

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
When democracy becomes numb to the desires of its citizens and political campaigns become sporting events for television pundits, the ballot box becomes a sad (if necessary) expression of populist will.
That's the argument put forth on Tuesday by one progressive candidate who challenged the political status quo this election season.
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates [on progressive issues we care about] aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
In Guardian op-ed on Tuesday, Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor who this year took on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a primary challenge from the Left, says that amidst many other valid theories about the source of the "disgust and apathy" so many feel toward this year's election, the simplest explanation may be this: "people don't like being told falsely they have power when they don't."
What's essential for Americans to recognize this Election Day--set to be the most expensive mid-term in U.S. history--says Teachout, is that confronting this reality of disempowerment is not something to avoid, but the key to achieving the real progressive change so many desperately desire.
"There is one issue that subsumes all other issues, upon which all other issues depend," she writes, "and that is restoring democracy itself."
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates about charter schools, and fracking, and high-stakes testing, and the militarization of police forces - all of which are issues I care about - they aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
The key reason for this disconnection and disempowerment, argues Teachout, is clear: the massive amounts of money flooding U.S. elections. "The key to fixing public financing is to free politics from big money," she writes and offers state-level public financing schemes--as seen in Maine, Connecticut and elsewhere--as the most readily available solutions.
And as pollsters and pundits have focused like laser beams on whether the Republican Party will increase its majority in the House of Representatives or take majority-control of the U.S. Senate and watchdogs have reported on the astronomical levels of campaign spending, Teachout points out that the fundamental nature of the democracy is largely not part of the debate, especially in the mainstream and corporate media.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands."
For Teachout, the key reasons for this are twofold. First, in a post-Citizens United world, private campaign spending has given nearly unprecedented power to the large corporations (and the wealthy individuals who control them) to sway policies and control the debate. Second, because so much of the campaign spending is driven by advertising dollars, the media system itself has a large financial incentive to maintain the status quo.
"In banking, energy, gas, cable, agriculture and search, we have a limited number of companies that have accumulated so much power they are acting as a kind of shadow government, controlling policy, vetoing laws before they can even be presented," she writes. "Candidates refuse to stump about a cable-TV merger because they're afraid to get shut out of MSNBC. They don't take on big banks because big banks have become too big to fail, to jail and even to debate about policy."
And the solution? Fight back, urges Teachout.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands," she writes.
Even as voting remains essential, she argues, it's clear that these battles cannot be adequately fought or won at the ballot box. Like so many other progressive voices have stated recently, the key to reforming the state of American democracy is an effort that will have to take place, not within the confined boundaries of the current system, but one that challenges these institutions and policies from outside and from below.
"We can keep protesting our own democracy, despite the facts, or we can actually deal with the root cause: concentrated wealth taking over our politics," Teachout concludes. "Like the best generations of American reformers before us, we can change the basic structures. We can actually build something - and the people will get the power back."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
When democracy becomes numb to the desires of its citizens and political campaigns become sporting events for television pundits, the ballot box becomes a sad (if necessary) expression of populist will.
That's the argument put forth on Tuesday by one progressive candidate who challenged the political status quo this election season.
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates [on progressive issues we care about] aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
In Guardian op-ed on Tuesday, Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor who this year took on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a primary challenge from the Left, says that amidst many other valid theories about the source of the "disgust and apathy" so many feel toward this year's election, the simplest explanation may be this: "people don't like being told falsely they have power when they don't."
What's essential for Americans to recognize this Election Day--set to be the most expensive mid-term in U.S. history--says Teachout, is that confronting this reality of disempowerment is not something to avoid, but the key to achieving the real progressive change so many desperately desire.
"There is one issue that subsumes all other issues, upon which all other issues depend," she writes, "and that is restoring democracy itself."
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates about charter schools, and fracking, and high-stakes testing, and the militarization of police forces - all of which are issues I care about - they aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
The key reason for this disconnection and disempowerment, argues Teachout, is clear: the massive amounts of money flooding U.S. elections. "The key to fixing public financing is to free politics from big money," she writes and offers state-level public financing schemes--as seen in Maine, Connecticut and elsewhere--as the most readily available solutions.
And as pollsters and pundits have focused like laser beams on whether the Republican Party will increase its majority in the House of Representatives or take majority-control of the U.S. Senate and watchdogs have reported on the astronomical levels of campaign spending, Teachout points out that the fundamental nature of the democracy is largely not part of the debate, especially in the mainstream and corporate media.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands."
