t think Mamdani is ideologically rigid. He seems all inclusive to me which I think democracy is all about.
Yes. Mamdani has worked closely with the moderate Hochul on many successful initiatives already, and has even compromised with some right leaning leaders at times, including his police commissioner.
I'm really liking Mamdani, by and large. The man walks the walk. But he is not most of the progressive wing in congress. They have, since 2016, indulged in the kind of political purity tests that have saddled us with the mess we're in.
Progressiveness: Belief in science; economic equality for all; voting is a right and a responsibility; healthcare is a right and should be available to everyone; lobbyists and corporations are not people and should not be able to bribe politicians; diversity is one of our greatest strengths; public education and educators should be supported equally and not by zip code; SS and Medicare are not entitlements; the rich should pay their fair share; the government should not dictate who we love or support one religion over another; reproductive freedom is essential to women and their health; and no one should be fearful that they may be shot in a public setting or in a school.
Yeah, Progressives are SO radical, huh?
Excellent comment. This is mostly what the Democratic Platform has been all along. People need to be reminded. Daily. Thank you.
If anyone actually stood fast and hard against corruption, and meant it, we could change the tone of our party and politics for real. Why is it so hard to be honest?
We have to overturn Citizens United. Progressives, Democrats, Independents all.
While I am a Jew who is thrilled with stomping all over AIPAC and removing the enormous influence the state of Israel has over us, I would be a progressive liberal if attention was focused on eliminating corruption.
Excellent comment!
You don’t seem to understand that “moderate” or “centrist” are ideologically rigid boxes.
I guess Vote Blue No Matter Who is a one way street? Or the big tent should only open one way?
“Moderates” can accept that Mamdani is by far the most exciting, energy creating Democrat in the US today…or not. And it’s not just because of his own unique political skills.
(PS - pretty 'funny' to say you are against being ideologically rigid', then take a very openly rigid position yourself.)
Jason, I think you're only helping prove Joyce's point in multiple respects. Because she expressed opposition to being pigeon-holed, you attacked her as being "ideologically rigid." You (not she) also invoked labels that put people in ideologically-rigid boxes.
Um, no, you have it exactly backward.
Joyce, not me, said she would actually leave the party if progressive candidates became more popular. what could possibly be more 'ideologically rigid' than that? She used the obvious 'pigeonhole' of the 'Progressive' label as a denigration.
Myself, like most progressives, have voted for moderate candidates over and over. Meanwhile, in NYC, when Mamdani clearly won the Democratic nomination, not only did big leading dems like Bill Clinton and Mike Bloomberg pour millions to support the candidate he soundly defeated, but 'moderate' Dems all across the city refused to support him. That is far from an isolated case.
Progressive voters and candidates are constantly, relentless, 'pigeonholed' by 'centrist' Democrats, and are constantly scolded by the party leadership.
Jason, you raise some fair points. So-called moderates sometimes offer little better than support for the usual suspects. Too often, "moderate" means merely supporting the kind of people who have been in power.
I also don't care for labels, in part, because they don't tell us exactly what anyone means by any label that they use.
You're not wrong..we use labels I suppose since it's a lot to describe every facet of everyone all the time..but fair enough.
I can say, in NYC, with this rae as well as last year's mayor's race, there are some specific issues that are deep dividing lines. Israel and the Occupied Territories of course is a big one here., but so is wealth inequality, affordability, and ICE, among other issues...in all these cases, the DSA candidates simply showed they held the views most aligned with their constituents.
But also, as others have said ehre, the DSA and its allied progressive groups put in the work, and are campaigning in an old fashioned grassroots, personal, street level style that is paying big dividends. As I mentioned above, i even got a personal call from my DSA affiliated Assembly candidate, who went on to win. Never in my life have I received a call like that.
Jason, you seem to have misunderstood Joyce's words. She clearly did not say anything even close to your misrepresentation that "she would actually leave the party if progressive candidates became more popular." She said, "If the Progressives TAKE OVER my party, I become an Independent" but she "will, of course, support Dem in the general against the MAGA and those who have let it flourish."
I didn't misunderstand, you are just toning tone her obvious disdain for progressives.
"Take over' the party is semantic nonsense. No one is taking over anything.
Again, the fact that Joyce will only be in a party that adheres to her own
ideological rigid' definition says it all. DSA candidates are only a small part of the Democratic Party.
To only 'support Dems against MAGA' is part of what got us here in the first place. dems need to do more than not be MAGA,.
