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
Rev. John J. Nicholas Jr., pastor at St. John's Baptist Church, applauds the efforts of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus (TxLBC) during a news conference about voting rights at Unity Baptist Church on July 26, 2021 in Washington, DC. Local faith leaders called on Black churches across the country to join with the Texas Legislative Black Caucus in their efforts to protect voting freedoms. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Did Horror of January 6 Crush Your Optimism? Try "Possibilism" Instead
That which is essential to address all our major challenges—democracy truly accountable to the people—is not an option. It is an absolute necessity. And so we must fight on.
Jan 06, 2022
A new year is supposed to trigger the energy of new beginnings, requiring at least a bit of optimism. Right? But at the anniversary of January 6th--a day of national infamy--optimism and it companion, hope, can feel out of reach.
So, maybe it's time to rethink optimism, as it feels harder and harder to muster. (I admit, it's too much for me.) Given our crisis of democracy in which a third of Americans reject Biden's election as illegitimate and Freedom House ranking our nation 61th in the world--stuck between Monaco and Romania--in "people's access to political rights and civil liberties," and climate chaos already destroying life, where do we find evidence for optimism?
Fortunately, some time ago it dawned on me that optimism--based on weighing the odds--is not required to be fully alive in this do-or-die moment for humanity and even for life on Earth as we've known it.
Through our long history, humans have made big leaps in face of seemingly impossible odds.
What likelihood of success could humanity's African ancestors have felt when first setting forth to explore the world as much as 2 million years ago? And, in our own fight for independence, what odds would early European settlers have given their defeat of Britain? Afterall, its population was three times that of the colonies, and British armaments were superior as well.
Of course, I could also throw in most life-changing innovations we take for granted today but probably would have scoffed at before they caught on like wildfire. Take the world wide web--impossible for most of us even to imagine until Tim Berners-Lee in 1990 created the first site--coming, he said later, from what was really "an act of desperation."
But, if evidence-based optimism isn't required for action, what is?
I believe humanity's journey has demonstrated that humans do not need strong evidence to justify action. Instead, we jump in when certain conditions are met. We need to feel our action serves our deepest needs, even beyond the physical, and they are: First, a sense of agency, for we evolved as "doers," not mere pawns or passive observers. Second, we are creatures meaning and thus need to feel our actions count for more than just survival. Third, as profoundly social creatures, we need to feel our actions connect us meaningfully with others.
Given our needs for power, meaning, and connection, over and over humans have shown that to act to fulfill them certainty of outcome is not required. Most of us need only to sense there's a chance that our action might matter, and we'll step up.
In this moment, as America's democracy continues to sink, some might say, for example, nah, action for the Freedom to Vote Act is useless. But Americans are not giving up. Many get it: That which is essential to address all our major challenges--democracy truly accountable to the people--is not an option. It is an absolute necessity.
Odds of success become irrelevant.
Also, note well. In our world the nature of life is continuous change in which all is connected; so, every element is shaping all others moment to moment. "There are no parts, only participants," the late German physicist Hans Peter Duerr declared to me. Thus, it is not possible to know what's possible.
From that one insight, we are free.
We are free to go for the world we want, knowing every action we take--and don't take--is changing the world. Someone is always watching, and we never know who. In other words, the only choice we don't have is whether to change the world.
And that includes the choice to step up for democracy itself--the tap root that must be made healthy if we are to tackle any of today's super challenges, from climate chaos to devastating injustice. And here's a tool we at the Small Planet Institute co-created to make it easy to step up--www.DemocracyMovement.us. Jump in... it feels great.
So, the new year opens, I thus declare myself not an optimist but a possibilist, grounded firmly on all we know about the nature of life itself.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Frances Moore Lappé
Frances Moore Lappé is the author of 20 books, beginning with the acclaimed "Diet for a Small Planet." Most recently she is the co-author, with Adam Eichen, of the new book, "Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want." Among her numerous previous books are "EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want" (Nation Books) and "Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life." She is co-founder of the Cambridge, Mass.-based Small Planet Institute.
A new year is supposed to trigger the energy of new beginnings, requiring at least a bit of optimism. Right? But at the anniversary of January 6th--a day of national infamy--optimism and it companion, hope, can feel out of reach.
So, maybe it's time to rethink optimism, as it feels harder and harder to muster. (I admit, it's too much for me.) Given our crisis of democracy in which a third of Americans reject Biden's election as illegitimate and Freedom House ranking our nation 61th in the world--stuck between Monaco and Romania--in "people's access to political rights and civil liberties," and climate chaos already destroying life, where do we find evidence for optimism?
Fortunately, some time ago it dawned on me that optimism--based on weighing the odds--is not required to be fully alive in this do-or-die moment for humanity and even for life on Earth as we've known it.
Through our long history, humans have made big leaps in face of seemingly impossible odds.
What likelihood of success could humanity's African ancestors have felt when first setting forth to explore the world as much as 2 million years ago? And, in our own fight for independence, what odds would early European settlers have given their defeat of Britain? Afterall, its population was three times that of the colonies, and British armaments were superior as well.
Of course, I could also throw in most life-changing innovations we take for granted today but probably would have scoffed at before they caught on like wildfire. Take the world wide web--impossible for most of us even to imagine until Tim Berners-Lee in 1990 created the first site--coming, he said later, from what was really "an act of desperation."
But, if evidence-based optimism isn't required for action, what is?
I believe humanity's journey has demonstrated that humans do not need strong evidence to justify action. Instead, we jump in when certain conditions are met. We need to feel our action serves our deepest needs, even beyond the physical, and they are: First, a sense of agency, for we evolved as "doers," not mere pawns or passive observers. Second, we are creatures meaning and thus need to feel our actions count for more than just survival. Third, as profoundly social creatures, we need to feel our actions connect us meaningfully with others.
Given our needs for power, meaning, and connection, over and over humans have shown that to act to fulfill them certainty of outcome is not required. Most of us need only to sense there's a chance that our action might matter, and we'll step up.
In this moment, as America's democracy continues to sink, some might say, for example, nah, action for the Freedom to Vote Act is useless. But Americans are not giving up. Many get it: That which is essential to address all our major challenges--democracy truly accountable to the people--is not an option. It is an absolute necessity.
Odds of success become irrelevant.
Also, note well. In our world the nature of life is continuous change in which all is connected; so, every element is shaping all others moment to moment. "There are no parts, only participants," the late German physicist Hans Peter Duerr declared to me. Thus, it is not possible to know what's possible.
From that one insight, we are free.
We are free to go for the world we want, knowing every action we take--and don't take--is changing the world. Someone is always watching, and we never know who. In other words, the only choice we don't have is whether to change the world.
And that includes the choice to step up for democracy itself--the tap root that must be made healthy if we are to tackle any of today's super challenges, from climate chaos to devastating injustice. And here's a tool we at the Small Planet Institute co-created to make it easy to step up--www.DemocracyMovement.us. Jump in... it feels great.
So, the new year opens, I thus declare myself not an optimist but a possibilist, grounded firmly on all we know about the nature of life itself.
Frances Moore Lappé
Frances Moore Lappé is the author of 20 books, beginning with the acclaimed "Diet for a Small Planet." Most recently she is the co-author, with Adam Eichen, of the new book, "Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want." Among her numerous previous books are "EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want" (Nation Books) and "Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life." She is co-founder of the Cambridge, Mass.-based Small Planet Institute.
A new year is supposed to trigger the energy of new beginnings, requiring at least a bit of optimism. Right? But at the anniversary of January 6th--a day of national infamy--optimism and it companion, hope, can feel out of reach.
So, maybe it's time to rethink optimism, as it feels harder and harder to muster. (I admit, it's too much for me.) Given our crisis of democracy in which a third of Americans reject Biden's election as illegitimate and Freedom House ranking our nation 61th in the world--stuck between Monaco and Romania--in "people's access to political rights and civil liberties," and climate chaos already destroying life, where do we find evidence for optimism?
Fortunately, some time ago it dawned on me that optimism--based on weighing the odds--is not required to be fully alive in this do-or-die moment for humanity and even for life on Earth as we've known it.
Through our long history, humans have made big leaps in face of seemingly impossible odds.
What likelihood of success could humanity's African ancestors have felt when first setting forth to explore the world as much as 2 million years ago? And, in our own fight for independence, what odds would early European settlers have given their defeat of Britain? Afterall, its population was three times that of the colonies, and British armaments were superior as well.
Of course, I could also throw in most life-changing innovations we take for granted today but probably would have scoffed at before they caught on like wildfire. Take the world wide web--impossible for most of us even to imagine until Tim Berners-Lee in 1990 created the first site--coming, he said later, from what was really "an act of desperation."
But, if evidence-based optimism isn't required for action, what is?
I believe humanity's journey has demonstrated that humans do not need strong evidence to justify action. Instead, we jump in when certain conditions are met. We need to feel our action serves our deepest needs, even beyond the physical, and they are: First, a sense of agency, for we evolved as "doers," not mere pawns or passive observers. Second, we are creatures meaning and thus need to feel our actions count for more than just survival. Third, as profoundly social creatures, we need to feel our actions connect us meaningfully with others.
Given our needs for power, meaning, and connection, over and over humans have shown that to act to fulfill them certainty of outcome is not required. Most of us need only to sense there's a chance that our action might matter, and we'll step up.
In this moment, as America's democracy continues to sink, some might say, for example, nah, action for the Freedom to Vote Act is useless. But Americans are not giving up. Many get it: That which is essential to address all our major challenges--democracy truly accountable to the people--is not an option. It is an absolute necessity.
Odds of success become irrelevant.
Also, note well. In our world the nature of life is continuous change in which all is connected; so, every element is shaping all others moment to moment. "There are no parts, only participants," the late German physicist Hans Peter Duerr declared to me. Thus, it is not possible to know what's possible.
From that one insight, we are free.
We are free to go for the world we want, knowing every action we take--and don't take--is changing the world. Someone is always watching, and we never know who. In other words, the only choice we don't have is whether to change the world.
And that includes the choice to step up for democracy itself--the tap root that must be made healthy if we are to tackle any of today's super challenges, from climate chaos to devastating injustice. And here's a tool we at the Small Planet Institute co-created to make it easy to step up--www.DemocracyMovement.us. Jump in... it feels great.
So, the new year opens, I thus declare myself not an optimist but a possibilist, grounded firmly on all we know about the nature of life itself.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Bowing to Restaurant Lobby, DC Guts Voter-Approved Plan to End Subminimum Wage for Tipped Workers
"Call it what it is: a pay cut and a betrayal of the working people," said One Fair Wage.
Jul 31, 2025
With backing from the restaurant lobby, the Washington, D.C. city council voted Monday to gut plans to raise wages for tipped workers, which had already been approved by the public.
It's the second time the council has overturned a wage increase for tipped workers that the public voted for, having already done so once in 2018.
Under federal law, tipped workers are allowed to be paid a much lower minimum wage—just $2.13 per hour compared with $7.25 for nontipped workers. Tipped workers are, consequentially, more likely to live in poverty.
This is the case in Washington, D.C., where, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, 7.7% of tipped workers live in poverty compared to 2.6% of nontipped workers.
In 2022, D.C. voters overwhelmingly voted to address this problem, supporting Initiative 82, which would have gradually raised the minimum wage for tipped workers—just over $5.35 an hour at the time—to match what other workers receive by 2027.
In 2022, D.C.'s standard minimum wage—which increases each year pegged to inflation—was $16.10. As of 2025, it has increased to $17.95.
As the initiative to raise the tipped minimum wage began, restaurant industry lobbying groups like the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington (RAMW) fought tooth-and-nail to roll it back.
In Jacobin, Raeghn Draper wrote that this group, and others like it around the country, "claim to speak on behalf of restaurant workers, but they are not worker organizations."
Instead, Draper wrote, "They are extensions of the National Restaurant Association (NRA), an industry group historically aligned with large corporate chains like McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Olive Garden—none exactly known for their commitment to workers' rights or well-being."
These groups waged an aggressive disinformation campaign, claiming that by phasing out the subminimum wage, restaurants, crushed by their increasing operating costs, would be forced to close en masse.
The RAMW even touted a survey of its own member restaurants purporting to show that 44% of full-service casual restaurants would have no choice but to close their doors by the end of 2025 due to the policy.
As Draper points out, citing data from an independent investigation by D.C.'s Office of the Budget Director, "the number of D.C. restaurant closures in 2024 did rise slightly compared to the previous year, but restaurant openings also increased, outpacing closures by a margin of two to one."
A study by the EPI likewise found that—despite industry claims that the higher wage requirements were forcing restaurants to lay off their employees—D.C. was seeing more employment growth than other towns in the region without requirements to raise wages.
But media outlets uncritically reported the restaurant industry's narrative about mass closures, and their attempts to "manufacture a crisis," as Draper says, paid off.
While making public appearances with restaurant industry lobbyists, Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser signed legislation halting the wage increases in June—freezing the tipped minimum wage at $10 an hour. She pushed for a full repeal, which would have knocked the tipped wage back down to $8 an hour. But the city council voted it down.
On Monday, despite fierce protests from workers and unions, the city council voted 7-5 to freeze the tipped wage at $10 until July 2026, when it will increase by a measly five cents. They also voted to dramatically slow the tipped wage increases to just 5% each year until 2034, when it will be capped at 75% of the standard minimum wage.
Members of the council, as well as many media outlets, including Axios and The Washington Post, described the decision as a "compromise" between employers and workers. RAMW, which lamented that it was "not a full repeal," has portrayed it that way, though it nevertheless described it as a "win for the industry."