For Teachout, the key reasons for this are twofold. First, in a post-Citizens United world, private campaign spending has given nearly unprecedented power to the large corporations (and the wealthy individuals who control them) to sway policies and control the debate. Second, because so much of the campaign spending is driven by advertising dollars, the media system itself has a large financial incentive to maintain the status quo.
"In banking, energy, gas, cable, agriculture and search, we have a limited number of companies that have accumulated so much power they are acting as a kind of shadow government, controlling policy, vetoing laws before they can even be presented," she writes. "Candidates refuse to stump about a cable-TV merger because they're afraid to get shut out of MSNBC. They don't take on big banks because big banks have become too big to fail, to jail and even to debate about policy."
And the solution? Fight back, urges Teachout.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands," she writes.
Even as voting remains essential, she argues, it's clear that these battles cannot be adequately fought or won at the ballot box. Like so many other progressive voices have stated recently, the key to reforming the state of American democracy is an effort that will have to take place, not within the confined boundaries of the current system, but one that challenges these institutions and policies from outside and from below.
"We can keep protesting our own democracy, despite the facts, or we can actually deal with the root cause: concentrated wealth taking over our politics," Teachout concludes. "Like the best generations of American reformers before us, we can change the basic structures. We can actually build something - and the people will get the power back."
When democracy becomes numb to the desires of its citizens and political campaigns become sporting events for television pundits, the ballot box becomes a sad (if necessary) expression of populist will.
That's the argument put forth on Tuesday by one progressive candidate who challenged the political status quo this election season.
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates [on progressive issues we care about] aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
In Guardian op-ed on Tuesday, Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor who this year took on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a primary challenge from the Left, says that amidst many other valid theories about the source of the "disgust and apathy" so many feel toward this year's election, the simplest explanation may be this: "people don't like being told falsely they have power when they don't."
What's essential for Americans to recognize this Election Day--set to be the most expensive mid-term in U.S. history--says Teachout, is that confronting this reality of disempowerment is not something to avoid, but the key to achieving the real progressive change so many desperately desire.
"There is one issue that subsumes all other issues, upon which all other issues depend," she writes, "and that is restoring democracy itself."
"If we don't have a responsive democracy, all the debates about charter schools, and fracking, and high-stakes testing, and the militarization of police forces - all of which are issues I care about - they aren't real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
The key reason for this disconnection and disempowerment, argues Teachout, is clear: the massive amounts of money flooding U.S. elections. "The key to fixing public financing is to free politics from big money," she writes and offers state-level public financing schemes--as seen in Maine, Connecticut and elsewhere--as the most readily available solutions.
And as pollsters and pundits have focused like laser beams on whether the Republican Party will increase its majority in the House of Representatives or take majority-control of the U.S. Senate and watchdogs have reported on the astronomical levels of campaign spending, Teachout points out that the fundamental nature of the democracy is largely not part of the debate, especially in the mainstream and corporate media.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands."
For Teachout, the key reasons for this are twofold. First, in a post-Citizens United world, private campaign spending has given nearly unprecedented power to the large corporations (and the wealthy individuals who control them) to sway policies and control the debate. Second, because so much of the campaign spending is driven by advertising dollars, the media system itself has a large financial incentive to maintain the status quo.
"In banking, energy, gas, cable, agriculture and search, we have a limited number of companies that have accumulated so much power they are acting as a kind of shadow government, controlling policy, vetoing laws before they can even be presented," she writes. "Candidates refuse to stump about a cable-TV merger because they're afraid to get shut out of MSNBC. They don't take on big banks because big banks have become too big to fail, to jail and even to debate about policy."
And the solution? Fight back, urges Teachout.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands," she writes.
Even as voting remains essential, she argues, it's clear that these battles cannot be adequately fought or won at the ballot box. Like so many other progressive voices have stated recently, the key to reforming the state of American democracy is an effort that will have to take place, not within the confined boundaries of the current system, but one that challenges these institutions and policies from outside and from below.
"We can keep protesting our own democracy, despite the facts, or we can actually deal with the root cause: concentrated wealth taking over our politics," Teachout concludes. "Like the best generations of American reformers before us, we can change the basic structures. We can actually build something - and the people will get the power back."