I agree somewhat with your sentiment. For example - and I am not from NY and not up on all the issues there - but I have thought highly of Rep. Dan Goldman from his work on the impeachment of Trump to his fairly frequent comments expressed in news interviews, and yet I see he’s been, shall we say, ‘run under the bus’. Again, I know nothing about the candidate who defeated him, but I would think someone like him would be a valued contributor to the cause of liberal, inclusive democracy.
Brad Lander has shown himself to be principled and steady in his stance and fight against Trump's policies, particularly ICE. He had run for (comptroller, if I'm remembering correctly) and even after he lost, he continued to show up at the courthouses of NY where ICE agents were appearing in order to arrest immigrants as they appeared for their appointments at the court. He was hassled and arrested at protests and continued to protect these vulnerable individuals and families.
The problem, I see is that by running good candidates against equally good incumbents, we are creating a division where there not need be one. It feeds into the media coverage as has been so well exposed by Ms. Rubin.
All of those who lost against the Mamdani endorsed candidates were "progressives" as well. Some had a record of accomplishments that demonstrate who they are, against the "Mamdani candidates" who had little or none.
I think we need to search for what exactly made the difference and if it was the endorsement; does it say that Democratic Socialism is more progressive than a Progressive?
Well, that's why we have primaries, so the base voters can pick their favorite candidate. No candidate is owed anything for incumbency.
Lander was NYC Comptroller (he did not lose), and before that he was a city council member for many years. He ran for mayor, but then joined forces with Mamdani through NYC's ranked choice vote system.
One big reason Democratic voters soured on Goldman is his opposition to Mamdani, refusing to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination, including a lopsided win in Goldman's district. He was also a major AIPAC recipient, where Lander (who is also Jewish) is not afraid to condemn israel's war crimes.
Again, the 'big tent' Democrats like Goldman claim to support only goes one way, and many voters are sick of it. And, for the record, it was not even remotely close. Lander beat Goldman by over 30 points..so it was not simply 'progressives' supporting Lander.
OK, I did misremember: Landler ran for Mayor and lost.
I'm not criticizing a primary where the "less of 2 evils" is replaced by a welcome "better of 2 goods".
The fact that the results hinged on Isreal, and that it became the main if not sole dividing line between the 2 candidates is disturbing. It's not that AIPAC does not deserve the criticism, or that their stance on Netanyahu and the politics of Isreal should not be examined. And if that is a voter's over-riding concern fine. The "some of my best (supporters) friends" are Jewish is a facile explanation, while Lander's position is not. Funding by AIPAC is being used as an antisemitic trope in other venues, so I think we have to be careful when a stance on Isreal, and its politics, becomes a referendum on Jewishness.
Rubin and The Contrarian rally against 'funding by AIPAC' almost daily these days, although the criticism here is almost entirely when that funding is directed against ostensibly pro-ISrael candidates like Tom Malinowksi. Would you say The Contrarian is using this as an 'antisemitic trope'?
Criticism of AIPAC absolutely isn't a 'referendum on Jewishness'. Madani and practically every other progressive critic of ISrael makes the point constantly that Israel is a state, not a religion, and criticizing Israel has zerto to do with any 'referendum of Jewishness'. That idea is entirely pushed and weaponized by Israel's defenders, who so often use cynical and untrue charges of antisemitism to defend a state that has committed genocide and enforced apartheid for the whole world to see. It is the stalwart supporters of Israel's terrible policies that turn it into 'a referendum on Jewishness' for their own ends.
Like it or not, Israel and the Occupied Territories is a huge issue in New York and that goes both ways. Mamdani spent every day of his campaign defending his pro-Palestinian views and deflecting false charges of antisemitism.
And again, that is directly related to a big factor why Goldman lost..he refused to endorse Mamdani even after his own district overwhelmingly voted for him. primarily because of Mamdani's pro-Palestinian views., and he said as much.
But, this can all be looked at a bit more simply,. like you mention above..about this election, Mamdani said "“It’s not just a question of electing more Democrats. It’s a question of electing better Democrats. When I look at these candidacies, I see in them a willingness to also put working people back at the heart of our politics.”"
No. One of the reason that progressive dems may win - especially those without experience is that the GOP is spending money to help them win the primaries. They started pacs that they are pretending are Democratic backed. They are not. After the weaker person wins the Dem party, they think their GOP candidate will be the victor.
