

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.
The United States of America has lost its way. Trump is an utter charlatan, and the centrists are empty suits. It’s time for progressives to step onto the stage of history; and do what’s necessary to deliver change.
In 1776. Tom Paine wrote: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
Today, we are in the throes of another deep crisis.
The United States of America has lost its way. The fundamental premise of our founding, the rejection of tyranny—the focus of Common Sense, the pamphlet which sparked the popular revolution of 1776-1783—has been abandoned.
Today, we are ruled by a tyrant, a President whose criminality and drive for self-gain has obliterated the Constitution’s restrictions on one-man rule—aided throughout by cowering lackeys in Congress and justices of the courts who value their status over the sovereignty of the people.
The history of the past 250 years shows that significant social change, the type we need now—where real power and wealth are redistributed to the people, away from elites—only takes place in the wake of a crisis: witness 1776, the Civil War, America’s response to the great depression, and after WWII.
Now, we certainly have our crisis.
It’s time to get our act together, the center stage of history is waiting.
What Tom Paine observed in early 1776 is even more true today: “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.”

Paine inspired Americans to leave the British Empire with the prospect not only of dignity through self-rule, but also more power and prosperity—which, in turn, inspired the French, and the Haitians, and thus the entire world.
Now, our crisis is everyone’s crisis. For the past eighty years, America has been the country at the heart of a global system of nations and economy.
The people must mobilize—both to reclaim our sovereignty and keep alive the unrivaled promise of America.
Now the people of the world watch in dismay and disbelief, as the dynamics of our internal disfunction destroy the beacon of democracy and popular sovereignty. Yet, no other nation, no other people, are stepping up to remedy the weakening of liberty and the rise of authoritarianism. Power dynamics being as they are, it’s hard to see how they could.
It’s up to us, the people of the United States: "These are the times that try men's souls."
An America as great as its promise is right over the horizon.
It’s been there since the inception (“All men are created equal…”). The problem is that no one ever reaches the horizon, it continually recedes.
But now is not the time to address riddles; or develop a nuanced explanation of the betrayals of American history.
Now is the time for Common Sense, of the Tom Paine variety. Revolutionary Common Sense.
Looking through that lens, it’s clear why the idea of America’s unfulfilled promise is so salient at this moment.
America’s current crisis is rooted in the public’s deep dissatisfaction with the direction of our society and country, which has been consistent since the 2007-08 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession.
Trumpian authoritarianism perfectly reflects the political interests of a wealthy elite: democracy must be suffocated, lest the dissatisfied masses interfere with their “right” to run the world that they own.
This sentiment is compounded by an even greater lack of faith in politicians to turn things around; especially now that one of the two major political figures who openly acknowledged these problems and promised a remedy (“Make America Great Again”) has been exposed before the whole world as a con man motivated by lining his pockets and dodging the law—but not before doing unprecedented damage to our constitutional democratic republic, delivering us to the precipice…
The authoritarians currently control most of the levers of power; have the backing of the wealthiest oligarchs the world has ever known; a powerful propaganda machine whirring 24/7 and they have no compunction about stealing elections. If they triumph in either November 2026 or ’28, it’s game over.
So, what will bring us back from the edge?
Tom Paine himself has the answer. The people must mobilize—both to reclaim our sovereignty and keep alive the unrivaled promise of America.
But no one will mobilize for a promise that is continually deferred.
We must release the “Promise of America” from its metaphorical exile over the horizon—and make this goal the attainable centerpiece of our politics (updated, of course, for 2026).
Indeed! Like Paine, we must think like revolutionaries. We are going to make something happen that is new in all of human history. We are on the precipice of creating the world’s first successful multi-ethnic democracy. With progressive leadership, we are going to create the greatest—the most just and prosperous—nation the world has ever known.
We are going to fulfill the promise of America!
(Common Sense so obvious they’ve yet to write an algorithm that can suppress it.)
As I said above, the American political system and, in fact, the entirety of American society are in the throes of a major crisis. Our constitutional democratic republic is fraying. Few could have imagined that this would be the case only three and a half decades after the United States had “won” The Cold War and established itself as the first truly unrivaled global hegemon.
There is no mystery about the cause. In poll after poll during every election cycle, one issue tops all others: The vast majority of Americans know the economy is not working for them. They also know that wasn’t always the case.
The current crisis is very much predicated upon the public’s awareness that once upon a time, not long ago, a slice of America’s tremendous wealth was set aside for them. Average Americans could pursue and achieve the “American Dream” through hard work. Indeed, evidence of this is everywhere to be seen across the American landscape. Today, however, this American dream of comfort, prosperity is out of reach for ever more Americans. At the same time, unprecedented wealth pours into the coffers of oligarchs and idle investors.
Working people are mad. They work non-stop hours in alienating jobs just to keep their heads above water. Their lives are slipping away; and they are condescendingly told by establishment politicians that the economy is strong. This anger will not abate until what they feel is their birthright is restored to them: prosperity and a sense of control, and stability in their lives.
Trumpian authoritarianism perfectly reflects the political interests of a wealthy elite: democracy must be suffocated, lest the dissatisfied masses interfere with their “right” to run the world that they own.
But people overwhelmingly want democracy. They understand that without it, there’s no prospect of building a society that respects them and serves the interests of the working person.
Working people are mad.
One thing is clear: either a shift happens in the economy such that it once again lifts average households and holds promise for all Americans—or the country will remain riveted by crisis. The era of post-war prosperity, the American dream of owning a suburban house, was too real and lasted too long, impacting too many people—that it can’t be erased from the collective American mind. Nothing less is acceptable.
Only the progressive agenda promises to deliver what the people want and need.
The “neoliberal” (market based) political consensus that sees all of the economy as a commodity to be bought and sold, collapsed in 2016, with the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Since that time, three political tendencies have vied for power in America’s two-party system:
Of the three, only this left alternative has a program designed to deliver for the American people: the re-establishment of a middle-class-centric social order.
This desire refers back to post-World War II America; and what historian Gary Gerstle refers to as the “New Deal Order.” By the 1970s, the countries that adopted this model were the wealthiest and most equitable in human history.
The conclusion we can draw from this: only one macro-economic model has a proven track record of delivering the broadly prosperous middle class society, in which the “American Dream’ is readily attainable for all people willing to make a standard contribution to the social weal—that is, work one full time job (with full benefits and guaranteed vacation time!). This model was introduced to the world by FDR and Frances Perkins, codified in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, and bolstered by a strong union movement. It used government spending to fill the gaps where the market failed to deliver social necessities to all people; and it deployed state power to regulate business and protect the population from the excesses and imbalances of capitalism. The model was developed in democratic societies and proved conducive to strengthening democracy.
In contrast, the neoliberal model that followed the era of the “New Deal/Keynesian” consensus, was grounded by the central principal that the market knows best. Regulations were weakened (except when they served big business) and more decisions were placed in private hands. The result? Wealth and power flowed upward to the rich. The “Neoliberal Order,” has failed over the past 45 years to bring our society into that realm of prosperity. Rather, it has diminished the middle class and weakened the welfare of the general population while siphoning almost all the wealth produced collectively into the coffers of an idle investor class.
The electorate rebelled against the political status quo in 2016 with Sanders on the left and Trump on the right pulling apart what had been a bi-partisan neoliberal consensus. Unfortunately, the wrong rebel candidate won, as Trump (for all of his bluster) has no intention of re-ordering the economy away from the interests of the investor class—and the economic and political power of the elite has become only more concentrated during his two administrations… and public dissatisfaction has reached fever pitch.
We must not pull any punches. Here’s the truth:
The public will remain dissatisfied and our society in a dangerous crisis until a President and Congress sets a new course—one that is, in fact, an old course, albeit adjusted for the 21st Century—and a broadly social democratic FDR-inspired social contract is re-implemented nationally.
No other set of policies has worked to generate such a prosperous society with aggregate wealth justly-distributed among the population. There is no other model that will deliver what Americas want and expect as citizens of the wealthiest country in the world.
What should such a program look like in contemporary America?
At PDA, we advocate for a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. We demand universal “rights” for all, not “entitlements.” While liberals may see housing, education, and food as entitlements, we understand they are fundamental rights. Polling shows that every one of these rights has majority support amongst the American public.
We also focus on five “big costs” that destroy household balance sheets: Childcare, Housing, Higher Education, Healthcare and high-interest debt. The market will not adequately address these; they require regulation and public policy. They require political will.
Furthermore, we address poverty, to alleviate it and then eliminate it. Almost all of the world’s wealthy countries have low-to-no poverty with a large prosperous middle class; and all of the nations (not on the Arabian peninsula) that fit this description are healthy democracies. In fact, all of these countries were the strongest allies of the United States during the cold war: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and all of Western Europe including the UK. This is not a coincidence. Their shared economic model was initially developed in the 1930s in a democracy: the United States.
Tellingly, no other countries, not even China, has achieved the average level of household wealth as these countries (or even come close) during the entire neoliberal era. That’s because only one economic model can develop and sustain this level of general prosperity: the FDR/Keynes/Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist model.
Lastly, let’s not fall for the nonsense put forth by neoliberal ideologues that progressive Keynesian economics won’t work in the mid-21st century. None of the other prosperous democracies, not even the UK, were as transformed by neoliberalism as the United States. Sure, governments across the world adjusted to a global economic order defined by market fundamentalist principles, but their populations consistently voted to protect and maintain programs established during the post-war era of social democratic dominance. These programs continue to define the social fabric of all the world’s other prosperous democracies.
America will remain a society in decline, consumed by crises and prayed upon by demagogues until the national economy is once again organized in the interests of working people. This can only be achieved successfully through the implementation of an FDR/Keynesian/Democratic Socialist-inspired template of policies for the 21st Century.
Once the American people understand this, they will demand nothing less. The task for progressives is clear.
Thomas Paine’s path—to the revolutionary fulfillment of an America as great as its promise—lays ahead.
So, pray tell, how are we going to alter the entire American economy so that it no longer serves the wealthy few, but delivers prosperity for the many; saving our democracy in the process?
The answer is simple: the same way we did before.
In the 1930s and ‘40s, with the threat of fascism looming, the Democratic Party was transformed by the mass entry of workers in coordination with the labor movement. Under FDR’s and Francis Perkins’ leadership, the Democratic Party’s New Deal policies redesigned the entire American economy. After the war, these policies provided the foundation for unprecedented affluence, defined by the growth of the largest and most prosperous middle class in human history
We must take over and transform the Democratic Party.
There are two central facts about the Democratic Party that everyone must understand if our democratic republic is going to survive President Donald Trump’s authoritarian counterrevolution:
Fortunately, the Democratic Party is a malleable institution. Winning control of one of America’s two major parties is the opportunity we need to redesign the economy so it serves the people, to build an America as great as its promise and fulfill Thomas Paine’s vision for a revolutionary country defined by freedom and equality for all.
There’s still a long way to go. Our opponents have the money, but we have the people.
We can get this done. The proof is in the polling. Ever since the 2024 general election, the Democratic Party has shattered records with astonishingly low approval ratings. At the very same time the Democrats are polling way ahead of the Republicans in relation to the upcoming 2026 midterms. This may seem contradictory, but it’s not. The public understands the necessity of defeating Trump’s GOP, which represents a mortal threat to our republic; and they will use the only instrument available to them to defeat MAGA, the Democratic Party, which at least supports the constitution.
This doesn’t negate the fact that the public loathes the centrist faction that has defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. Under their leadership, the Democratic Party has consistently gaslit the public: claiming to be with the people but serving the status quo; offering, at best, tiny incremental improvements, while imposing “necessary” austerity just as frequently. Furthermore, while a centrist-led Democratic Party has shown it can win narrow victories over Trump’s GOP, these have only amounted to temporary setbacks. After a few years of unsatisfactory Democratic governance, the fascists come roaring back
In contrast, the centrist’s nemesis, Bernie Sanders, consistently ranks as the most popular politician in the country. This is not due to his rakish charm, but rather his unwavering commitment to a progressive agenda, which has overwhelming support among Democrats and majority support among the general public.
So, how do we Achieve what the people want, and wrest control of the Democratic Party from a historically anachronistic, but deeply entrenched and well-funded dominant faction that serves the interests of the elite and their courtiers?
Before addressing that, let’s backtrack briefly to clarify why the progressive takeover and transformation of the Democratic Party is a historical necessity if we’re going to salvage our democracy and truly Make America as Great as its promise. Two Reasons:
Since 1946 there have been over 17,000 elections for the US House of Representatives. How many have been won by a third-party candidate? Zero.
In the US Senate, there have been two third party candidates elected: William F Buckley’s brother, James L Buckley, in 1970 on the New York Conservative line (usually a fusion Party); and Joe Lieberman, founding member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
The record is similar in statewide and local elections, where there have literally been millions of contests since WWII. The number of third-party victories is infinitesimal, less than one-tenth of 1%.
Now that Trump’s Republican Party is openly embracing a Putin-like evisceration of democracy and elite accountability—effectively destroying our constitutional republic—there’s even less tolerance for third party adventurism, or anything that splits the Democratic Party vote.
Third Partyism in the United States is, at best, an utter waste of time and energy; at worst, left-wing third parties facilitate the rise of the right—both by siphoning votes away from Democrats, and by drawing well-intentioned progressives away from participating in politics that actually make a difference.
Let’s be clear what that means. At the federal level, Congress passes legislation, the President signs it into law, the courts uphold the law and law enforcement ensures its implementation.
Movement activism, no matter how powerful, cannot change the law or create public policy—both require elected officials passing legislation.
From the 1970s through to the rise of the new progressive movement with Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, this reality was somehow lost on progressives. Resources poured into single issue advocacy campaigns; very little into electing progressive candidates. From addressing the climate emergency to reforming law enforcement to many other progressive causes, popular support grew substantially, but very little changed. There were too few progressive politicians in place to make that change a reality.
The American people want change. Trump is an utter charlatan, and the centrists are empty suits. It’s time for progressives to step onto the stage of history; and do what’s necessary to deliver change.
Either progressives win control of the Democratic Party or we’re lost.
So, how to proceed? There are two main fronts where the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party will take place: inside the Party apparatus; and in primary elections. These two fronts are distinct but inter-related, success will require victory in both.
There is much confusion among the public about the role and authority of the Democratic National Committee and the ruling bodies of the State Democratic Parties. Oftentimes, the DNC gets blamed for the Party’s milquetoast policies, but the Democratic Party is not a parliamentary party, in which its candidates are expected to adhere to the platform. Rather, Democratic candidates determine their own policy priorities. Thus, the Party’s political identity is defined by its leading elected officials more than by the platform deliberations at Party meetings.
So, what does the Party apparatus do and why is it important?
The party platform and official resolutions are not entirely insignificant, and they could be used to greater effect. If progressives get the upper hand at the DNC or at the state level they can do more to promote the platform to help establish progressive candidates as the true Democrats in the minds of voters.
Similarly, a progressive Democratic Party would flip the endorsement script and start endorsing progressive candidates over centrist opponents in primaries.
The party’s governing bodies make the rules for how it operates. Rule changes can impact every facet of the Party, transforming it from a party dominated by inaccessible elites, into one that is responsive to the interests of poor, working- and middle- class Americans.
Right now, there is a battle raging inside the party over the role of money in primary elections. Progressives are calling for its prohibition. In recent years, progressive candidates have narrowly lost numerous elections that they were poised to win until massive tranches of dark money poured into their districts to fund an avalanche of propaganda in support of their conservative opponents.
While the party can do little about money spent to influence general elections (other than support measures like Hawaii’s Act 11) there are a variety of measures that the Democratic Party can take to limit, or eliminate, the influence of “big money” in its own primaries.
The public, once again, agrees with progressives on this. If Democrats become known as the party that has honest primaries, free of big money influence, they will be rewarded in the general election.
None of these positive changes are possible unless progressive activists move into the Party, become the new majority and change it from within.
Most of the state parties, while not exactly hollow shells, have low-to-very low participation. Given the groundswell of enthusiasm for the progressive movement across the country, we should be able to overwhelm the centrists with our numbers. Since the state parties, in turn, elect the Majority of the DNC’s members, progressive leadership at the national level will follow.
However, don’t expect a cakewalk. There was a wave of Democratic Party entryism after the 2016 Sanders campaign. While this led to progressives becoming the dominant faction in a few states, most progressives were unwelcome and were rebuffed by the established leadership.
Progressives can expect the same reception now, so we must learn from our experience. The key will be maintaining coordination among progressives entering into the party at the local, state and national level. This means consistently “huddling up,” sharing experiences with each other, understanding what works and what doesn’t, and most importantly re-enforcing each other and maintaining solidarity. I called this the “Outside/Inside” strategy in an article I wrote last year. The effort in 2016-17 showed that progressives who enter into the Party will benefit from being part of a well-coordinated team that understands, and is motivated by, the importance of their mission: winning control over one of America’s two national parties so that the people can take back control of our society from the oligarchs.
That brings us to the other front, the one that defines the Democratic Party for the public: who are its elected officials.
First, it must be said, for all of the problems with America’s electoral system—and as Trump and his minions work daily to further pervert our democracy—the country does have an “extra layer” of democracy rarely found in other countries: the open primaries in the two dominant parties. Most progressives I know gripe about the two party system, and praise the multitude of parties in the world’s other “liberal” representative democracies. But almost none of those parties have open primaries where the public (not party members, or more frequently party committees) determines the candidate that will run in the general election.
Now is the time for progressives to recognize our power and mobilize.
Primaries provide a real opportunity to reset the party every two years and totally transform it within six years. This is the opportunity we must seize.
Detractors of the two party system will point to how the Democratic Party establishment gamed the system to block Bernie Sanders path to the nomination in both 2016 and 2020. Yes, major shenanigans took place both years, but this is why coordinated Party entryism goes hand-in-hand with electing candidates that reflect the interests of working people—we can make sure there’s a level playing field.
The same is true for eliminating the primary instrument the establishment uses to defeat competitive progressives: big money. The only way that we can contain, and then eliminate, the influence of big money in Democratic Party primaries in a reasonable time frame is also through mass entryism into the Party to change its internal rules.
There is another barrier to electoral success that progressives must address: the frequent occurrence of too many progressive challengers running in the same primary race. This problem has resulted in electoral losses in districts where the combined vote for progressive candidates exceeded 50%. We need to develop a clear and fair mechanism through which progressives unify behind one candidate in every primary in every race across the country. This may seem like a stretch, but it should be easy to achieve through greater coordination between the national mass-membership organizations that endorse candidates such as Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, Progressive Change Committee (PCCC), People’s Action, Popular Democracy, Democratic Socialists of America, and others.
This unified front, getting behind candidates across the entire country, will have the added benefit of alerting voters that wherever they live there will be a strong progressive candidate on the ballot. This will further nationalize the contest between the do-nothing centrists and progressives committed to solving (not just “addressing”) the problems faced by poor, working- and middle-class Americans. That is a contest progressives will win.
Gaining control of the party apparatus and racking up wins in the primaries are both about building power. With each victory more people will feel empowered. Together, we will become strong enough to change and renew the most influential country in the world, setting it back on the path to where we can, in the words of Bob Dylan “breath the air around Tom Paine.”
Currently, Democratic voters overwhelmingly support progressive policy positions, but the lion’s share of elected Democrats are establishment centrists. Fortunately, progressives have the momentum now, buttressed by a series of high-profile victories in the 2026 primaries. There’s still a long way to go. Our opponents have the money, but we have the people.
It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Now is the time for progressives to recognize our power and mobilize. Our movement is strong, our policies are popular, we can change American society for the better, empowering people and improving their lives, revitalizing our democracy in the process—but to achieve any or all of this, we need the Democratic Party. No other institution, no other vehicle has the capacity to deliver what needs to be delivered—but the Party must be transformed to succeed. The centrist-led Democratic Party has failed to vanquish Trumpism.
If progressives enter the party en masse in a coordinated manner and unify behind one progressive candidate in primaries across the country, we can have a Democratic Party that serves the interests of the people by 2028.
We are right on time to beat back authoritarianism, enact a popular ground-breaking social contract and renew faith in the American project—much like 96 years earlier, and the revolutionary spirit of 1776.
Progressives must win the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
At this hour in our history, if the party remains dominated by its conservative neoliberal faction, an increasingly desperate public will seek an alternative—and in our two party system, that means a “populist” anti-democratic authoritarian GOP.
We can’t fall into that trap again.
A Democratic Party that serves the interests of the poor, working- and middle-class Americans—aka the vast majority of the population—is an imperative.
Anyone who has read this far understands that the idea of shepherding millions of people into a status quo Democratic Party is anathema to your humble author and all sincere progressives. Any progressive campaign for mass entryism into the Party must be predicated on an unwavering commitment to transform the party. As a show of public accountability, we must loudly proclaim this as our goal, complete with detailed plans to achieve our ends. This transparency will weed out the charlatans from our ranks.
At the same time, Common Sense demands every progressive, every democratic socialist, anyone of good conscience who wants to live in a free, democratic society—indeed, everyone who holds out hope to live in an America fulfilling its potential as the world’s first multi-racial democracy—must unite behind the Democratic Party for the 2026 midterm general election in November.
Yes, that means partnering with the very same “moderates” who reject the progressive policies supported by the Democratic base, are servants to big money and are despised by the public—but they do support the constitutional democratic republic and oppose fascism.
We cannot and will not make the same mistake that anti-fascist forces made in Germany in 1933, by splitting the opposition. We must do what Americans did in 1933. Build the Democratic Party into a pro-working class super-majority party and transform the economy and by extension the country—and this time no one will be excluded.
So, progressives must fight like hell in the remaining primaries to defeat the centrist Democrats but come October we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to defeat the fascists (to the tunes of Woody Guthrie, Cardy B, Chuck D and Bad Bunny).
Then, on November 4th, we return to the task of taking over and transforming the Democratic Party so that we can win more than a temporary respite from fascism.
The 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights
Alan Minsky and Harvey J Kaye, Co-Authors
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) proposes a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights that will guarantee all people residing in the United States the right to the basic necessities of life regardless of their income, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin. Having a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights will establish that all Americans are entitled to:
1. The right to a job that pays a living wage
2. The right to a voice in the workplace through a union and collective bargaining
3. The right to comprehensive quality health care
4. The right to a complete cost-free public education & broadband Internet
5. The right to decent, safe, affordable housing
6. The right to a clean environment and a secure planet
7. The right to a meaningful endowment of resources at birth and a secure retirement
8. The right to sound banking and financial services
9. The right to an equitable and economically fair justice system
10. The right to recreation & participation in public life
Ten Pillars of A Rural New Deal
Alan Minsky, Anthony Flaccavento and Dave Alba, Co-Authors
AMES, IOWA - JANUARY 25: Iowa voters listen as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks at the Ames City Auditorium on January 25, 2020 in Ames, Iowa. Iowa holds the state's caucuses in nine days on February 3. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty ImagesWith a document that speaks powerfully to our current crisis, Paine emboldened his fellow citizens-to-be to turn their colonial rebellion into a world-historic revolutionary war for independence and inspired them to establish a democratic republic.
Common Sense by Thomas Paine is the most influential work of political literature in American history.
Self-published on January 10, 1776, Common Sense instantly became a sensation, spreading like wildfire across the colonies. Within a few weeks, it had sold more copies than any book in the history of the colonies.
Paine’s arguments persuaded thousands-upon-thousands of people throughout the 13 colonies to demand more than reform, to support complete independence from England and join the revolutionary cause.
Less than six months after Common Sense was first published in Philadelphia, the Declaration of Independence was signed in the same city, establishing a new country defined, in contrast to its European predecessors, by its commitment to equality, liberty and the consent of the governed—just as Paine advocated in Common Sense (and, unlike the founding fathers, Paine did not hesitate to advocate for democracy).
Paine showed Americans... that they could govern themselves without kings and overlords, and that they could set an example to the world of what a nation of citizens, not subjects, could accomplish. The relevance of these passages for our troubled times cannot be overstated.
Thomas Paine arrived in Philadelphia from England in late 1774. Paine quickly fell in love with America and its people. Struck by the country’s startling contradictions, magnificent possibilities, and wonderful energies, and moved by the spirit and determination of its people to resist British authority, he committed himself to the American cause. In the Spring of 1775, he called for the abolition of slavery, a position he saw as consistent with—and central to—the rebellion.
Paine published Common Sense on January 10, 1776, a pamphlet of fewer than 50 pages, that changed the course of world history. In its pages, he harnessed Americans’ shared but as-of-yet unstated thoughts, expressing them in words such as “The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth” and “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” Paine emboldened his fellow citizens-to-be to turn their colonial rebellion into a world-historic revolutionary war for independence, and inspired them to establish a democratic republic. Paine defined the new nation in a democratically expansive and progressive fashion and articulated an American identity charged with exceptional purpose and promise.
In Common Sense, Paine showed Americans that they were in fact Americans, not British colonists, that they could govern themselves without kings and overlords, and that they could set an example to the world of what a nation of citizens, not subjects, could accomplish. The relevance of these passages for our troubled times cannot be overstated.
Paine appreciated the ethnic and religious diversity that already prevailed and projected the nation-to-be as a refuge for those seeking freedom. (Indeed, many passages in Common Sense speak directly to the crises enveloping America today.)
Crucially, Paine portrayed America not as thirteen separate entities, but as a singular nation-state: “Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honour… Our strength is continental not provincial.” And he proposed a charter—a constitution encompassing a Bill of Rights—both to bind the prospective states into a union and to guarantee that liberty, equality, and democracy would prevail. Most emphatically, he argued for “freedom of conscience” and, to assure it, the separation of Church and State: “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith….”
In the spring of that year, 120,000 copies of Common Sense were sold. 500,000 by the end of the Revolutionary War. (Throughout Paine took no royalties, using the funds to buy mittens for General Washington’s troops). Plus, newspapers throughout the colonies excerpted it and working people read it aloud in taverns, cafes, and farm fields. Soon, town councils north and south were petitioning the Second Continental Congress to declare INDEPENDENCE! America turned Paine into a radical, and he turned Americans into democratic revolutionaries.
Today, we honor Common Sense on the 250th Anniversary of its publication, and we honor its author, Tom Paine, one of the authors of our country
Life isn’t preset. It’s an endless flow of God-knows-what, and it’s up to me—it’s up to all of us—to assign meaning, as best we can, to what’s going on.
Dig, ponder, dig some more.
A year ago I wrote a column about some of the early moments of my growing up—not just memories but profound moments of awareness; flickers, you might say, of becoming who I am. I was 77 at the time. Now I’m... oh yeah, 78. Can you believe it? Another year is almost over. Holiday season shimmers, the smell of pine is in the air. It’s Christmas: a perfect time to open, once again, the stocking known as memory.
In last year’s column, I wrote about three childhood moments that created me as a person—or informed me that I had changed, moved forward in the process of becoming. These were moments of self-awareness. Gosh! I had no idea such a thing existed, but there I was at age six, playing “Red Rover” on my elementary-school playground with a bunch of other kids and I realized: I was part of something bigger than myself; I wasn’t alone. Run and play, laugh and love! It’s called “community” (I later learned).
The interesting part, for me, as I write about it six-plus decades later, is to be able to feel the moment of becoming—to feel it as a new chunk of being, given to me almost as a Christmas present.
A second moment of becoming: I was 10 and had gotten into a fight after school—with a good pal. Huh? I rode my bike home, parked in the alley behind my house, and stood there rubbing my bruised elbow, aswirl in confusion. Fighting is so stupid! I decided I would never fight again—or rather, knew I would never fight again. I knew I had changed.
The third moment I wrote about was when I was 13. I had just seen a strange, disturbing movie with my mother and sister called Imitation of Life. We had car trouble on the way home and as we waited for the repair work to be finished, a puzzling awareness hit me, totally out of the blue. “I’m a genius,” I told myself—not with a smirk that I’m smarter than you are, but just the opposite. I was overwhelmed. Life isn’t preset. It’s an endless flow of God-knows-what, and it’s up to me—it’s up to all of us—to assign meaning, as best we can, to what’s going on. We’re all creating the future, moment by moment, whether we know it or not.
Yikes. This was far more responsibility than I was comfortable with, but I was stuck with it. I pushed on with growing up. These were all private moments, quietly “me” in a way that was no one else’s business. But some inner balloon (pardon the childish metaphor) was getting ready to burst. I had lousy penmanship, but I was turning into a writer, even though I hardly knew it. In fact, I got a “D” in English in eighth grade because I just couldn’t grasp the rules of grammar that were dumped on us out of the bag of marbles called education. What the heck is a participle? What’s an indirect object?
Attention, grade fanatics: We all learn at our own speed and in our own way. Two years later, in 10th grade, one of the books we were assigned to read was The Diary of Anne Frank. Birth of a writer! Well, sort of. I was riveted by her words, by the details of her life she bequeathed the world—and I felt a deep compulsion to start my own journal.
It literally took a year of trying. I’d buy a 39-cent notebook and start putting pieces of my life into words, usually prefaced with the warning: “Private. Do not read!” I felt compelled to pump up the importance of what I was saying, to write from the perspective that my life was significant. And the journal would never last more than a day or two. I could feel the phoniness in my words and would stash the notebook on a shelf, to be forgotten. But I kept trying! Something in me was determined to make this process work—solely for myself, of course. Turns out that may be the hardest audience of all to win over.
And then—I’m 16 at this point, in 11th grade—something happened: I was certain, I was terrified, that I had failed a solid geometry test one day. When I got home, I opened a notebook and scribbled the words: “God, I am worried. Scared to death is more like it.”
And the words simply flowed. I couldn’t stop. I went on for four pages, writing about the test, writing about how lousy I was doing in my English class, and then... yee-haw! I started writing about my “barren social life”: about the all the parties I hadn’t been invited to and my fear that I was a lousy dancer. I wasn’t “trying” to say anything; I was just letting it all out, spewing my feelings with unchecked honesty.
Two days later I wrote a second entry. Turns out I actually did OK on the math test, much to my amazement. And I was feeling good. I wrote about driving to a Junior Achievement meeting with some friends and singing a bunch of inappropriate songs on the way home. I even inserted the lyrics into the notebook. Something was happening: I wasn’t trying to churn out “good writing.” I was simply writing—giving words to my emotions and bringing them to life. I was finding, as I put it many years later, my voice.
And yeah, this is what growing up is all about. There’s nothing special or unique about any of this—it’s just a smattering of specificity. The interesting part, for me, as I write about it six-plus decades later, is to be able to feel the moment of becoming—to feel it as a new chunk of being, given to me almost as a Christmas present, not by Santa but by Anne Frank... and so many others: my parents, of course. My friends. My teachers.
Indeed, I must take a moment to honor Mom and Dad. They gave me life, home, family—and something more: the permission, you might say, to go my own direction. This was not easy for them, especially for my mother, who was a devout Lutheran, who had to watch her son break from the church and head off in his own spiritual direction.
Among the books I read in high school, three of them had a serious impact on my becoming: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Their words were rocks for me to grab as I climbed the mountain of my emerging life. At one point, as I was writing in my journal, I made the declaration that I was a non-conformist. And one of the final tasks I had to fulfill before I graduated was to write my senior paper: a big-deal assignment. The topic could be of my choosing, but I had to quote a number of recognized authors. I chose the above trio. The paper was called “Is a Man’s Mind His Own?”
Yes, I wrote, it is.
I had sort of known this all along, though without necessarily even wanting it to be the case, except, as a boy, having the right to misbehave. But this was a serious step beyond boyhood. It was my first real step into the public domain. Uh oh. Now what?
We offer this comic-strip recalling the revolutionary promise proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Do not underestimate the power of that promise.
Yes. We lost. And yes, as Thomas Paine pronounced in late 1776 in The Crisis, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Nonetheless, as we argue here, this is not a time to despair and hide away. For as Paine went on to write in that pamphlet: “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” Words that encouraged Americans to sustain the Revolution and, yes, go on to win battles and ultimately, victory.
We offer this comic-strip recalling the revolutionary promise proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—and regularly reaffirmed by our greatest leaders—to remind us all that we, native-born and newly-arrived alike, are the children and grandchildren of generations of progressives and radicals who, in the course of almost 250 years, made that promise their own and fought to realize it.
Do not underestimate the power of that promise. And surely, you feel it too.
Consider the testimony of the great self-emancipated black abolitionist Frederick Douglass in his speech in Rochester, New York, on July 5, 1852, What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? Douglass lambasted the country and his fellow Americans: “There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.” And yet, in the end, even he did not surrender to despair: “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery... I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.”
So, yes, we lost. But the struggle continues. And in that spirit, we want you to know that when Martin Luther King, Jr. would find himself growing despondent about the state of America and the forces opposing the civil rights struggle, he would recall Thomas Paine’s revolutionary words from Common Sense: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
In the weeks and months ahead, we plan to create a continuing series of comics reminding us of who we are and what that demands—and, hopefully, encouraging us all to pursue progressive and radical-democratic action.
This is not a time to seek a solitary life, but to act in solidarity.
“We have it in our power to begin the world again.” And so we must.
Contributing fundamentally to the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the struggles of British workers in the Industrial Revolution, Thomas Paine was the greatest radical of a truly radical age. Yet this son of an English artisan did not become a radical until his arrival in America in late 1774 at the age of thirty-seven. Even then he had never expected such things to happen.
However, struck by America’s startling contradictions and magnificent possibilities, and moved by the spirit and determination of its people to resist British authority, he dedicated himself to the American cause and through his pamphlets of 1776—Common Sense and the ensuing American Crisis Papers—he emboldened Americans to transform their colonial rebellion into a revolutionary war, defined the new nation in a democratically expansive and progressive fashion, and articulated an American identity charged with exceptional purpose and promise.
As Paine saw it: Americans could show the world that humanity had no need for kings and overlords, indeed, that common people, working people, could govern themselves!
Is it any wonder then that we have reached back and recruited Paine to the cause of rescuing America’s revolutionary promise from royal wannabee Donald Trump and his MAGA and GOP (Tory) subjects who seem set upon destroying it?
Vote Democratic top to bottom on November 5th… so we can start acting anew on Citizen Paine’s radical-democratic challenge: “We have it in our power to begin the world again.”Having failed to effectively counter the rise of neoliberalism and authoritarianism with truly progressive and radical democratic action, we now face the threat of full-throated fascism. We turn to Thomas Paine to help us take stock and change course.
We have endured 50 years of unrelenting class war and culture war campaigns by corporate elites, conservatives, and neoliberals against the democratic achievements of last century's progress. Following the gains achieved from the 1930's through the end of the end of the 1960's, we've now had five decades of devastating attacks on the rights of workers, women, and people of color. It's been a half-century of creeping authoritarianism. And now, having failed to effectively counter it with truly progressive and radical democratic action, we face the threat of full-throated fascism. Just listen to what the rhetoric of Donald Trump and his MAGA followers in Congress, on-line, and at rallies portends.
So, what is to be done?
However much we may have yearned for a more progressive ticket and platform—the answer to the above question is simple: Work like hell for Harris/Walz, and their fellow Democratic nominees from top-to- bottom, to win in November. If they lose, we lose.
We lose not only the election, but also any chance of redeeming and enhancing American democratic life in the foreseeable future.
But don’t think of November 5th as merely an election to save American democratic life. Because the struggle for us, however much rooted in the long struggle to make real the revolutionary promise of the Declaration—the promise of equality and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans—will have just begun. Think of it as a vote to empower ourselves anew to take up that fight.
Don’t think of November 5th as merely an election to save American democratic life.
Having recently produced a comic strip recounting FDR’s 1944 call and the continuing fight for an Economic Bill of Rights, Matt "The Letterhack" Strackbein and I have been asking ourselves what we should do now to remind Americans of who we all are and what we need to do to truly save democracy.
To both help us confront the question and inspire us to make history anew, we invited the great radical patriot and pamphleteer Thomas Paine to join us at the bar. This is the Paine whose Common Sense turned a colonial rebellion into a revolution for independence and the making of a democratic republic; the Paine, whose Crisis papers sustained the Revolution in its darkest days; the Paine who not only called for an end to slavery, but also proposed the creation of a social security system.
As we say at the close of this comic: Stay tuned…
The deeper reason why the powerful and wealthiest think your ability to vote is dangerous.
Why are America’s plutocrats funding efforts to weaken our democracy and replace it with plutocracy and oligarchy? Is it just about money? Or is there something much deeper that most Americans rarely even consider?
An extraordinary investigative report from documented.net tells how morbidly rich families, their companies, and their personal foundations are funding efforts to limit or restrict democracy across the United States.
In an article co-published with The Guardian, they noted:
“The advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, the powerful conservative think tank based in Washington, spent more than $5m on lobbying in 2021 as it worked to block federal voting rights legislation and advance an ambitious plan to spread its far-right agenda calling for aggressive voter suppression measures in battleground states.”
Their efforts have had substantial success, as you can read in Documented’s article.
This effort, of course, is not unique to the one think tank they called out. From Donald Trump all the way down to the lowest Republican county official, efforts to make it harder for what John Adams called “the rabble” to vote and otherwise participate in democracy are in full swing across America.
But why? Why are some wealthy people so opposed to expanding democracy in America?
Most Americans — and lots of editorial writers — are convinced it’s simply because rich folks want to influence legislation to benefit themselves and keep their regulations and taxes down. I proposed a motive like that in yesterday’s Daily Take.
And surely, for some, that’s the largest part of it. But that’s not the entire story.
I can’t claim (nor would I) to know the exact motives driving the various wealthy individuals funding efforts to reduce the Black, Hispanic, senior, and youth vote. But history does suggest that many are trying to “stabilize” America rather than just pillage her.
They are worried that America is suffering from too much democracy.
The modern-day backstory to this starts in the early 1950s when conservative thinker Russell Kirk proposed a startling hypothesis that would fundamentally change our nation and the world.
The American middle-class at that time was growing more rapidly than any middle-class had ever grown in the history of the world, both in terms of the number of people in the middle class, the income of those people, and the overall wealth that those people were accumulating.
The middle-class was growing in wealth and income back then, in fact, faster than were the top 1%.
Kirk and colleagues like William F. Buckley postulated that if the middle-class and minorities became too wealthy, they’d feel the safety and freedom to throw themselves actively into our political processes, as rich people had historically done.
That expansion of democracy, they believed, would produce an absolute collapse of our nation’s social order — producing chaos, riots, and possibly even the end of the republic.
The first chapter of Kirk’s 1951 book, The Conservative Mind, is devoted to Edmund Burke, the British conservative who Thomas Paine visited for two weeks in 1793 on his way to get arrested in the French revolution. Paine was so outraged by Burke’s arguments that he wrote an entire book rebutting them titled The Rights of Man. It’s still in print (as it is Burke).
Burke was defending, among other things, Britain’s restrictions on democracy, including limits on who could vote or run for office, and the British maximum wage.
Burke and his contemporaries in the late 1700s believed that if working-class people made too much money, they’d have enough spare time to use democratic processes to challenge the social order and collapse the British kingdom.
Too much democracy, Burke believed, was a dangerous thing: deadly to nations and a violation of evolution and nature itself.
Summarizing his debate with Paine about the French Revolution, Burke wrote:
“The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively are permitted to rule [by voting]. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature.”
That was why Parliament passed a law making it illegal for employers to pay people over a certain amount, so as to keep wage-earners right at the edge of poverty throughout their lives.
It was explicitly to avoid too much democracy and preserve the stability of the kingdom. (For the outcome of this policy, read pretty much any Dickens novel.)
Picking up on this, Kirk’s followers argued that if the American middle-class became wealthy enough to have time for political activism, there would be similarly dire consequences.
Young people would cease to respect their elders, they warned. Women would stop respecting (and depending on) their husbands. Minorities would begin making outrageous demands and set the country on fire.
When Kirk laid this out in 1951, only a few conservative intellectuals took him seriously.
Skeptics of multiracial egalitarian democracy like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater were electrified by his writings and line of thinking, but Republicans like then-President Dwight Eisenhower said of people like Kirk and his wealthy supporters:
“Their numbers are negligible and they are stupid.“
And then came the 1960s.
— In 1961, the birth control pill was legalized and by 1964 was in widespread use; this helped kick off the Women’s Liberation Movement, as women, now in control of their reproductive capacity, demanded equality in the workplace. Bra burning became a thing, at least in pop culture lore.
— By 1967, young people on college campuses were also in revolt; the object of their anger was an illegal war in Vietnam. Along with national protest, draft card burning was also a thing.
— The labor movement was feeling it’s oats: strikes spread across America throughout the 1960s from farm workers in California to steel workers in Pennsylvania. In the one year of 1970 alone, over 3 million workers walked out in 5,716 strikes.
— And throughout that decade African Americans were demanding an end to police violence and an expansion of Civil and Voting Rights. In response to several brutal and well-publicized instances of police violence against Black people in the late 1960s, riots broke out and several of our cities were on fire.
These four movements all hitting America at the same time got the attention of Republicans who had previously ignored or even ridiculed Kirk’s 1950s warnings about the dangers of the middle class and minorities embracing democracy.
Suddenly, he seemed like a prophet. And the GOP turned on a dime.
The Republican/Conservative “solution” to the “national crisis” these movements represented was put into place with the election of 1980: the project of the Reagan Revolution was to dial back democracy while taking the middle class down a peg, and thus end the protests and social instability.
Their goal was, at its core, to save America from itself.
The plan was to declare war on labor unions so wages could slide down or at least remain frozen for a few decades; end free college across the nation so students would study in fear rather than be willing to protest; and increase the penalties Nixon had already put on drugs so they could use those laws against hippy antiwar protesters and Black people demanding participation in democracy.
As Nixon‘s right hand man, John Ehrlichman, told reporter Dan Baum:
“You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. Do you understand what I’m saying?
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.
“We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
While it looks from the outside like the singular mission of the Reagan Revolution was simply to help rich people and giant corporations get richer and more powerful (and that’s certainly been the effect), the ideologues driving the movement also thought they were restoring stability to the United States, both socially, economically, and — most important — politically.
The middle class was out of control by the late 1960s, they believed, and something had to be done. There was too much democracy, and it was tearing America apart.
Looking back at the “solutions” England used around the time of the American Revolution (and for 1000 years before) and advocated by Edmund Burke and other conservative thinkers throughout history, Republicans saw a remedy to the crisis. As a bonus, it had the side effect of helping their biggest donors and thus boosting their political war-chests.
If working people, women, minorities, and students were a bit more desperate about their economic situations, these conservative thinkers asserted, then they’d be less likely to organize, protest, strike, or even vote. The unevenness, the instability, the turbulence of democracy in the 1960s would be calmed.
— To accomplish this, Reagan massively cut taxes on rich people and raised taxes on working-class people 11 times.
— He put a tax on Social Security income and unemployment benefits and put in a mechanism to track and tax tips income, all of which had previously been tax-free but were exclusively needed and used by working-class people.
— He ended the deductibility of credit-card, car-loan and student-debt interest, overwhelmingly claimed by working-class people. At the same time, he cut the top tax bracket for millionaires and multimillionaires from 74% to 27%. (There were no billionaires in America then, in large part because of FDR’s previous tax policies; the modern explosion of billionaires followed Reagan’s massive tax cuts for the rich.)
— He declared war on labor unions, crushed PATCO in less than a week, and over the next decade the result of his war on labor was that union membership went from about a third of the American non-government workforce when he came into office to around 10% today.
— He brought a young lawyer named John Roberts into the White House to work out ways to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision. His VP brought in his son, George W., to build bridges between the GOP and the most fanatical branches of evangelical Christianity, who opposed both women’s rights and the Civil Rights movement.
— He and Bush also husbanded the moribund 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT, which let Clinton help create the WTO) and NAFTA, which opened a floodgate for American companies to move manufacturing overseas, leaving American workers underemployed while cutting corporate donor’s labor costs and union membership.
And, sure enough, it worked.
— Reagan’s doubling-down on the War on Drugs shattered Black communities and our prison population became the largest in the world, both as a percentage of our population and in absolute numbers.
— His War on Labor cut average inflation-adjusted minimum and median wages by more over a couple of decades than anybody had seen since the Republican Great Depression of the 1930s.
— And his War on Students jacked up the cost of education so high that an entire generation is today so saddled with more than $1.7 trillion in student debt that many aren’t willing to jeopardize their future by “acting up” on campuses.
The key to selling all this to the American people was the idea that the US shouldn’t protect the rights of workers, subsidize education, or enforce Civil Rights laws because, Republicans said, government itself is a remote, dangerous and incompetent power that can legally use guns to enforce its will.
As Reagan told us in his first inaugural, democracy was not the solution to our problems, but democracy — government — instead was the problem itself.
He ridiculed the once-noble idea of service to one’s country and joked that there were really no good people left in government because if they were smart or competent they’d be working in the private sector for a lot more money.
He told us that the nine most frightening words in the English language were:
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, wealthy people associated with Kirk’s and Reagan’s Republicans built a massive infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets to promote and amplify this message about the dangers of too much democracy.
As the reporting from documented.net indicates, they’re working at it with as much enthusiasm today as ever.
It so completely swept America that by the 1990s even President Bill Clinton was repeating things like, “The era of big government is over,” and “This is the end of welfare as we know it.” Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wing radio talkers were getting millions a year in subsidies from groups like the Heritage Foundation, the group documented.net wrote about yesterday.
Fox News today carries on the tradition, warning almost daily about the danger of “people in the streets” or political movements like anti-fascism and BLM.
When you look at the long arc of post-Agricultural Revolution human history you discover that Burke was right when he claimed that oligarchy — rule by the rich — has been the norm, not the exception.
And it’s generally provided at least a modicum of stability: feudal Europe changed so little for over a thousand years that we simply refer to that era as the Dark Ages followed by the Middle Ages without detail. It’s all kind of black-and-white fuzzy in our mind’s eye.
Popes, kings, queens, pharaohs, emperors: none allowed democracy because all knew it was both a threat to their wealth and power but also because, they asserted, it would render their nations unstable.
These historic leaders — and their modern day “strongman” versions emerging in former democracies like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Egypt, The Philippines, and Russia — are the model for many of today’s conservatives. And not just because they were rich.
Understanding this history gives us clues to how we can revive democracy in America. Step one is to help people realize that instability, like labor pains before birth, is not a bad thing for a democracy but most frequently is a sign of emerging and positive political and social advances.
Hopefully one day soon our vision of an all-inclusive democracy — the original promise of America, to quote historian Harvey Kaye — will be realized. But first we’re going to have to get past the millions of dollars mobilized by democracy’s skeptics.
I believe it’s possible. But it’s going to take all of us getting involved to make it happen. As both Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama were fond of saying: “Democracy is not a spectator sport.”
Tag, we’re it.