SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
kamala harris
WaPo Columnist Resigns, Says Publisher Killed Column That 'Respectfully Dissented' Against Bezos Edict
"This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos' new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees," wrote one journalist.
Mar 10, 2025
Columnist and editor Ruth Marcus said Monday that she is resigning from The Washington Post after CEO and publisher Will Lewis allegedly decided not to run a column she penned critiquing billionaire owner Jeff Bezos' recent changes to the opinion section, according to a note from Marcus that was obtained by multiple media reporters.
In the note, which is addressed to both Bezos and Lewis, Marcus wrote that as an opinion writer, she was "honored to offer commentary that readers could be assured constituted my best independent judgment of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, on the opinions side of the newspaper, that appears to be no longer the case."
In late February, Bezos—who has owned the paper since 2013—announced a major change in the outlet's opinion section. From now on, the opinion section will advocate for "personal liberties and free markets" and "viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others," according to an email from Bezos. The section's editor, David Shipley, decided to depart and the paper lost thousands of subscriptions after Bezos' intentions became public, according to NPR.
The move was denounced, including by the Post's own chief economics reporter, Jeff Stein, who called it a "massive encroachment" on The Post's opinion section and said that the move makes clear "dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there."
In her farewell note, Marcus said that the Lewis' decision "not to run the column that I wrote respectfully dissenting from [Bezos'] edict... underscores that the traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded."
Marcus, who has been with the paper since 1984, separately sent a note to staff in which she emphasized that her decision does not suggest "what anyone else should do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves," according to a copy of the note obtained by Semafor's Max Tani.
Marcus' departure comes amidst greater turmoil at the Post. In the fall, Bezos decided to block the paper's endorsement of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris and ended the Post's tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. Hundreds of thousands of readers canceled their subscriptions in response. The paper has also undergone layoffs and experienced other high profile departures.
The news that Marcus was leaving the paper was mourned online on Monday.
"The tragic self-destruction of a great newspaper continues. I had the privilege of working with Ruth Marcus for years and she is the best of the best. Whether you agree with her or not, she is the model of journalistic excellence and integrity," wrote New York Times journalist Peter Baker.
"Terrible news," wrote journalist Julia Preston. "Ruth Marcus writes a well-researched, level-headed column. She is a voice of reason and decency. This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos's new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Way And Its Regressive Politics Should Have No Place in the Democratic Party
The party is very much at a crossroads: It can embrace progressivism and forge a new, compelling identity or it can take cues from the donor and consultant class and embrace the very policies that precipitated our current political crisis.
Mar 05, 2025
Over the weekend, Politicoreported that, in early February, a group of Democratic “consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials, and party leaders” had convened in Virginia to chart a course forward for the party. The so-called “Comeback Retreat” was organized by the corporate centrist think tank Third Way and resulted in a summary document highlighting some of the top takeaways from the convening. In a series of bullet points, the authors of the document summarize the ways that, in their view, Democrats can reconnect with working class voters.
The Democratic Party is still reeling from its loss to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in November, and party leaders are correct in thinking they should adopt a new tack. However, Third Way, and its brand of tried-and-failed Republican-lite politics, should not have any say in the way the Democratic Party reforms itself as it heads into the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential election.
The Comeback Retreat summary focuses on Democrats’ cultural disconnect with working class voters, as well as Democrats’ lack of “economic trust” with voters. The document first points to issues in each category and then offers solutions for rebuilding across both lines. Some of these issues and prescriptions are of the milquetoast variety typically generated by the consultant class. Democrats should “acknowledge [voters’] struggles and speak to real concerns,” advises one point, while elsewhere the document recommends “[improving] Democratic communication and media strategy.” No political strategist would disagree that these are both good practices for any successful campaign.
If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans.
However, situated alongside these poli-sci bromides are some truly reactionary ideas. In the cultural dimension, the document encourages Democrats to “embrace masculinity” and celebrate “traditional American imagery (e.g., farms, main streets).” Apparently, Third Way and its colleagues don’t consider city dwellers to be traditionally American. On the economic side, the document encourages Democrats to stop “demonizing wealth and corporations” and to “avoid an anti-capitalist stance.” The party also, per Third Way, needs to “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate.”
If the party “moves away” from small-dollar donors, that apparently means “moving toward” millionaire, billionaire, and corporate donors.
Finally, the document devotes a fair amount of time to “reduc[ing] far-left influence and infrastructure.” Recommendations include building a pipeline of moderate Democrats to staff the ranks of the party and run for office, banning “far-left” candidate questionnaires, and “push[ing] back” against far-left staffers and groups who, according to Third Way, exert “disproportionate influence” in the party. (I’m pleased, as a member of the so-called “far-left,” to learn that we wield so much power within the party—and expect that our influence on party policy will become visible any day now.)
Taken together, a very clear image emerges of the Democratic Party envisioned by Third Way: It is pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, and preferential to big donors over small ones. It also celebrates masculinity and a traditional America while rejecting “identity-based” concerns. To put it another way, it sounds a lot like the modern GOP right before the MAGA movement took over.
This list of prescriptions—cooked up at a retreat held in the richest county in the U.S., where I seriously doubt there were working class voters present—is a recipe for disaster for the Democratic Party. In 2024, former Vice President Kamala Harris ran a campaign that was heavily focused on Republicans disaffected with Trump and aimed at presenting the Democrats as a kinder, gentler GOP, the kind that we might have today if Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney had become the standard-bearer instead of Donald Trump. This strategy backfired catastrophically. Doubling down on it would be pure political malpractice.
The Democratic Party does need to emphasize “shared values,” as the document says. These values, though, include the notion that healthcare is a human right that should be provided by the government, not a privilege. They embrace the idea that the U.S. needs to develop more clean energy sources, not drill for more oil and gas—with renewable energy creating more jobs than drilling. And Americans agree that corporations and the wealthy should be taxed more, not celebrated for their ingenuity in hoarding wealth.
If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans. The affordability crunch caused by corporate greed, the climate crisis, our ever-more-expensive healthcare system, and our flailing democracy all provide the party with openings to take bold, progressive policy stands. However, these stances are completely incompatible with the regressive, triangulating politics that Third Way envisions.
The Democratic Party is very much at a crossroads: It can embrace progressivism and forge a new, compelling identity that speaks directly to voters’ concerns—especially working-class voters. Or it can take cues from the donor and consultant class and embrace the very policies that precipitated our current political crisis. The former approach requires bravery and risk-taking; the latter only asks that the party backslides into its old habits and, quite possibly, political obsolescence.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Committee of One Million: A Petition to Support a Party of Working People
It’s time to link up with politically alienated workers and build something new.
Feb 27, 2025
I learned early on in my career that it’s not easy to discuss alternatives to the Democratic Party, especially with labor union officials. In 1979, I was piloting the Labor Institute’s new political economy workshop with UAW Local 259, which represented Cadillac mechanics in the New York City area.
Sam Meyers, the president, was a labor radical who had survived the McCarthy era. He was militant and deeply committed to social democracy. He and Bernie would have gotten along nicely.
At the end of the course, in all naivete, I asked the workers what kind of political party they wanted to support – The Democrats? The Republicans? Or a new workers’ party? There was nearly unanimous consent for a new workers’ party.
Except for Sam, who jumped up and said, “You can’t do that. We have to stick with the Democrats.” And that shut down the discussion.
It’s been that way ever since. The leadership of nearly every progressive labor union is deeply entwined with the Democrats, even as half or more of their members have defected to MAGA.
Trump is in power for the second time because there is no magic formula that will stop the exodus of workers of all shades and proclivities from the Democratic Party.
As one national official told me, “The Democrats are the only political friends we have.” As a result, union members are not asked what they want politically, because the leadership fears the answer will divert the union from what it must do – stick with the Democrats at all costs.
But it’s a losing battle. Working-class support for Democratic presidential candidates has collapsed. Jimmy Carter received 52 percent in 1976. Kamal Harris got only 33 percent in 2024.
In rural America, the defections are even greater. Take Mingo County, West Virginia, the county that has lost 3,000 of its 3,300 coal jobs. In 1996, Bill Clinton got 70 percent of the vote. In each following national election, the Democratic vote has declined, with Joe ‘Six-Pack’ Biden getting 14 percent in 2020, and Kamala Harris getting only 12 percent in 2024. The research for my book showed that since the 1990s, as the mass layoff rate went up in rust-belt counties, the Democratic vote went down. (See Wall Street’s War on Workers.)
It’s hard not to sympathize with labor leaders as they cope with the day-to-day tasks of keeping their union alive and protecting their members from a system that is rigged against them. In that context, building something new is a fantasy, the idle dreams of pontificators (like me!). These leaders believe what others have been saying for decades – that third parties are impossible in the system we have.
Justifiable Worries about Third Parties?
There is some very good rationale behind their fears. Third-party efforts can be dangerous, acting as “spoilers,” which then help anti-labor candidates win. Ralph Nader’s presidential run in 2020 may have tilted Florida and the presidency to Bush. After all those hanging chads, third parties became anathema to political dreamers, as well as labor leaders.
Most third-party efforts fail because they attract so few voters. They are then viewed as time-consuming distractions – more like vanity projects with the potential to have serious negative consequences.
But that’s not inevitable. The spoiler effect can be mitigated if the third-party efforts refrain from electoral activities until they are large enough to seriously contend.
So here's a fresh question: What would you think if a million workers said they would be willing to back a new political effort?
One million names on a petition would show that the effort has a far wider reach than a fringe group or a self-promoter. One million names would signal to the political actors that there is mass support for building a new working-class political home. One million names might even push some Democrats to support pro-worker legislation.
Mobilizing a petition drive would cost relatively little and could start with a few progressive unions circulating one that read:
We the undersigned support building a new independent party of working people that would back working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The new party would fight to:
- Stop big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes.
- Guarantee that everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can't provide it the government will.
- Raise the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life.
- Stop drug company price gouging, expand Medicare to cover everyone, and put price controls on food cartels.
The Billionaires have two parties. We need one of our own!
Once a million names, emails, and telephone numbers are recorded, ways could be found to support independent candidates who were willing to fight for this platform and organize around ballot initiatives or legislation that would push such demands forward. A website and newsletter could connect with those who have signed up.
But are there really a million working people out there who would sign this petition? We won’t know until it’s tried. Right now, approximately 1.7 million workers are suffering through involuntary layoffs each month. Federal workers are joining these ranks as Musk wields his axe. These are potential recruits for this petition, effort, let's call it the Committee of a Million.
Are there really a million working people out there who would sign this petition?
Dan Osborn, the former local union president, ran in 2024 as an independent for Senate in Nebraska on a powerful worker-focused populist campaign. He lost by seven points, while Kamala Harris lost the state by 20 points. Osborn is now setting up a political action committee to recruit and support more working-class candidates. Imagine what could happen if the Committee of a Million linked with his effort.
What are you smoking?
No! No! No! Say my friends in the labor movement. “We have to support the Dems to take back control of the House and stop Trump.”
But can’t we walk and chew politics at the same time? Can’t we work on those swing districts and support independents like Osborn? Don’t we have an obligation at least to ask our members what they really want? Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to find out if they are willing to sign up for the Committee of a Million?
I can’t stop obsessing over brutal realities. Trump is in power for the second time because there is no magic formula that will stop the exodus of workers of all shades and proclivities from the Democratic Party.
Sure, it could fail. But continued failure is certain if we don’t try something new.
That ship has sailed. It’s time to link up with politically alienated workers and build something new outside of the two-party political oligopoly.
Sure, it could fail. But continued failure is certain if we don’t try something new.
If you have an alternative idea, please send it along. We’ve got to have this discussion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular