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
wall street
The Democratic Party Has a History Problem
Party leadership needs to study and learn from what the Wall Street wing has cost in terms of lost elections and the increasing tilt of the playing field.
May 28, 2026
In his stumbling explanation of the muddled autopsy report on the 2024 election debacle, Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin uttered two pieces of wisdom that regrettably, neither he nor the party has heeded: “The Democratic brand is in trouble and needs repair,” and “I agree with folks who have said we have to learn from the past to win the future.” Had they followed that advice, they would have seen how history tells a neglected and important story.
It begins when Bill Clinton was handed the keys to the White House by a group of largely Southern officials who formed the New Democrats with the mission of putting a Southern, pro-business candidate in the White House. With its pointed references to Reagan speeches and policies, Clinton’s Second Inaugural signaled a devil’s bargain that ended a century of Democratic Party policies.
In 1896, William Jennings Bryan had articulated the level playing field principles that served as the Democrats’ North Star for much of the last century: “There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.” In the term following his inaugural rejection of those principles, Clinton repealed one of the crown jewels of the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act regulating banks, and handed social media the gift of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, exempting them from the rules governing print and broadcasting.
In the years since Bill Clinton left the White House for a comfortable retirement, the New Democrats asserted control of the party, courting big donors with the pro-Wall Street policies resembling those of his second term. Their strategy uncannily mirrored that of Donald Trump’s Republicans by offering positions on social issues that appeased elements of the base while supporting economic policies benefiting corporate America. In their fight for the soul of the party, the New Democrats pulled no punches, blocking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016 and primarying 2026 opponents with the zeal of Donald Trump.
One lesson history teaches us is that if inequalities are allowed to fester, things can get very ugly.
Their biggest failure may be that in abandoning the level playing field principle, the New Democrats offered no substitute, save triangulation. Today most of us would stumble over trying to define the Democratic Party in one sentence, but one can easily do that for the Republicans—less taxes, less government. With the midterms six months away, this lack of a unified message already has the faithful worried.
The historical data missing from the autopsy and Martin’s explanations tells the story of what the ascension of the Wall Street Democrats has cost their party and the country. Since 2000, the Democrats have controlled the House only 4 out of 15 terms and the Senate only 6 out of 15. For only four years have Democrats held a majority of state governerships. Democratic presidential victories were anomalies. Barack Obama benefited from a record turnout of BIPOC voters. Joe Biden won because of the mishandling of Covid-19. Even allowing for gerrymandering and voter suppression, it appears clear that the Democratic Party has been in decline for some time.
Given the pro-Wall Street leanings of both parties, we should not be surprised that we have essentially been governed by a minority. Since 2000, the winning presidential candidate has only averaged 30.18% of the voting-eligible population. Today, only 27% of voters identify with either party, while 45% identify as independents. That is the lowest total ever for Democrats.
The numbers in various data and reports tell how the tilt of the playing field continues to widen. Although real total wealth has tripled since 1989, the share of the top 10% has increased from 63% to 72%, but the bottom 50% saw their share decline from 4% to 2%. Meanwhile, labor’s share of production has declined ominously. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, it fell from 64% in 2001 to 56% in 2023. During most of the 1950s and 60s it hovered around 60%.
Business concentration recalls the trusts that sparked such widespread discontent during the late 19th century. The best figures come from a study by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Small Business that was mothballed after its release in December 2023—and goes unmentioned in the autopsy. Bristling with footnotes, the eye-opening Report on Competition in the Small Business Economy cites a Boston Federal Reserve study that shows the economy is 50% more concentrated today than in 2005. It goes on to state, “The dramatic increase in income and wealth inequality seen over the past four decades in the US can also be largely attributed to higher levels of concentration across industries.” Sounding like an outraged 1890 Farmers’ Alliance tract, the study paints a grim picture of today’s farmers: “From the seeds they plant, to the fertilizer in the soil to the machinery that allows them to make it all happen at scale, the price they pay at every step is at the whim of a handful of companies.”
Faced with similar conditions during the Gilded Age, discontented workers and farmers organized to press for the Sherman, Interstate Commerce, and Safety Appliance Acts; laid the groundwork for the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments; initiated bureaus of labor statistics and factory inspections; and enhanced access to higher education. Because they feared both parties were the tools of tycoons, the discontented also formed new parties, of which the Greenbackers and Populists are the most notable. Most of all, in a flurry of civic engagement, they founded groups like the Grange, Knights of Labor, Women’s Christian Temperance Movement, and Farmers’ Alliance.
