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.
Finland ice hockey fans celebrate after their team won the final of the IIHF Ice Hockey World Championships final match between Finland and Canada in Tampere, Finland, on May 29, 2022.
According to research and data, right-wing governance and economic thinking make life more miserable for people.
It is becoming clear that the period up to and including the 2024 national election could be an important inflection point for the nation. The political and cultural struggle between Left and Right may be coming to a head. So, let’s take a look at where we are and where we may be headed.
The most important context for this political moment is manifest in the feelings and outlooks of the population. It is no secret that much (most?) of the adult population in the United States is not feeling good about the future. The Pew Research Center and the New York Times report that 60% of adults feel that the country is in decline and over half feel that the economy is going to weaken in the future. In addition, over two-thirds of adults feel children today will be less well off as adults than their parents are, and 80% expect hard economic times and increased political conflict and dysfunction in the future.
These feelings can easily be seen in our streets and neighborhoods. Today, too many ordinary Americans are fearful and insecure.
However, the specifics might vary. The political Left and Right perceive some of the same general problems, but disagree about their causes and what is to be done.
Why are our democratic processes under assault? Is it voting fraud and stolen elections or the suppression of voting and the influence of big money?
What causes the wide and rising social and economic inequality in our country? Are we dominated and oppressed by a highly educated professional elite, or is it the problem of the wealth and power of corporations and the economic upper class?
What is the nature of racial injustice and conflict? Is it that the nation is being taken over by immigrants and people of color, or is it the product of continuing racism and white supremacy?
How should we respond to a falling quality of life? Should we give those who are struggling more opportunities, or is it enough to allow those who can afford it to pay to move behind the “velvet curtain” and secure a good life for themselves?
How should we handle the fluidity of gender and sexuality? Do we celebrate our diversity, or do we forcibly enforce traditional roles and rules?
How do we organize and use the new technologies of mass communication? Do we regulate AI, the media, and the internet or do we allow the marketplace to define truth and falsehood?
What is happening with climate and the environment? Are we experiencing a serious crisis defined by global warming and widespread environmental destruction, or are we experiencing a command and natural cycling of environmental conditions?
More broadly, those on the Right believe that the cause of our problems is too much government and things will get better when government gets smaller. They seem to think that the problems of ordinary Americans would be solved if we let the economic marketplace operate without government rules and regulations. They seem to believe that the two most important causes of the current crises are the power and influence held by a relatively small group of highly educated liberal professionals who control the media and dominate an already too big government and the growing influence of “wokeness” as promoted by groups such as liberals, socialists, feminists, gender fluid and diverse individuals, immigrants, and people of color.
The political Right argues that what we need is a strong leader able to overcome the forces of the Left, shrink government, and release the market to heal our society. If we allowed individuals to use their resources freely in the political arena and to pursue their economic self-interest unhindered by government regulation, life in the USA would get better. Private schools and private health care; lower taxes, especially for those wealthy “job creators”; and, media and cultural institutions (family, church, and school) that have returned us to our “traditional” values: This is what would create a better future for the United States and allow us to reclaim our place as the one exceptional nation on the globe.
The Left, on the other hand, proposes a more socially-democratic nation that takes lessons from the “best in the world” practices of Scandinavia and the so-called “Nordic model.” The Left values equality and equity, inclusion and diversity, natural sustainability, and a revitalized democracy.
More practically, these values amount to a fairly well known group of proposals: reducing the power of wealth and money in our politics; promoting democracy by increasing people’s access to voting and ending the electoral college system; and letting government regulate the media in a manner that promotes and rewards factual communication while restraining the spread of rumours, lies, and hate; using the law to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity by working toward the creation of a truly desegregated society at work, at home, at school, and throughout our institutions; ending discrimination by race, class, gender, sexuality, age, nationality and ability; letting government respond to economic inequality by supporting the growth of unions and other class-based organizations; using government to provide everyone with a healthy and sustainable life by detaching life-chances (such as education, health care, environmental cleanliness, housing, transportation, and recreation) from income; improving the economic health of the society by using government to demonopolize important sectors of the economy; and, promoting social equity through programs like universal basic incomes, publicly subsidized housing, healthcare for all, good pensions for all, and more leisure time.
The Left argues that these efforts could be funded by a reduction in war spending and a truly progressive tax system where all pay their fair share.
This choice can be expressed as a choice of what national model to emulate, the social democracies of Northern Europe as praised by Bernie Sanders or the free market capitalism of Hungary as lauded by Steve Bannon and others? To make our choice more transparent, here are how these two “model nations” rank in international comparisons: According to the Quality-of-Life Index developed by Numbeo (higher is better) the U.S. currently scores 178 while Finland is at 188 and Hungary is at 132. On the United Nations Human Development Index (0-1.0, higher is better), the U.S. scores .92, Finland .94, and Hungary .85. The OECD’s Better Life Index rankings put the U.S. at 8th in the world, while Finland is 5th and Hungary is 26th. And, the moderate publication U.S. News and World Report ranking of “best countries” places the US 23rd, Finland at 5th , and Hungary at 34th.
So, is it Hungary or Finland? Do we go Left or Right?
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
It is becoming clear that the period up to and including the 2024 national election could be an important inflection point for the nation. The political and cultural struggle between Left and Right may be coming to a head. So, let’s take a look at where we are and where we may be headed.
The most important context for this political moment is manifest in the feelings and outlooks of the population. It is no secret that much (most?) of the adult population in the United States is not feeling good about the future. The Pew Research Center and the New York Times report that 60% of adults feel that the country is in decline and over half feel that the economy is going to weaken in the future. In addition, over two-thirds of adults feel children today will be less well off as adults than their parents are, and 80% expect hard economic times and increased political conflict and dysfunction in the future.
These feelings can easily be seen in our streets and neighborhoods. Today, too many ordinary Americans are fearful and insecure.
However, the specifics might vary. The political Left and Right perceive some of the same general problems, but disagree about their causes and what is to be done.
Why are our democratic processes under assault? Is it voting fraud and stolen elections or the suppression of voting and the influence of big money?
What causes the wide and rising social and economic inequality in our country? Are we dominated and oppressed by a highly educated professional elite, or is it the problem of the wealth and power of corporations and the economic upper class?
What is the nature of racial injustice and conflict? Is it that the nation is being taken over by immigrants and people of color, or is it the product of continuing racism and white supremacy?
How should we respond to a falling quality of life? Should we give those who are struggling more opportunities, or is it enough to allow those who can afford it to pay to move behind the “velvet curtain” and secure a good life for themselves?
How should we handle the fluidity of gender and sexuality? Do we celebrate our diversity, or do we forcibly enforce traditional roles and rules?
How do we organize and use the new technologies of mass communication? Do we regulate AI, the media, and the internet or do we allow the marketplace to define truth and falsehood?
What is happening with climate and the environment? Are we experiencing a serious crisis defined by global warming and widespread environmental destruction, or are we experiencing a command and natural cycling of environmental conditions?
More broadly, those on the Right believe that the cause of our problems is too much government and things will get better when government gets smaller. They seem to think that the problems of ordinary Americans would be solved if we let the economic marketplace operate without government rules and regulations. They seem to believe that the two most important causes of the current crises are the power and influence held by a relatively small group of highly educated liberal professionals who control the media and dominate an already too big government and the growing influence of “wokeness” as promoted by groups such as liberals, socialists, feminists, gender fluid and diverse individuals, immigrants, and people of color.
The political Right argues that what we need is a strong leader able to overcome the forces of the Left, shrink government, and release the market to heal our society. If we allowed individuals to use their resources freely in the political arena and to pursue their economic self-interest unhindered by government regulation, life in the USA would get better. Private schools and private health care; lower taxes, especially for those wealthy “job creators”; and, media and cultural institutions (family, church, and school) that have returned us to our “traditional” values: This is what would create a better future for the United States and allow us to reclaim our place as the one exceptional nation on the globe.
The Left, on the other hand, proposes a more socially-democratic nation that takes lessons from the “best in the world” practices of Scandinavia and the so-called “Nordic model.” The Left values equality and equity, inclusion and diversity, natural sustainability, and a revitalized democracy.
More practically, these values amount to a fairly well known group of proposals: reducing the power of wealth and money in our politics; promoting democracy by increasing people’s access to voting and ending the electoral college system; and letting government regulate the media in a manner that promotes and rewards factual communication while restraining the spread of rumours, lies, and hate; using the law to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity by working toward the creation of a truly desegregated society at work, at home, at school, and throughout our institutions; ending discrimination by race, class, gender, sexuality, age, nationality and ability; letting government respond to economic inequality by supporting the growth of unions and other class-based organizations; using government to provide everyone with a healthy and sustainable life by detaching life-chances (such as education, health care, environmental cleanliness, housing, transportation, and recreation) from income; improving the economic health of the society by using government to demonopolize important sectors of the economy; and, promoting social equity through programs like universal basic incomes, publicly subsidized housing, healthcare for all, good pensions for all, and more leisure time.
The Left argues that these efforts could be funded by a reduction in war spending and a truly progressive tax system where all pay their fair share.
This choice can be expressed as a choice of what national model to emulate, the social democracies of Northern Europe as praised by Bernie Sanders or the free market capitalism of Hungary as lauded by Steve Bannon and others? To make our choice more transparent, here are how these two “model nations” rank in international comparisons: According to the Quality-of-Life Index developed by Numbeo (higher is better) the U.S. currently scores 178 while Finland is at 188 and Hungary is at 132. On the United Nations Human Development Index (0-1.0, higher is better), the U.S. scores .92, Finland .94, and Hungary .85. The OECD’s Better Life Index rankings put the U.S. at 8th in the world, while Finland is 5th and Hungary is 26th. And, the moderate publication U.S. News and World Report ranking of “best countries” places the US 23rd, Finland at 5th , and Hungary at 34th.
So, is it Hungary or Finland? Do we go Left or Right?
It is becoming clear that the period up to and including the 2024 national election could be an important inflection point for the nation. The political and cultural struggle between Left and Right may be coming to a head. So, let’s take a look at where we are and where we may be headed.
The most important context for this political moment is manifest in the feelings and outlooks of the population. It is no secret that much (most?) of the adult population in the United States is not feeling good about the future. The Pew Research Center and the New York Times report that 60% of adults feel that the country is in decline and over half feel that the economy is going to weaken in the future. In addition, over two-thirds of adults feel children today will be less well off as adults than their parents are, and 80% expect hard economic times and increased political conflict and dysfunction in the future.
These feelings can easily be seen in our streets and neighborhoods. Today, too many ordinary Americans are fearful and insecure.
However, the specifics might vary. The political Left and Right perceive some of the same general problems, but disagree about their causes and what is to be done.
Why are our democratic processes under assault? Is it voting fraud and stolen elections or the suppression of voting and the influence of big money?
What causes the wide and rising social and economic inequality in our country? Are we dominated and oppressed by a highly educated professional elite, or is it the problem of the wealth and power of corporations and the economic upper class?
What is the nature of racial injustice and conflict? Is it that the nation is being taken over by immigrants and people of color, or is it the product of continuing racism and white supremacy?
How should we respond to a falling quality of life? Should we give those who are struggling more opportunities, or is it enough to allow those who can afford it to pay to move behind the “velvet curtain” and secure a good life for themselves?
How should we handle the fluidity of gender and sexuality? Do we celebrate our diversity, or do we forcibly enforce traditional roles and rules?
How do we organize and use the new technologies of mass communication? Do we regulate AI, the media, and the internet or do we allow the marketplace to define truth and falsehood?
What is happening with climate and the environment? Are we experiencing a serious crisis defined by global warming and widespread environmental destruction, or are we experiencing a command and natural cycling of environmental conditions?
More broadly, those on the Right believe that the cause of our problems is too much government and things will get better when government gets smaller. They seem to think that the problems of ordinary Americans would be solved if we let the economic marketplace operate without government rules and regulations. They seem to believe that the two most important causes of the current crises are the power and influence held by a relatively small group of highly educated liberal professionals who control the media and dominate an already too big government and the growing influence of “wokeness” as promoted by groups such as liberals, socialists, feminists, gender fluid and diverse individuals, immigrants, and people of color.
The political Right argues that what we need is a strong leader able to overcome the forces of the Left, shrink government, and release the market to heal our society. If we allowed individuals to use their resources freely in the political arena and to pursue their economic self-interest unhindered by government regulation, life in the USA would get better. Private schools and private health care; lower taxes, especially for those wealthy “job creators”; and, media and cultural institutions (family, church, and school) that have returned us to our “traditional” values: This is what would create a better future for the United States and allow us to reclaim our place as the one exceptional nation on the globe.
The Left, on the other hand, proposes a more socially-democratic nation that takes lessons from the “best in the world” practices of Scandinavia and the so-called “Nordic model.” The Left values equality and equity, inclusion and diversity, natural sustainability, and a revitalized democracy.
More practically, these values amount to a fairly well known group of proposals: reducing the power of wealth and money in our politics; promoting democracy by increasing people’s access to voting and ending the electoral college system; and letting government regulate the media in a manner that promotes and rewards factual communication while restraining the spread of rumours, lies, and hate; using the law to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity by working toward the creation of a truly desegregated society at work, at home, at school, and throughout our institutions; ending discrimination by race, class, gender, sexuality, age, nationality and ability; letting government respond to economic inequality by supporting the growth of unions and other class-based organizations; using government to provide everyone with a healthy and sustainable life by detaching life-chances (such as education, health care, environmental cleanliness, housing, transportation, and recreation) from income; improving the economic health of the society by using government to demonopolize important sectors of the economy; and, promoting social equity through programs like universal basic incomes, publicly subsidized housing, healthcare for all, good pensions for all, and more leisure time.
The Left argues that these efforts could be funded by a reduction in war spending and a truly progressive tax system where all pay their fair share.
This choice can be expressed as a choice of what national model to emulate, the social democracies of Northern Europe as praised by Bernie Sanders or the free market capitalism of Hungary as lauded by Steve Bannon and others? To make our choice more transparent, here are how these two “model nations” rank in international comparisons: According to the Quality-of-Life Index developed by Numbeo (higher is better) the U.S. currently scores 178 while Finland is at 188 and Hungary is at 132. On the United Nations Human Development Index (0-1.0, higher is better), the U.S. scores .92, Finland .94, and Hungary .85. The OECD’s Better Life Index rankings put the U.S. at 8th in the world, while Finland is 5th and Hungary is 26th. And, the moderate publication U.S. News and World Report ranking of “best countries” places the US 23rd, Finland at 5th , and Hungary at 34th.
So, is it Hungary or Finland? Do we go Left or Right?
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."