You should find out more about the candidate who defeated him then, since you know nothing about him. He is very much a 'a valued contributor to the cause of liberal, inclusive democracy.' who also is not afraid to criticize Israel's war crimes , has put his body on the line to fight ICE, and has a long history in NYC. The vote for Lander wasn't even close. Simply being against Trump isn't enough.
Brad Lander will be an excellent Congressman, who will fight Trump just as hard as anyone while also supporting issues base NYC Democratic votes believe in, and will also support progressive candidates like Mamdani, who Goldman refused to endorse even after he clearly won the Democratic nomination.
Good to know. Here in Minneapolis we have had some issues with DSA city and council members going well beyond solid progressive stances, with some being defeated as a result. Dialogue about where that elusive line is between the ideal and the actually possible is healthy.
(oh one point - Lander is not a DSA member..he was endorsed by the WFP and many other progressive groups)
Dan Goldman suffered from anti-Israel sentiment in his district, I believe. Also, Brad Lander was well known and liked, especially for trying to assist immigrants and for supporting Mayor Mamdani. There was also a clear desire for something new and different, rather than the status quo, especially in certain NYC districts.
Remember that those doing the reporting are basing everything on opinions & beliefs - not facts & evidence. The NEWS journalists have been in the pockets of GOP SINCE reagan ended the Fairness Doc. As a result, they made erroneous claims about the Dem party.
90% of journalists have claimed that progressives were far left. They did this to protect the GOP because there were citizens who were noticing just how far right the GOP was moving. In fact with T, the reality that the former party of Ike no longer existed was becoming obvious.
In fact, the GOP INCREASINGLY actED like Hitler's nazi party. Instead of the Jewish people being the target, the target became our immigrants. Even the LANGUAGE that T and Miller have used has been identical to Hitler's language of hate.
The concentration camps are a visual reminder where cruelty to men women and children occurs daily. The trauma will NEVER be erased.
There are NO far left in the Dem party. There are NO pure socialists in the Dem party.
Dem admins still use regulated capitalism, repaired the messes left by GOP and CLINTON OBAMA & BIDEN REDUCED THE DEFICIT.
The GOP Admins since Reagan have used unregulated capitalism and ONLY enriched the rich.
Dem admins have filed federal lawsuits against companies ignoring regulations.
The GOP has deregulated industries like the housing and loan industry causing enormous damage to anyone who is not rich.
I LIKE progressive ideas - they are valuable. Mamdani and AOC are not FAR left. Their ideas are common sense, FAIR and logical for all citizens. Take the time to view AOC's take down of CVS in the House. Take the time to listen to every answer Mamdani gives to questions about his policies.
Very rich greedy white racist males tried to stop the regulations put in by FDR et al. The Heritage Society has always had plans like P2025. They started to succeed when Reagan was elected. And yes he approved of Heritage Society ideas
I fully agree with you. Progressives are an example of the pendulum swinging in the opposite and equal direction of the far-right tRump party. Now we will have to deal with the far-left equally awful far-leftists. Think Germany in the 1930s.
This is just wrong headed. Germany led by Hitler is definitely not related in any way to what progressive liberals want for this country today.
Correct. Germany led by Hitler is akin to the tRump administration. The far-left is akin to the communists. Both hated each other. Guess who was in the middle?
I live in district 10. Mamdani helped these candidates but I want to caution against saying he’s the reason they won. Not because I don’t think he’s talented, but because I think we then lose sight of the real work it took to achieve these victories and how to replicate them.
Lander has had deep ties to this community for decades and shows up authentically for constituents. He did a great job on city council and as comptroller. Mamdani endorsed these candidates because they lead, he didn’t make them leaders.
Agreed! He helped I think but this movement is bigger than him.
I'd like to add something to what I wrote earlier. Although frustration with corporate Dems is an important factor in these wins, it may be less important than the fact that Mamdani, these other DSA and progressive candidates, and most importantly, their supporters, passionately believe in their ideas. They are for something and not only against something.
Neither corporate Dems or the GOP have a response to the old fashioned grassroots campaigning the DSA has led in NYC and elsewhere...with thousands of street level volunteers going door to door, talking to people everywhere...I myself got a personal phone call from my district's candidate, David Orkin, and we talked for several minutes.
These wins weren't the result of consultant-driven polling based triangulation, or dark money driven advertising. The DSA wins show what community politics can be and should be.
Yes. People are not happy with the mainstream Democratic party, not because it is "too left", but because it is "too right". By most definitions, mainstream Democrats are conservatives and Republicans are alt-right radicals. And most US citizens are central to far left. Progressives. With no party that represents them.
I think you’re right. There is no party that represents most US citizens. We vote dem not only because many candidates are good but also knowing that voting republican is definitely against a democratic country.
Great analysis by Ms. Rubin. The MSM refuses to report what is really going on. That's why we need independent voices like Substack. MAGA types hold views that are against the Constitution and against democratic values. MAGA types are not bothered that rights are bring stripped from citizens. MAGA types love to see "the other" perdecuted.
The legacy media, the traditional pundits, whatever you want to call passes for mainstream political analysis these days is not on target, as Ms. Rubin aptly points out. Because there is virtually no professional and widely available local political reporting, these national pundits are just recycling their preferred narratives. Talarico is slightly ahead of Paxton? The pundit take? Oh, well it's Texas, so he can't win. Where's Paul Harvey when we need him to give us "the rest of the story"?
As I head to the Texas Democratic Convention this week, let me give y'all some first-hand reporting from my perspective. First, it matters to Texans, both Democratic, Republican and everything in-between that Paxton is not from Texas and Talarico is an eighth-generation Texans. So much of Talarico's messaging subtly and not-so subtly plays up Paxton's carpet bagger status. This is local politics in action. National pundits miss this factor. So, that's just kind of a vibe thing, but I think it is going to matter. (The down-ballot races also pit native Texans against out of state MAGA opportunists)
Second, this is a verifiable fact. The Texas Republican convention had 7k sign up to attend. Actual attendance was probably less than 2k. Texas Democrats have 8,700 signed up so far. Will they all show? I don't know, but I'm watching hotels get filled up as the convention website tries to help people find places to stay in Corpus Christi. It might be worthwhile to watch us on CSPAN June 25-27 and see who y'all think has the most energy going into this election.
As for the state of progressivism in Texas, here's something to make you go "hmmm...." The Texas Democratic platform is the most progressive in the country, i.e. more progressive than Blue states. Progressivism/populism started in the Gilded Age in Texas and has never really gone away, if you know where to look. We have Bernie Sanders coming to address the convention. If Texans are so allergic to progressivism, would 8,700 people decide to come?
Thanks for the Lone Star insight. Loved Paul Harvey, “Good day.”
I would love you to be right, but this lifelong resident of the Northeast isn't so sure. People have been voting against their own interests in Texas for so long that I can't imagine that they have finally hit a breaking point. Paxton may not be a Texan, but he is just so horrible that I have a hard time thinking that Texas Republicans will vote against him; yup, ironic but......
The topic here is whether progressivism is popular. My post is narrowly focused on that. It provides my insight into a couple of material matters that support that thesis. As far as the future behavior of Texans, I see no point in arguing that hypothetical. I'm going to try to elect as many Democrats as I can regardless of popular theories about what people will do. Let's just find out what they do.
I don't think David was attacking you or post, Cynthia. He's merely pointing out that TX has been the Great White Whale of democrats for many election cycles, only to have those hopes dashed on Election Day. That said, I think the political climate has sufficiently shifted that Talarico has a real shot. Fingers crossed.
Thanks Jane. I understood that, and I acknowledge that it is a material fact that people have seen Texans voting like blithering idiots for a long time. However, the fact that David starts with stating he is in the Northeast begs the question as to whether he is following the national pundit narrative or willing to assess new facts and circumstances here and then wait for the outcome in this election. No offense was taken. I am just trying to engage in some constructive dialog.
Ms. Rubin’s premise here is that there are things happening in the middle of the country regarding progressivism which aren’t being seen. There are myriads of political insider stuff specific to Texas I could discuss as to predicting the election outcome. But ultimately, what Texans are and what they will do just seems unhelpful. They’ll do what they do. But, there is a progressive groundswell happening here, in my not so humble (ha) opinion.
I suspect there are all kinds of things going on in NC that aren’t visible to outsiders as well. Thank you for your kind words, Jane.
No worries, Cynthia. Appreciate your comment. I'm originally from the Mid-Atlantic, now living in NC. But please understand, the comments like the one from David come from a place of pulling for you - HARD - not trying to tear you down.
Why limit yourself? People have been voting against their own intersts across the whole country for years. This is one reason why we are in the condition we are in today.
Most TX republicans will vote for Paxton, but the question is whether enough won't, and there seems to a falling off in republican leaning because of the economy, but mostly over data centers. The other big question is where independents will fall, and right now Trump and the republicans are polling like ebola among Indies.
"Talarico is slightly ahead of Paxton? The pundit take? Oh, well it's Texas, so he can't win. Where's Paul Harvey when we need him to give us "the rest of the story"?"
Where's anyone who will give us the whole story instead of a partisan narrative? Someone who can play the role of umpire instead of cheerleader. The late Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" was superb at putting both Dems and Repubs alike in the hot seat every Sunday. No one today even comes close.
Agreed
When you actually talk to people about their ideals, they generally want progressive/leftist policy, not the establishment garbage we've been dealing with all our lives. My family is conservative, but when I talk to them about what they think the role of government should be, they end up sounding like Mamdami leftists.
Ask people what they want and we pretty much all want the same things: universal healthcare, child care, a living wage, free education, Social Security secured, etc. seems only MAGA don’t want separation of church and state. All of US have a great deal in common with all of US in spite of the Division Propaganda touted by Trump & Associates. To say that’s progressive is a misnomer: that’s For The People who pay enough taxes to have all of this AND we need the billions of dollars immigrants pay into the system (many of them without any benefits). In America it’s all about money while tossing common sense and equal good into the propaganda fire.
All politics is (and are) local. It's nice that New Yorkers are happy. But here in Baghdad By the Sea, and in flyover America, be careful with what you wish (for).
The Democratic Party needs to have a bigger tent. We need to attract independents, even dissenting Rinos who are MAGA victims.
The election will be won or lost in places like Ohio and Iowa, where we need Rinos.
I live in MI, which is no longer a reliably blue state, so I know what you mean. But what appealing to a "bigger" tent quite often does is muddy or water down the message, in an effort to please the most number of people.
MAGAs do not do that. They are unabashedly their awful selves, and somehow people like Trump attracted Latinos, nonvoters, young men - even Black men! - and those who may like only ONE aspect of their programs, e.g. lower taxes, but vote for them anyway despite all the other baggage.
When it comes to Democrats, they are expected to present a comprehensive "package" of attractiveness, of sound thought-out policy - but not too wonky! - and if any part of it doesn't appeal to the multitudes, they're accused of poor messaging and being too "something" - too far left, not far left enough, and all sorts of variations in between.
And the media piles on.
Personally, I think it should be very simple. If you don't like all the lawlessness, the cowardly fecklessness, the incompetence, the turning away from science and evidence, or all of the other attributes of the modern-day GOP mess, then vote for Democrats. Don't expect perfection, don't expect complete alignment of all views, don't expect miracles! Just give them a chance to undo some of the damage and do some good for the country.
We have to keep the eye on the prize -- get rid of the tyrant first.
I used to do some work in MI, and the mentality in Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo is completely different than say Detroit. Even a Gerald Ford Republican should oppose MAGA on multiple grounds. The message should be different in Amway country than in diverse urban areas.
I personally would vote for a yellow dog (preferably a golden retriever) than vote for ANY Republican.
Right on JL. Great comment.
Many RINOs discovered their inner progressive at the grocery store and at the gas station over the last months. Somehow, even for MAGAs, the “satisfaction” of a loudmouth boor president and sycophants who share one’s prejudices seems less attractive when you can’t buy food, fuel the car, or get adequate healthcare.
I've said from the beginning that when the personal pocketbook gets pinched, there would come a realization that what the people were supporting was harming them. This seems to have dawned on many.
Indeed! And better late than never I think…..
Daniel, I think the people I know who are running for office in Florida understand that they need the votes of people who voted for Trump in 2024, They are leaning toward pragmatic and away from dogmatic.
I wish that were true. I speak to some candidates who are oblivious to what it takes to win a general electon.
Our primary is in August. We should be reaching out NOW.
Daniel, I think Leela Gray, here in St Pete, fully understands, as does Alex Vindman, and Bale Dalton.
Earle Ford, who's running for State CFO, could be the best retail politiician I've ever seen. He writes all of his emails himself, the only one so far as I can tell from the avalanch I get daily. If you get a chance, meet him.
We have some wonderful people runing this time. I'm very much encouraged.
I apologize for taking this space with Florida-centric observations hoping that they are within the bounds of what ought to be written here.
From St Petersburg, Minneapolis by the Sea
We have problems...Cuba,Venezuela are primary and everything else is secondary. We have 3 Batistianos representing Dem majority districts -- now reengineered by the DeSantis maps. We have a registration/purgation problem.
Please check out Field Team 6.
I live in a red state, and although the news hasn't covered it, in the recent Republican primaries, all of the radical MAGA candidates lost to more "traditional" Republicans. In the main election, due to gerrymandering, of course these candidates will defeat the Democrats, but I think this is a good sign: rejection of alt-right radicalism across the board.