Whether today’s discontent will have a similar impact remains an open question. A good part of the answer will depend on whether people like Ken Martin continue to support the Wall Street wing of the party or realize what that support has cost in terms of lost elections and the increasing tilt of the playing field. What is clear is that the drastically tilted playing field has become extremely volatile. One lesson history teaches us is that if inequalities are allowed to fester, things can get very ugly. During the discontent of the Gilded Age, lynchings averaged 150 per year between 1881 and 1900, or one every 2.4 days. Another 1,400 people perished in riots, in the most violent three decades in our history. All of us can see and fear the growling, anvil-shaped clouds that threaten to darken our lives, as they did over a century ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Opportunistic' Fossil Fuel Execs Cashed In on Trump's Iran War With Record Stock Sales
One climate reporter warned their windfalls "will go toward political campaigns and lobbying organizations dedicated to fighting climate regulation, blocking clean energy policy, and fueling authoritarianism."
Apr 08, 2026
After pouring money into President Donald Trump's successful campaign to take back the White House, US fossil fuel industry executives cashed in on his and Israel's war on Iran with record-setting stock sales, according to a VerityData analysis reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.
"Much of the selling for the first quarter began before the US and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28," and some "were prearranged under plans that allow executives to sell stock automatically at specific times or share prices without making in-the-moment decisions that could leave them open to allegations of improper trading," the newspaper acknowledged.
However, as share prices for the industry skyrocketed—Iran responded to the US-Israeli assault by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route for fossil fuels—executives at Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Diamondback Energy, and other oil and gas companies collectively sold $1.4 billion in stock.
"At nearly a dozen companies, the number of executives selling in the quarter reached or surpassed 10-year records, and in some cases set all-time records," the Journal detailed. "The sales hit a 15-year peak, with nearly six executives selling for every one that bought shares in the first quarter—well over double the usual ratio."
"CEOs stood out as big sellers in many cases," the newspaper highlighted, noting that "Chevron chief executive Mike Wirth sold some $104 million worth of shares between January and March. ConocoPhillips's Ryan Lance netted about $54.3 million in share sales in March alone. Lorenzo Simonelli, CEO of oil field services company Baker Hughes, sold about $33 million worth of stock that same month."
VerityData's head of research, Ben Silverman, said that "it speaks to the opportunistic behavior of everyone involved—it could be opportunistic set months earlier, it could be opportunistic in the moment... There was a breathlessness to the selling, and the message they sent was to cash in now because the ride won't last forever."
Who's profiting from ridiculous and unnecessary wars? Big Oil CEOs, to name one obvious group. @emorwee.bsky.social heated.world/p/chevrons-c...
[image or embed]
— Ross Macfarlane (@rossmacfarlane.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 5:04 PM
In her Heated newsletter, climate journalist Emily Atkin pointed out that "this isn't the first time a small group of extraordinarily wealthy oil CEOs used a war to make themselves richer. In the weeks after President Joe Biden said that he was 'convinced' Russia would invade Ukraine in 2022, Big Oil CEOs sold almost $99 million worth of shares, according to an analysis by Friends of the Earth and BailoutWatch."
According to Atkin:
What really makes this story remarkable is not simply that oil executives got rich from a war. It's how perfectly legal and normal it all is, and what that legality reveals about who wins and who loses when America goes to war.
When America goes to war, the costs are distributed broadly, onto every American who drives a car or heats a home. The benefits are distributed narrowly, flowing to a small group of men whose compensation is designed to capture exactly this kind of windfall.
And the cash windfall these oil executives make from the war won't go primarily toward yachts and private jets (they already have those). It will go toward political campaigns and lobbying organizations dedicated to fighting climate regulation, blocking clean energy policy, and fueling authoritarianism.
The Journal reporting came on the heels of Trump and Iran agreeing to a fragile two-week ceasefire negotiated by Pakistan late Tuesday. While Israel is supposedly on board, it escalated attacks on Lebanon on Wednesday.
As a Pakistani official publicly reiterated that Lebanon is still part of the deal and Iran threatened to back out altogether, Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher with the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams that Israel's assault "appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked."
Meanwhile, although oil prices dropped after the ceasefire announcement, "'fossilflation'—or inflation caused by volatile and rising prices of oil and gas—is still likely to continue," the global climate group 350.org warned on Wednesday.
"Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens and the ceasefire holds, oil and gas prices will stay above pre-war levels, and consumers will pay," said Andreas Sieber, 350.org's head of political strategy. "Volatility remains high, and supply will stay tight due to infrastructure damage and inventory rebuilding."
The group said last week that war-related spikes in oil and gas prices "have already cost consumers and businesses an additional $104.2-$111.6 billion" globally, and an analysis from Democratic members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee found that Americans spent an extra $8.4 billion at the fuel pump during the first month of Trump's war.
Throughout the conflict, 350.org and other green groups have advocated for a windfall profits tax targeting oil and gas giants, as well as renewed calls for a swift and just international transition away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leading in Primary by 38 Points, Platner Takes Aim at Collins' Wall Street Cash and Iran War Support
"We need to defeat Susan Collins," said the Senate candidate. "That work can’t wait until June."
Apr 01, 2026
As Maine's US Senate primary draws near, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills has gone negative—focusing on online posts that her rival, political newcomer Graham Platner, wrote more than a decade ago.
But with poll after poll showing Platner beating the governor by double digits—and with the gap getting larger with each attack ad Mills releases—Platner this week turned his attention away from the primary race altogether, releasing an ad focusing on Republican Sen. Susan Collins, whom the Democrats are hoping to unseat next November.
In a one-minute ad released online Tuesday evening, Platner is seen in black and white at one of the many rallies he's held across Maine since launching his campaign last August, where he's spoken in support of Medicare for All, condemned President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign and war in Iran, and spoken out against oligarchy.
Collins, Platner tells the audience in the ad, "is the epitome of the establishment politician who serves the donors and serves herself, who is cynical and duplicitous, who's willing to say one thing and do another."
"We had to shed her from our politics. Quite frankly, we have to shed all the people like her," Platner continues as a musician plays the labor movement anthem, "Which Side Are You On?"
We need to defeat Susan Collins. That work can’t wait until June. So we plan to make clear to Mainers starting today: Susan Collins is not on our side.
Every dollar you donate to the ActBlue link in the reply will go directly behind this ad, to taking back this Senate seat. pic.twitter.com/djyuwSHfiI
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) March 31, 2026
While Platner addresses the crowd, text appears on screen:
"Collins raked in Wall Street cash before advancing Trump tax bill," it reads at one point, referring to the $2 million donation Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman gave to the senator's super political action committee (PAC) one day before she voted to advance President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which contained tax cuts for the rich as it slashed public programs like Medicaid and federal food assistance.
"Collins accepts thousands from insurers while health costs soar," the text continues, citing a Maine Beacon article about $120,000 in campaign donations from PACs associated with for-profit health insurance companies—"the same companies now raising premiums on Mainers by as much as 23% in 2026."
"Collins expresses support for Trump's war in Iran," the text reads at another point, regarding the senator's comment last month that Trump has "inherent abilities as commander-in-chief to react" to what he claimed was a threat posed by Iran when he began attacking the country along with Israel.
A poll released by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research last week showed nearly 6-in-10 Americans say the war has gone too far. Fifty-six percent of respondents to a Data for Progress survey last month said the war would benefit Israel more than the US, and this week two polls found a majority of Jewish Americans oppose the war.
"We need to defeat Susan Collins. That work can’t wait until June," said Platner on Tuesday, referring to the June 9 primary. "So we plan to make clear to Mainers starting today: Susan Collins is not on our side."
The ad was released as the latest polling from Impact Research found 66% of likely Democratic primary voters backing Platner, with just 28% supporting the governor.
That poll bolsters other recent surveys that have found Platner with a commanding lead, including at least one other that was taken after Mills launched her first negative ad against her opponent. A second ad was released days later, focusing on the same subject matter: comments Platner made on Reddit in 2013 about sexual assault survivors, which the candidate has said don't represent his current views.
"Janet Mills going negative backfired," said Ryan Grim of Drop Site News, "which doesn’t bode well for Collins either."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular