234 Comments
User's avatar
Peter's avatar

The people will never rise up to save Democracy because let's be real, they have no idea what it means nor why it matters. Perhaps if conservatives hadn't worked so hard to get rid of civics as a required class things would be different, but here we are. At this point none of us should care what wakes them up, we need them to wake up. And we need them to do something that they need to do, vote their own self interest, not what they have thought of as their self interest - Jesus, guns and billionaire tax breaks. And our job now is to link billionaire tax breaks directly to the government programs they depend on that are now in peril. Let's remind the farmers that they aren't getting paid because Musk killed USAID because he wants the money. And when he kills FEMA and NOAA, let's remind hurricane and tornado victims that there is no money for them because it was given to Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg. Make it personal. Make it easy to understand. Be relentless in pounding the message.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

We need to find a way to squeeze it all onto a bumper sticker.

Expand full comment
davecomedy's avatar

Splendid username.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Peter

yes. "civics" was required when i went to school. completely non-partisan as i recall. just teaching how our government (nominally) works. this is apparently all we needed to be more or less sane about politics. i was not aware that "conservatives had worked so hard" to eliminate civics. but it does look like kids have been learning nothing in school but how to access the internet. i suppose "conservatives" thought the civics that was being taught was somehow subversive to the free market. certainly it was about that time that (irony) private schools were becoming popular...subsidized by the government.

Expand full comment
Nyleen Mullally's avatar

As a lifelong Democrat who has cheered every legal inclusion of each marginal and discriminated against class of citizens since the end of WWII, I foolishly believed that all but a very few of my fellow citizens were as supportive of these social and legal victories as I was. My ignorance was also supported by the fact that everyone in my circle of friends were also strong Democrats, except for most of my family members. I never thought to ask them why they switched to being Republicans sometime after Reagan’s presidency. A big clue was when one of my sisters became stridently anti abortion, my niece told me that she despised people who didn’t work and instead lived off the government, and my other sister started telling me during our conversations that she didn’t believe anything negative about t***p that was reported by the main stream media during his first term. When I presented the facts to her about him, she would say it was fake news and laugh at my ignorance. But, even I have been unprepared for the venom, cruelty and incompetence he now displays every single day. It has been a harsh awakening to know that I am apparently surrounded by people who are in lockstep with his goal to destroy our government and our country, because of the promise that only he will do right by them and decrease the price of eggs.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

nyleen

you may be underestimating the power of propaganda and 'friends."

most people, I think, never think at all. and that includes college professors. what they call thinking is the product of association and repetition. I could be a victim of that myself. [except, maybe, that no one agrees with me about what i think i know best.]

just for example [and this is not my favorite subject] some people genuinely think abortion is murder of a child. if that is the case they will welcome the ideas of people who agree with them. and the whole art of politics is to start with something people believe -- believe in -- and cleverly twist it until the mark [voter] is sure they believe what the politician believes.

next step is a hard one. say you believe abortion is murder of a child, but you also believe the government [that is, us] should stay out of people's private lives, what do you do? And if you believe the government should stay out of people's private lives and businesses...what do you do about predatory business

and, say, child abuse? I know what I would do in each of these cases but I can't pretend to have a one size fits all reason, one rule to rule them all.

meanwhile while Trump and Musk prate about pfreedom and less government they are destroying freedom and turning their government into an overweening monster. and they are not being over-intlligent about it, in spite of being geniuses.

Expand full comment
Teach84's avatar

I’ve been telling them and telling them and telling them until I am blue in the face. Unfortunately, Trump’s supporters don’t do their research, or even bother to read about what has been happening on a daily basis since January 20. They blindly follow him and worship him. It’s incomprehensible to me.

Expand full comment
Jennifer Spearing's avatar

I don't talk to Trumpers about politics. They always use the blanket, "you watch fake news". Hmmmm..... I read a lot of various news sources, including the BBC and Al Jazeera. At any rate, there is no wasting your breath on people whose minds are closed. They're brainwashed. It's frightening.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

neither to Democrats..not even Senators... do their research....

Expand full comment
Peter's avatar

But the overriding issue eas not yhe price of eggs. It ess the totalitarian way that teachers had the right to trans a kid and legally kept the parents obfuscated. It was the total inability to arrest violent foreign gangs from ruling in sanctuary cities, it was the idea that murderers and rapists could walk scross the border with impunity and mutfer and rape, and have liberals say well the percentage is less than US citizens which dehumanized the victim into a statistic. Really we had no choice but to elect the team of idiots we did. It was the lesser of 2 evils.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Peter

I think the trouble you are havingis that you get all your storis from Fox News or similar practiced in the art of deception. I personally don't think trans kids should be operated on (pysically or psychologically) until they are old enough to vote at least, but I never heard of an actual case where a kid was "tranced" by a teacher w/ or w/out the parents obfuscated. nor have i ever heard of rapists walking across the border with impunity and the blessings of democrats.

and, since we are dealing with millions of people here i think we have to look at the statistics...which is to say that in a population of any size ther are going to be a certain amount of criminals, and since it was your side that was saying in effect "all" immigrants were criminals, it was important to point out that actually fewer of them than "real Americans" were criminals.

the lesser weevils you elected are in fact far more dangerous than immigrants.

Expand full comment
Peter's avatar

Wake up and read the news.

And no I never listen to fox news. I just have been reading the news since the 70,s. Maybe you should try it.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

peter

your nasty attitude gives you away.