Daniel, I used Claude, but even it cannot tell me where Baghdad by the Sea is in the USA! Herb Caen coined Baghdad by the Bay, for San Francisco and someone else called Houston a similar name. What city does your Baghdad refer to?
Miami. I stole it from a radio show from the 50's.
https://www.amazon.com/Miami-90-2Paths2-Murder-Novel/dp/1977222374
Besides murder meet:
- Foreign intrigue, spies and espionage.
- Cultural assimilation and hostility.
- Generational and inter-generational conflict.
- Dognapping and animal rights.
- Fire bombings.
- Riots.
- Abstract and symbolic cultural art.
- Public corruption fraud and Medicare fraud
- Jury trials and administrative hearings involving DNA and other scientific subjects.
- Foreign and domestic intelligence.
- Smuggling, illegal guns and drugs and illegal immigration.
- Remittances to Cuba.
- Grifters.
- Terrorist gangs.
- Unscrupulous police and politicians.
- Interaction between the State Department, Justice Department and other agencies.
- Social Security hearings.
- Greyhound racing.
- Advanced placement.
- PETA.
- Comparative religion.
- Non-violent direct action.
- Religious proselytization and conversion.
- Parochial vs. public education.
- Religious persecution.
- Santeria and Voodoo.
- Spells and trances.
- Gangsters and ganiffs.
- Eugenics, genetics, forensic evidence and expert testimony.
- Lukumi. Melungeons. Moors and Christians. Babalus and Rebbes.
I think he means Florida?
A message of good cheer! Thank you. I was obsessing about the concerted attacks on our right to vote/voting by mail—so I hope the progressives, lawyers, and independent pundits will prevail for freedom, the Constitution, and a pluralistic America. I am fired up to finish my current batch of voter postcards.
Good job!
Yep! Voted for a progressive candidate for congress over centrist AIPAC funded Morelle here in Rochester, NY
😁👍🏼💙
Trump is everything he's been described to be. A wind bag of anti-American insults plus his heinous executive orders chipping away at 80 years of social progress and equality in America. He's not just the "dotard" Kim Jong Un described. He's an outsized malevolent, zombie like force in our civilization. And what does he care about these days? Yes the $$$s. But also the global headlines..good (none) or bad (all). This is his daily/hourly dose of heroine. Apparently, being the most reviled person on the planet, really makes his day.
No, he doesn't really like to get bad press, but the only thing he REALLY cares about is being in the news many times over EVERY DAY!
The Republican party is hopefully going to learn that in November. Even in Alabama we have an Independent running in the U.S. Senate race. He has called out the Republican nominee on his voting record in the house. It will make the race interesting. People don’t like their rights being violated and fumbled with by the U.S. Supreme Court either. It’s past time to impose term limits.
Let's hope democrats read your essay Ms. Rubin and take it to heart. It's way past time the "establishment" get their heads on straight about what We the People, at least a super majority of us are striving not just to protect against Maga but to reinvigorate and re-establish as who we want to strive to become as a nation. PPRI certainly has provided a terrific snapshot to lift up our hearts and strengthen our resolve.
Thanks a million for this uplifting post. We are a collection of communities wanting democratic ideals for our diverse population. We're happy to be Americans while trumpians are angry, rude & bitter.
Flawed, not perfect Dem is at least an order of magnitude better than the Trump & Co packs of depraved sociopaths. Resist corrupt authoritarians & Vote Blue! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_i38-qjtbI Please, 86 47 & his capos with a Blue Tsunami.
I am really lucky - I have 2 senators from the Legion of Super Heroes - Ossoff and Warnock. Would that so many of the hand wringers in the party would take a cue and speak out. We are just going to have to hold the feet of the passive ones to the fire and demand that they do better. At some level, most of the rethugs know they are peddling unpopular nonsense, but they are so in thrall to tRump they just cannot break. That makes them easier for people to vote against.
Surveys do show that a majority of Americans like many progressive ideas. And yet surveys also show that the Dems remain insufficiently popular. What Mamdani and the progressives accomplished in blue districts will not necessarily translate to more hard fought districts, the gerrymandered districts, or an Electoral College which favors the Red states. Dems will need to champion the popular positions while avoiding making themselves easy targets for MAGA propaganda, something they haven't done well at in the past. I appeal to the left wing of the party to "read the room" and keep that in mind when coming up with things like "Defund the Police" and "Drag Queen Story Hour."