Expand full comment
Peter's avatar

Nasty? Well youre not much lf a conversationalist.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

peter

what should i make of "you should try it?"

my aim here is not "conversation." i know something you don't know. my aim is to teach. i don't know where you get your news, but i did say "similar" to Fox News. I will admit that evn the "mainstream news" is not reliable when it comes to the truth about things that I know...know not from reading about it, but by doing the math.

Expand full comment
Bill Hamilton's avatar

Ha ha. When GOP screws up the economy and cuts the guts out of gov programs that help reg people the will point and say, “see the govt doesn’t work”, and lots of my fellow citizens will gleefully agree because where is the alternative narrative.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

"Unfortunately, relying on Americans to heed their better angels has seldom turned out well."

As hard as it may be for some to do, liberals and progressives must accept that there is deep and wide streak of bigotry and willful ignorance in this country that is impervious to policy nostrums and appeals to the greater good. We have to hammer on threat that the Musk/Trump administration poses to everyday lives. Talking about abstractions such as foreign policy should be in terms of the values most people believe that they as individuals have.

When we do offer policy, we should look to out-of-the-box proposals that pay off to everyone and that don't require voters to ad 2+2+2. Why not Social Security for All? That's a heck of a lot easier to grasp than Medicare for All.

Expand full comment
Theodora30's avatar

The Republicans I know — and there are a lot — are all about their own self-interest. For example I have found strategies such as pointing out that cutting foreign aid programs like USAID will kill babies doesn’t bother them despite the fact that many claim to be devout Christians. However if you can get them to understand that those kinds of programs can reduce migration to by helping desperate people survive in their own countries, they are far more likely to support those programs.

In my experience these people have a zero sum view of life, always fearful that if someone else gets a benefit it takes something away from them even if they are well off.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

I don’t know any rational Republicans.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

It's not irrational to be self-serving, but it is asinine.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

In this case, I’m referring to people I actually know. There’s nothing self-serving about their perspective unless blind allegiance is self-serving.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

In a strange sense it can be, but you have to look behind the reasons for blind allegiance. Just take a look at religious fanatics, especially of the Evangelical variety. They genuinely believe that following their preacher will lead them to >their< salvation. IOW, self interest.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

winston

but in fact they, the voters, are not self serving, they are serving the very people who harm them. that would be irrational if they were ever rational to begin with.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

I'm still undecided if they're irrational or just plain stupid - or both.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire and I'm including my own relatives. I'm seeing how brothers could have killed each other c1861. When you have a rabid dog you cannot reason with him/ her.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

but if your dog is not rabid, but only mad...at you...you can reason with him...if you are not mad yourself.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

TF are you on about.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

your comment about rabid dogs aka mad dogs. people are rarely rabid, but often mad. as for a dog that is not mad, does nothave rabies, he can be cured with something like intelligent love. people are harder to cure, but still better to try than shooting them. getting mad at them never helps unless you have absolute power ... which is not good for you of them.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

yet they prate about logic and reason as though they were the only ones who have it. "logical" means "word free association that i like."

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Or as though they even had logic or reason at all to begin with. Could we say that greed and lust for power is logical or reasonable? I'd say it's, at best, open to debate.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

winston

for what it's worth, i look at it this way. "logic" only really exists in math or formal logic. people who think they are being logical usually don't even come close..just free association of words or thoughts i like the sound of. "logic" usually fails because of unknown assumptions or unknown facts.

reason is more common. it is more careful reasoning trying to link known facts with yet unknown facts or with goals. you can generally get away with not very good logic, in fact un-logical guesses are often most productive.

but reasoning in the service of bad ends is never "reasonable." you get what you want but you are worse off because of it.

so what is a bad end? often it is something you want very much...say how to get your next fix... of power, respect, greed, lust, envy, revenge, or simple hate.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

In other words, rationalizing.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

If any of them are farmers, tell them that USAID was a subsidy to >them<. Maybe that'll wake them up.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

lol- the biggest wars of the last 100 years were fought by Christians against Christians. 'Religion of Peace'😂

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

old wives tale. your hundred years cut off makes my argument difficult, but china v communists, pol pot v cambodia, tutsi v hutu, sudan v sudan, arab v israeli, india v pakistan... and all the internal wars and killings..

and go back to when there were no christians at all...greeks v trojans, huns [the piles of skulls should sugest someting]..., sioux v crow, aztec v [?], rome v known world..... the list goes on.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

They’re coming around, only a few are holding on. Those who worship Billionaires while the rest of us stand for freedom and democracy, the core principles of all Americans. I will not be oppressed so Billionaires can get their tax cuts and the rest of Americans lose our freedoms. Hell no, no sir, no ma’am!

Expand full comment
Bill Hamilton's avatar

I think you are correct. I think this only changes if the larger culture changes to make craven self interest a disreputable characteristic. Right now we have DJT setting cultural standards which is to promote his craven self interests over everyone else’s.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Paul G

I agree with the first part. I don't think you understand how social securityworks . it is worker paid. i am betting you want it to be "government paid"..that is, paid for by the rich. that won't work. there are many ways a progressive government could improve the lot of workers and those unable to work. but turning SS into welfare is not one of them.

in fact Medicare for All..which i believe in, will not work if it is 'welfare for all'. that means it needs to be worker paid..by a more or less flat tax where the tax is capped at a level that is reasonable health insurance for evn the rich..allowing fot the fact that insurance is based on the idea that those who don't get sick pay for those who do...because no one ever knows when they might get sick.

so is explaining how you need to pay for your own needs {through insurance) too abstract for the people to grasp. the cost of paying for Medicare for all is less than the cost of paying for private insurance. but people see the first as a goddam government tax, and they don't see private insurance as a ripoff until they get denied the insurance they paid for..or can't pay the premiums. and of course having the employer take the cost of insurance out of their pay is invisible to them. they think it is a gift from the boss.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

I agree with you and to clarify, I don’t think it’s acceptable for trillions of dollars to be taken from us regular folk so billionaires can keep avoiding taxes. What’s happening is called corporate welfare, when the poor and middle class support the rich. That’s what’s happening right under our noses. Us workers have already paid for ss, medicare, and medicade, not billionaires, but it’s been taken away from us and given to them. That’s just plain wrong brother.

Expand full comment
Anne Docherty's avatar

Like Bernie Sanders said, if the rich paid their fair taxes, there would be plenty to pay for these programs, instead of expecting to be exempt. Warren Buffet said he would be happy to pay more.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Anne

there is plenty to pay for these programs. But that does not mean "the rich" will or should pay for Social Security. The rich won't pay for your retirement and they have the power to make the law. You don't. But Roosevelt had a genius idea: worker paid retirement insurance. To pay for SS forever, as far as we can see, it would take and extra one tenth of one percent on the payroll tas to pay for your own longer life expectancy. You pay for it you own it. If the rich pay for it, they own it..and will kill it.

If youwan to tax the rich to pay for general government, more power to you. But don't try to make them pay for SS...that is touching the third rail.

Expand full comment
Anne Docherty's avatar

I don’t expect them to pay for those programs, just pay their share of taxes. I live in Canada and prior to that N. Ireland, where we have all these programs and employees paid into them. Our taxes were to accommodate social services, healthcare, education and infrastructure like most other developed economies in Europe. There was less emphasis on money and more on the quality of life. There was less crime You didn’t need a pile of donations to run for office. You were , however, subject to a background check and honesty and integrity were essential The money involved in US elections is the recipe for oligarchy and poverty, which in turn leads to crime and all the insidious spin-off. Consider the cost of policing and building enough prisons to accommodate what an unjust society creates and that’s only one aspect of many. In NI there was a big emphasis on education for all and students earned grants to universities based on merit. Government provided trades training. All this was the fruit of a Democracy.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Anne

thank you for the information. i do not know how "retirement" is paid for in Ireland or Canada, but I noted that France was able to cut it's retirement benefits in one day without even a vote of Congress. And other countries in the world are beset with propaganda or "economists" warning that they will not be able to pay for all the retirees expected in the future. This is nonsense the future retirees will always be able to pay for the present retirees. Their "tax' may be a little higher but not enough to materially affect their standard of living, and if they are sure they will get their own benefits when they need to retire, they should not mind paying those taxes.

FDR forsaw all of this, perhaps especially because of the nature of politics, and the nature of people in America, so he invented a payment system by which the workers were able to pay for their own retirement in advance and retain ownership of that payment the same way they would "own" money they put in the bank. Europeans may have a different psychology and more trust in their government. I hope it does not turn out to be misplaced. We are in the midst of finding out whether ours has been misplaced. But here it is taking something like a coup, and not just a decision by one person..however much he represents the desires of the rich.

As for education, my takeaway from too many years in school in America was that education as we knew it was a waste of time for most students. Not that it wouldn't be of great value if it was designed to educate and civilize students instead of just get them used to the cattle drive of the American labor market.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

booboo

you have paid for social security, but you haven't started to pay enough to cover the cost of living longer. you may not want to or be able to WORK longer even if you are going to live longer. Before Social Security any "retirement" was a luxury for the rich. the poor were expected to work until they were no longer useful to the boss, then to slowly die out of sight. The very rich (Musk) still don't want you to be able to retire whle you still have enough blood to squeeze out for is dining pleasure.

but...if you pay for your own retirement they should not be able to take it away or decide when you can retire. even that is a hard battle to win. nobody knows that they can pay the extra needed for about ONE DOLLAR PER WEEK PER YEAR more in their payroll "tax" [retirement savings account]. and when I try to tell them they call me a shill for the rich as if an extra dollar a week was a crushing burden and it's only fair to make the rich pay. in fact the rich already pay for their own fair share, which includes the insurance premium that enables SS to pay for the extra needed by the very poor whose savings, even under Social Security, are not enough to pay for their needs when they can no longer work.

understanding this and making congress understand that you know this, would do a lot more good that just yelling about the evil rich. some of them are evil, but yelling won't stop them.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

I’m really interested in what your main argument is. Can you say it in one sentence so I understand what you want from our government and from the ultra rich?

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

booboo

i don't see my reply to you here. i did answer you. real answer is too complex for one sentence. but i want' government to take care of the general welfare, welfare for the needy {these are not the same thing), national defense, and managing the economy sensibly neither for the rich nor for the Left. I have sympathy for the same things the Left has, but I don't think their policies work if they had the power.

as for the ultra rich..they need to pay for most of the government because they have the money. the poor and really the average worker don't have enough money after paying for their goceries to make any difference. and in case it is not clear i hate the Fox News Rich much more than i distrust the Left. Fox News Rich is not the same as the sane rich.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

Brother, I agree with so much of what you’re saying. And honestly at this point if you look at history and what it meant to be a republican when the party first started and who the Democrats were against back then…

Parties hold no meaning to me at this point it’s really about the corporations and who they’re funding at the time and their interests that defined a party.

The rest is just fluff and BS. If we think about the left or the right, it keeps us divided and weak, we have to think about all of us together and work together. Because I want the same things you want.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

I understand how Social Security is funded. Expanding Social Security so that it is a universal basic income is worth studying. Possible sources of financing:

* Remove payroll tax cap on Social Security. Only about 6% of workers benefit from the cap anyway

* Tax capital gains. There’s no reason why money made from money should be taxed less than money made from work

* Tax certain stock transactions, especially hedge funds

* Tax stock buybacks

The vast majority of workers would be unaffected by this. Once a UBI is in place—and compared to M4A, it wouldn’t take long—it’s not going away.

Philosophically, M4A is fine with me. However, without a consensus that health care is a right, I don’t see how we get there. Also, there’s an issue with scale: Between staffing, transitioning, and establishing an IT infrastructure, implementing M4A could take a generation. And would it solve the problem of underserved rural and urban areas? Small countries with socialized medicine—never mind M4A—remain frustrated by this. Progressives and liberals have been floating M4A for decades—it just doesn’t get traction.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Paul G

itis generally not a good idea to use abbreviations like M4A or UBI unless you are sure your readers are familiar with them.

Healthcare should be a right. but WE create rights. Maybe God has his own idea of "rights" but i don't think he operates on a level you can count on people respecting. Social Security was created as a "right" because the workers pay for their own benefits. Medicare for All should be designed the same way. It would replace private insurance with a government pool of all citizens paying a rate that would be sufficient to cover current medical expenses of the population as a whole..because all of us are subject to the risk of high medical costs. the premium (which would be called a tax because not voluntary) would be less than current private insurance premiums. The rich would pay more in proportion to their abiility to pay, but not "progressive".. the progressivity would come on the back end as the poor would get more in benefits as a proportion of what they paid in "tax".People go crazy about what they think is "fair," tey should be thinking about what is adequate...what works.

stop looking for a free lunch. nobody likes welfare.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

It’s generally not a good idea to be pedantic. Nonetheless, some people can’t resist it.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Paul,

I was not being pedantic. I was genuinely trying to help you communicate. I don't care any more about "grammar" or even spelling than you do. I hope you got got past the "pedantic" and read the rest of my comment.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Paul

saying that you understand how Social Security is funded does not mean that you do understand how Social Security is funded..or why it is funded that way. Roosevelt insisted that SS be paid for by the workers themselves "so no damn politician can take it away from them."

It would take an extra one tenth of one percent per year on the payroll tax to fund Social Security forever. That's about a dollar per week per year. Is that really a crushing burden on the poor (who would pay only about fifty cents per week on their very low wages? And it could be done today..it needs to be done today. INstead of dancing around for decades with some fantasy scheme to create a paradise where no one had to save their own money, or insure themselves against poverty in old age or disability, or protect their families in case they die while their children are still young.

All workers benefit from the cap: it is what keeps the "6%" from destroying SS outright. right now those workers ("the rich") pay enough into Social Security to provide the money that enables SS to pay "extra" benefits to those whose low wages would not provide enough of their own savings for an adequate retirement. The sane rich understand this well enough so they are reasonably happy to pay their "fair share" for the insurance value of SS. The really sane among them understand that mass poverty in old age or disability would not be good for the economy or their business. The trouble we have is the insane rich and the insane Left (not all of either of those groups are insane) are too greedy to even start to understand this. The insane rich want all the money. And the insane Left wants the rich to pay for everything, Between them they are destroying the best anti-poverty program ever invented.

Here we go again" another "update your profile" because site designers love junior high school games.

Expand full comment
Kim's avatar

The problem with "we will take the win, no matter how small, wherever we can get it " is that voters can be shallow and have incredibly short, selective memories. 3 years from now if the Democrats regain Congress and are able to restrict some of Trump's damage, the voters will say that the past carnage wasn't so bad, let's continue to vote R down the line on every ballot. Somehow the Democrats have to remind people of all of the essential and great things good government can do while also always reminding them that the only thing most Republicans want to do is to bring disfunction to public service. This is only tough to do now because the truth doesn't seem to matter. January 6 is the best evidence of not believing what your eyes see. Somehow we have to try and convince people to believe in the public good and not just our own narrow self interests. We may not be successful but we should continue to try.

Expand full comment
John Schwarzkopf's avatar

Another Great Depression would wake them up. My parents and all their friends who lived through it never got over it and were big fans of the New Deal. If enough people get hungry they might see the light.

Expand full comment
Donald Burgess's avatar

Sorry, but my father (and mother) lived through the Great Depression from the age of 19 (and 15) and my father never liked FDR (my mother never gave an opinion, agnostic?) and was a Republican through and through, loving the (false) hero, Lt-Col Oliver North, to the end of his days. And he apparently found friends in his age group who were similarly inclined.

Expand full comment
Jet Spinel's avatar

My parents were children during the depression. My father worked from the age of 8 doing whatever he could to earn a $. Both parents thought FDR was the greatest President ever. My mother described the day he died as if it were the apocalypse. And I look back at history and can assert that even with his foibles, FDR created programs in America ie WPA that to this day still benefit Americans. Nothing like a paved road or a bridge. Or a pension program for people to save for their old age ie Social Security. So before you wrap it up with idle criticisms delve into the many social programs that without them, frankly yours parents and mine would not have had a better life.

Expand full comment
Susan J Paxton's avatar

They came from money, didn't they?

Expand full comment
Jet Spinel's avatar

My parents came from poverty. It was the depression.

Expand full comment
Donald Burgess's avatar

Actually, no. My father grew up in western Massachusetts, the son of an employee on the Boston & Maine Railroad, and my mother, born in Manitoba Canada to parents that emigrated from England and her father was a Methodist minister moving to new congregations every two years, lived a rather penurious life: she learned to cut her two brothers’ hair to save the 5 cent barber cost and learned to save every penny, practicing that to her dying day. My father was a bank clerk where they met, and into the mid 1950s or so, my family income was around $5.000.00. My mother was able to sell encyclopedias to make that possible.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Donald

my parent/gradparent were Repubicans in Chicago where the democrats had the power and of course the corruption.. i myself wa a republican until i got old enough to see what was happening. you simply cannot count on people understanding what is happening to them when they are lied to every day about things they do not understand . Democracy depends on a simple majority of people believing more or less the right thing at the right time.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Oh yeah, that would do the trick. But what a damn shame that it would take a major catastrophe like that to wake them up.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

No, you’re wrong. There’s republicans filling town halls with folks standing up for our rights across the country in red states and purple states. We all come together in the name of freedom and democracy. Join us, drive to your senators office, call your congressman. Give em a piece your mind! We all are!

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

I'd agree but we didn't have media completely subservient to billionaires 1930-2000. That's changed for the worse. Any negatives will be blamed on D policies using Fox or Skum's Xitter mouthpieces and filth like Joe Rogan . Also don't forget the Reagan war on education which is at its zenith under Dump.

So we can get the economy of 1930 and the security situation of 1939 and things might change but too slowly to make a difference. JMHO

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Kim

borne home today: they also like humiliating people they can and get away with it. witness the treatment of Zelinsky by our Mafia boss president and chief sycophant, and the pleasure it gave his supporters.

Expand full comment
Teach84's avatar

There won’t be another election in this country unless we the people rise up and rebel against these Dictators/Nazis/Authoritarians.

Expand full comment
N KB's avatar

Two points.

1. Your caption on the eggs is great.

2. It is amazing how limited in scope a pain point has to be to become the issue. I can't imagine this administration doesn't succeed in finding hundreds of pain points. It is the political end that matters at that moment. Can the Democrats successfully paint that pain as Trump/Republican caused?

Expand full comment
MAP's avatar

In this case Elon is bragging about it constantly so I don’t worry about sho will take the blame. I do worry that people are angry at dems for not being more forceful fighters.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Yeah, the Dems have been rolling over on their backs for way too long now. They're starting to stand up though, little by little.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

All of us are, we are united in the name of freedom! I don’t care about what party anyone is in any more, we are all family now. Together we stand for freedom and democracy above all.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

I think so. People are starting to feel it. Witness the Republican town halls brimming with pissed off >Republican< constituents. The message is sinking in, slowly but surely.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Remember that a lot of these people are fine with women dying in botched abortions, higher education being out of reach for all but rich people, immigrants being put into concentration camps, and ruining the environment.

What's changed is they see Dump and Skum actually affecting their financial security.

These by and large are not good people. Sure, use them to depose the dictator but don't forget who they have shown themselves to be.

There are no good Republicans

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Sadly all too true.

Expand full comment
Gavin's avatar

In the UK there has been a concerted effort to blame the negative impacts of leaving the EU on those who voted against leaving.

The right truly believe that if all those favouring membership of the European Community had just shut up after the vote (which split 51% vs 49%), then Brexit would have been a huge success.

We are already seeing Nigel Farage, who was largely responsible for running a successful leave campaign, positioning himself to be a future Prime Minister.

So please be very careful. Let Trump and his revolutionaries own their failures!! Don’t become his scapegoats.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Murdoch has done for the UK what he did for the US

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

probably not. but it would help if the Dems stopped pointing to imaginary pain points. or just the pain points felt by a minority of people. this does not mean ignore the pain of those minorities. it does mean don't try to shove them down the throats of people who don't believe you....maybe...maybe relying on your local dems to show their local people where you are helping them, but leave it out of the national campaign.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

The throat-shoving is being done exclusively by the religious 'right'. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion or to attend a drag story hour. But the 'right' is doing their damndest to make sure no one is able to do so if they want to.

Bothsides is what got us here but both sides are NOT the same

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

John

yes. but while the throat shoving by the "religious right" is more damaging than the throat shoving by the Left...that Leftist rhetoric is what loses us votes.

Meanwhile to not confuse the "religous right" with real Christianity: they are exact opposites. the "religious right" has taken their primitive pagan religion and slapped the lable "christian" on it [as did the medieval church, but there were still enough real christians back then that they did some good in the world.]

In the name of religion the "religous right" politicians are hurting (killing) real people. the Left is only offending "ordinary"people with words that trigger their own primitive fears. Still, on balance the hard Left words cost us more votes than the Right's real harm costs them.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Again, not seeing where the 'left' is shoving policy down anyone's throats but YMMV

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

john

it's a figure of speech. obviously the people don't have to listen to it if they don't like it. and to be honest it is really Fox News and friends who are doing the shoving. I should have found a better way to put it.

I do hear a lot of Leftish commentors on line calling the simple folks who don't want boys in the girls room bad names. they did the same thing about bussing...long time ago. We can make progress protecting the rights of trans or black people, but not if we do it in a way that injures the rights of people not yet ready to accept the changes we demand.

clarification..i wouldn't worry about the rights of people who want to lynch blacks or beat gays...but busing was a step too far and so is boys in the girls room.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

This is no longer about party lines! Americans are uniting and supporting each other across party lines in the name of freedom & democracy! We don’t care about nothin else that’s been dividing us anymore. Not when freedom and democracy is so blatantly being threatened!

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

i don't know if people understand "freedom and democracy" but they can see the threat to their money. and maybe they now realize that "the government" they fear is now in the hands of the people who taught them to fear the government.

Expand full comment
Dennis Benoit's avatar

“…for a lot of Americans, only some of it is bad. They don’t really care much about democracy as a foundational principle, and they’re likely to view Trump’s most lawless and even fascistic actions through the prism of the outcome.”

I suggest, if Democracy ever returns to the US, a restored emphasis on civics education.

Expand full comment
11BAGP's avatar

I would also add an aggressive program of media literacy and recognition of propaganda. Make it a graduation requirement.

Expand full comment
Theodora30's avatar

Finland has an in-depth media literacy program that is taught in every subject in its curriculum and at all grade levels. As a result the Finns regularly top the Open Society’s survey of European Europeans’ ability to spot fake information of all types, not just political.

“Finnish youth taught how to spot disinformation”

“Considered a forerunner, Finland has been ranked first on the European Media Literacy Index every year since it was first published in 2017 by the Bulgarian Open Society Institute.”

https://www.voanews.com/a/finnish-youth-taught-how-to-spot-disinformation-/7912218.html

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

That would be a good start. But we still ought to deport Rupert and Lachlan.

Expand full comment
Donald Burgess's avatar

I have long considered Rupert Murdoch the most dangerous immigrant to ever gain citizenship. Note that it was 10 years to the day (which ended the period where he could be taken to court for lying on his citizenship application) after being granted citizenship that Murdoch enabled Roger Ailes to set up the Fox News Channel to create a public that would support a future president like Richard Nixon, and eliminate the possibility of his being impeached and convicted, or forced to resign to avoid that fate.

Expand full comment
Pandora’s Box's avatar

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

That's great idea. Force Faux News to live up to its motto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

Expand full comment
Pandora’s Box's avatar

Deport is kind

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Yeah, I was being charitable. I actually support the guillotine - for them and Skunk Musk, not to mention The MAGA King himself.

Expand full comment
Susan All's avatar

Critical thinking

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

11B

oddly enough it was a requirement at Los Angeles City College when I was there. The joke is that the professor ran his class like a fascist. He did, however, have us read a book by S.I.Hayakawa, "Language in Thought and Action" which I recommend.whil

In related news, I worked for a state government department, whose enlightened leader had us all attend a "team building" program. After that all the local mangers and junior managers required us to use the team building jargon while they treated us like ignorant slaves. We are a team and I am your leader: do what I say, no questions allowed, and if I want your opinion..never mind, I don't want your opinion.

Expand full comment
That old Scottish git.'s avatar

"I suggest, if Democracy ever returns to the US, a restored emphasis on civics education." ...

AND full application of the law against those who currently get away because of their money.

Americans don't believe in democracy for the simple reason the way America does democracy doesn't work. You built a voting system biased towards a minority of your population. You built a legal system intended to allow the rich to break the law. And you follow religions that preach power rather than the principles so their faith.

And you willingly elected a president who embodies these and many other failings. Which is hardly a surprise given what America is.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Unfortunately, to rectify it would require some heavy amendments to the constitution. Maybe we could do it after Civil War 2.0.

Expand full comment
bööbôǒ's avatar

I’m sick and tired of defeatist attitudes, haven’t you heard? We are all uniting across party lines to resist! We are all standing up together for freedom and democracy. That’s where Americans draw the line, and we see now the deception by Trump, he is not god. He is the son of the fallen angel, folks have awakened to this. We’re not fools!

Expand full comment
That old Scottish git.'s avatar

Whine to the leaders at the International summit 'Protecting our future'. America not invited. We've no confidence you're going to do anything beyond talk.

Uniting across party lines? Do you not read the reports of what Republicans are saying in support of him?

Drawing the line? What line, you all keep watching him step across every line and all that happens is some of you shout into the wind about it.

Resist? In what way? He's still doing anything he wants and so are all his supporters.

The result? Europe is doing without you, refusing to fuel your subs, building missiles for Ukraine. Canada is refusing to listen to your anthem.

You do not have time to sit on you hands blubbing that you're doing something and getting all offended that your lack of action is being noticed.

Expand full comment
Susan J Paxton's avatar

Much more important is swingeing taxes on income, wealth, and inheritance for the top 4%. That way you geld them permanently.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Well it worked great 1933-81. Then, Reagan -spit-

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

maybe that's why they work so hard to keep you out of power.

Expand full comment
Pandora’s Box's avatar

As much as I dislike A1 - it would be interesting what it would advise with regard to gerrymandering.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Ok, you asked here's the answer, from ChatGPT with the prompt "how to put a stop to gerrymandering":

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular political party or group, can undermine the fairness of elections and representation. To stop gerrymandering, several strategies can be employed:

1. Independent Redistricting Commissions

Create Nonpartisan or Bipartisan Commissions: Instead of allowing state legislatures to control the redistricting process, many states have set up independent or bipartisan commissions to handle the drawing of electoral districts. These commissions are less likely to be influenced by partisan interests.

Examples: California, Arizona, and Michigan have implemented independent redistricting commissions with varying degrees of success.

2. Use of Mathematical and Algorithmic Tools

Establish Clear Criteria for District Boundaries: By using nonpartisan criteria, such as compactness, community of interest, and respect for natural boundaries, the risk of gerrymandering can be reduced. This can be aided by advanced algorithms that create district maps based on these criteria, ensuring fairness and reducing political manipulation.

Software Solutions: Tools like the "PlanScore" system or software developed by universities and researchers can create district maps that avoid gerrymandering while still respecting boundaries.

3. Voter Empowerment and Transparency

Increase Public Involvement: Allowing the public to participate in the redistricting process through public hearings, submission of proposed maps, or other forms of input can help ensure that districts reflect communities and are not drawn to benefit any one group.

Open Data: Making the data used for drawing districts publicly available promotes transparency and discourages manipulation.

4. Legal Challenges and Legislation

Litigate Gerrymandered Districts: Court challenges can be effective in identifying and striking down gerrymandered maps. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to set a national standard for partisan gerrymandering, but lower courts and state courts have sometimes ruled against gerrymandered districts.

Advocate for Federal Legislation: Passing laws at the federal level that set standards for how districts should be drawn can reduce the scope for partisan manipulation. One such proposal is the For the People Act (H.R.1), which includes provisions to create independent commissions and other measures to combat gerrymandering.

5. Ranked-Choice Voting

Promote Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV): While not directly related to redistricting, RCV can help mitigate the effects of gerrymandering. This system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, reducing the impact of strategically drawn districts by encouraging more competition and reducing the likelihood of "wasted votes."

6. Electoral Reform

Proportional Representation: Moving away from single-member districts to proportional representation (PR) can diminish the impact of gerrymandering. Under PR, seats are allocated based on the percentage of the vote each party receives, which makes gerrymandering less effective.

7. Public Awareness and Advocacy

Educate and Mobilize: Building public awareness about the effects of gerrymandering is essential for pushing for reforms. Advocacy groups, such as the Brennan Center for Justice and Common Cause, have been instrumental in raising awareness and pushing for changes at the state and federal levels.

8. State-Level Reforms

Ballot Initiatives: In some states, citizens can use ballot initiatives to propose and pass redistricting reforms. For example, in Michigan, voters passed a measure to create an independent redistricting commission.

Stopping gerrymandering requires a combination of legal, political, and technological efforts, and its success largely depends on public pressure, legal challenges, and policy reforms.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

The Republicans will fight any education other than Xtian madrassas tooth and nail. Otherwise where will the next generation of Republican voters come from?

Expand full comment
Neal Stiffelman's avatar

Preach!

Expand full comment
Ben Holstrom's avatar

I use to believe MAGA FOLKS were.stupid and ignorant. Now I understand them. They are literally brain 🧠 dead, brainwashed to what is going on. They are disgusting and shameful Americans. Walking human robots they are... .

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

probably. but that is the natural human condition. we have to learn to deal with it if we want to be civilized. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower managed it. Maybe even Johnson if you discount Vietnam. I hesitate to nominate anyone after that, even popular Democrats.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Carter tried

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

Carter was a good man. Never a safe thing to be in politics.

But he was a victim of the Lies about Social Security, so I left him off my list. But yeah, my list was about those "who managed it'. Carter did not succeed at that.

Expand full comment
John Schwarzkopf's avatar

Never underestimate the stupidity of a large share of the American public. I watched Idiocracy the other night for the 2nd time. First time was during Trump 1.0. It just reaffirms my belief that the quote from Juvenal, "Give them bread and circuses and they'll never revolt", was written with Americans in mind.

Expand full comment
Donald Burgess's avatar

That was the great fear of the Founding Fathers, who insisted on Freedom of the Press as the First Amendment, to ensure that the public would be informed on the great issues. It is also why they initially restricted voting rights to landowners who had a stake in the results of elections, unlike the “great unwashed masses.”

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

the unwashed masses have a stake in the results too. they just don't know anythng about how it all works. the landowners always have a stake, and their stake is always keeping the unwashed masses poor and ignorant.

Expand full comment
Vanessa Sheridan's avatar

I'm so grateful I found your commentaries, Mr. Waldman. You are insightful, to say the least. We are suffering because 77 million marks were conned by a convicted felon, and now the nation is paying the price for that stupidity.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Most of them knew what they wanted. Dump claims to hate the same people they do and God forbid a female have authority over a male.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

true, but part of the stupid was our side making a big deal out of dubious "felonies."

look...Trump is evil and beyond a danger to civilization (never mind democracy) but the people are not so stupid they can't tell "matters to me" from "doesn't matter" and their own experience with "justice" does not lend them to believe in it, except when it punishes people they don't like.

Expand full comment
Edie trimmer's avatar

There's not much time to remind Americans about pain to come. I worry about the leadership of the military if people show up in the streets. Trump’s generals restrained him last time.

Expand full comment
Vanessa Sheridan's avatar

They won't this time around. Trump is purging all of the real patriots from the top-level military positions and replacing them with MAGA sycophants. I have zero doubt that Trump's plan is to eventually use the military against the American people. That, of course, will thrill Putin, which is what Trump desperately wants to do. We are soooooo screwed.

Expand full comment
Donald Burgess's avatar

Even worse is Trump’s dismissal of the JAG generals, who determine the legality/constitutionality of orders given to those military generals, who will now be left to their own discretion, which for weak minded people means they do as told.

Expand full comment
Mark my words's avatar

The use of the military against the American people will unleash a shitstorm of violence against Republican politicians the likes of which the country has never seen. There’s no need to confront an army when there are so many soft targets in the Republican Party.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

They're already scared of town halls

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

no. it will release a storm of violence by trumpists who want an excuse to kill "liberals."

Expand full comment
Terry Gilman's avatar

Will likely be both and more along the full spectrum of carnage and mayhem.

Expand full comment
Mark my words's avatar

The Trumpists have themselves convinced that only they own and know how to operate a firearm, a big miscalculation on their part.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

i worry about the military if the people don't show up. what do you do if the commander in chief is a traitor?

Expand full comment
Pandora’s Box's avatar

It would take a while to amass the entire army - we do need to remember this

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

The Army isn't well equipped for domestic suppression of dissent, it exists to project power abroad and doesn't have the training or numbers to properly garrison the US.

Dump will need to remake it along Soviet lines for that. And he will.

Expand full comment
TJ's avatar

Paul’s observations about how Americans care more about the price of eggs than whether or not they can freely vote conform with my own experience and relationships. The people I know, even though well educated, have never written a comment in response to an editorial, or even donated to a political party. But they do notice the cost of groceries and would be devastated to lose their Affordable Healthcare subsidy. I know that in Russia activists are murdered for speaking out against their government and I’m currently sick with anxiety at the thought of losing our right to free speech, among other freedoms. I’m also aghast that the president of the United States admires someone who kills his opponents. If a collapsing economy and elimination of vital services is what it takes to wake people up, at least people may finally understand the reality that Democrats have a far superior track record on the economy than Republicans, and we can rid ourselves of the real and present existential danger to our way of life that most Americans are barely aware of.

Expand full comment
J. Butler's avatar

Medicaid: It's not just a poor people's issue; it impacts the middle class too. The old-old among us, and those with debilitating diseases like Altzhiemers - they need 24/7 care until they die. Medicare covers only relatively short rehab stays. Medicaid covers longer term care. There's a cottage industry of lawyers & accountants who help arrange a person's finances so they may qualify. This involves the person spending down assets in the 5 year period BEFORE they may enroll in Medicaid (they get to keep their house & car, but not much else). Without Medicaid, where would these people go? Often, an adult child needs to leave the workforce to become an unpaid carer of a parent. Economically, this is a very unfortunate allocation of resources. Plus, once the Medicaid benefits begin, our middle-aged carer may find it difficult to return to work, considering the gap in their work history. Medicaid helps to undergird the middle class; a point that needs to hammered again & again.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

butler

thanks for pointing this out. some of the "fraud" in Medicaid and Food Stamps is the customers lying about assets because they are not stupid enough to reduce themselves to bone-poverty before they can get the help they need. i assume the policy is stupid because the Congress wants it that way...though they do seem to be stupid enough to believe what they are saying.

Expand full comment
Richard 🇺🇸's avatar

Turning against Trump will be enough, regardless of the reason… 🇺🇸😎

Expand full comment
Tad Huckabee's avatar

The working class has to make the sacrifices so that the wealthy can have their tax breaks? That's going over really swell isn't it boys and girls? They will then use that new wealth to do stock buybacks. Buy bigger yachts and build more factories in cheap labor countries. Its a lose, lose for the average American.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

they will also use it to deceive the people about what is happening to them.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

I think you'll 'get it' when the boot stamps on your face a few times. Probably not until then though

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Stock buybacks were illegal until Reagan.

Also he began taxing Social Security checks

Hell cannot be hot enough etc

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

john

i need to try to point out that the tax on SS benefits is a "tax on the relatively rich that keeps the payroll "tax" on the relatively poor lower tthan it would otherwise have to be.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

john

taxing pensions is the norm. SS was not taxed at first because it was an anti poverty program and it did not make sense to give people money and then take it away from them. but after it was realized that a lot of people got SS (they paid for it) who were not in immediate danger of poverty, it was decided to tax benefits just like normal gains from savings and investment..according to a "progressive tax" formula where the poorest would pay zero tax, and those with incomes over a certain amount would pay a tax on 50%l of their benefits [NOT a tax OF 50% on their benefits], and those with income over a certain higher amount would pay a tax on 85% of their benefits.

point is, you may not like the tax, but there is nothing unusual or unfair about it. It is NOT "a tax on a tax." It is a tax on effective interest...average SS benefits are about three times more than you paid in.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

john

the tax on SS benefits a tax on the relatively rich so the payroll "tax" on the relatively poor can be lower than it would have to be to pay for the cost of living in retirement or in case of disability.

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, your is different from mine.

Expand full comment
dale coberly's avatar

john. hard to tell who you are talking to. just as well.

Expand full comment
Rick Massimo's avatar

It really doesn’t matter right now what turns people against Trump. Turn against him because of his makeup for all I care. It all accumulates. I have no patience for anyone correcting anyone else about what they “should” be mad about. Republicans need to be made toxic and by definition there’s more than one way to get there.

I tried to get at some of this here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/forgetisaidanything/p/the-important-thing-to-keep-in-mind

Expand full comment
Code Back's avatar

Everything has changed and nothing will return to like before the GOP 2024 win. Trust between USA citizens is breached and that is a terminal cancer diagnosis. The truth is revealed and has been announced to the world. No more pretending.

A new generation, a new century, a new technology economy and ecosystem, with an old man with old ideas and values in charge is a disaster waiting to happen. The character of our nation has forever changed. MAGA and republicans lead us here and major turbulence and dangerous winds are headed our way!

I think a reckoning is about to happen!

Expand full comment
John_manyjars's avatar

He's physically disgusting. An utterly pathetic human specimen

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

If selfishness wins over idealism, so be it...net effect is the people's ox is getting gored, and they are mad as hell.

Expand full comment
Andy Kotlarz's avatar

Once again, Waldman nails it . . .

It would be a mistake to assume that those people who are now angry at Trump's and Musk's antics - and let's be honest, it's Musk's actions that bother them - want a return to how things were.

Expand full comment