Fair wage activists, however, described it not as a compromise, but an assault on a hard-won democratic victory.
"In what world is this a compromise?" asked One Fair Wage, one of the groups that campaigned for the initiative. "Call it what it is: a pay cut and a betrayal of the working people."
"D.C. Council just voted to overturn the will of the people and freeze wages for tipped workers," said the Fair Budget Coalition in a post on X following the vote. "As rents and other costs rise, it is a CHOICE to maintain a subminimum wage for struggling D.C. residents."
According to EPI, a person living in Washington, D.C. needs to earn just under $31 an hour to afford the cost of living. The average wage paid to tipped workers like bartenders, waiters, and waitresses falls several dollars short of this.
"The voters told us what they wanted when they voted overwhelmingly for I-82—twice—and this is not it," said Brianne Nadeau, one of the council members who voted against reversing the wage hikes. "Restaurant workers and the organizations that represent them have been fighting this battle for wage protections for years, and they shouldn't have to keep fighting it. And this council should not keep on telling the voters they don't know what's best for themselves."
"The council chose corporate lobbyists over tipped workers," said One Fair Wage. To the council members who voted for it, they said: "We see you. We won't forget."
‘We Will Not Accept Foreign Interference’: Brazilian Lawmakers Hit Back Over Trump Economic Warfare
Even right-wing Brazilian politicians are condemning Trump's actions as "an unacceptable attempt at foreign interference."
Jul 31, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is facing international condemnation for his decision to level sanctions against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in a bid to punish him for overseeing the criminal trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a longtime Trump ally.
The Guardian reported on Wednesday that Brazilian political leaders are not backing down in the face of Trump's economic warfare, which includes not only sanctions against Moraes but also 50% tariffs on several key Brazilian exports to the United States, including coffee and beef.
Chamber of Deputies member José Guimarães, a member of the left-wing Partido dos Trabalhadores, described Trump's actions as "a direct attack on Brazilian democracy and sovereignty" and vowed that "we will not accept foreign interference in... our justice system."
Left-wing politicians weren't the only ones to criticize the sanctions and tariffs, as right-wing Partido Novo founder João Amoêdo condemned them as "an unacceptable attempt at foreign interference in the Brazilian justice system." Eduardo Leite, the conservative governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, said he refused to accept "another country trying to interfere in our institutions" as Trump has done.
In justifying the sanctions and tariffs, the Trump White House said they were a measure to combat what it described as "the government of Brazil's politically motivated persecution, intimidation, harassment, censorship, and prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and thousands of his supporters."
Bolsonaro is currently on trial for undertaking an alleged coup plot to prevent the country's current president, Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, from taking power after his victory in Brazil's 2022 presidential election.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of the former president, openly celebrated Trump's punitive measures against Brazil this week, which earned him a stiff rebuke from the editorial board of Folha de São Paulo, one of Brazil's largest daily newspapers. In their piece, the Folha editors labeled Eduardo Bolsonaro an "enemy of Brazil" and said he was behaving like "a buffoon at the feet of a foreign throne" with his open lobbying of the Trump administration to punish his own country.
Elsewhere in the world, the U.K.-based magazine The Economist leveled Trump for his Brazil sanctions, which it described as an "unprecedented" assault on the country's sovereignty. The magazine also outlined the considerable evidence that the former Brazilian president took part in a coup plot, including a plan written out by Bolsonaro deputy chief of staff Mario Fernandes to assassinate or kidnap Lula and Moraes before the end of Bolsonaro's lone presidential term.
U.S. government reform advocacy group Public Citizen was also quick to condemn Trump's actions, which it described as a "shameless power grab."
"Trump's order sets a horrifying precedent that literally any domestic judicial action or democratically enacted policy set by another country could somehow justify a U.S. national emergency and bestow the president with powers far beyond what the Constitution provides," said Melinda St. Louis, global trade watch director at Public Citizen.
St. Louis also predicted that the tariffs on Brazil would soon be tossed out by courts given their capricious justifications, although she said the reputation of the U.S. would suffer "lasting damage."
'So Corrupt': DOJ Drops Antitrust Case Against Company Represented by Bondi's Former Lobbying Firm
"Follow the money," one critic wrote in response to the Justice Department's decision to drop an antitrust case against American Express Global Business Travel.
Jul 31, 2025
The U.S. Justice Department this week dropped an antitrust case against a company represented by the lobbying firm that employed Pam Bondi before her confirmation as attorney general earlier this year.
American Express Global Business Travel (Amex GBT) has paid the lobbying giant Ballard Partners hundreds of thousands of dollars this year to pressure Bondi's Justice Department on "antitrust issues," according to federal disclosures.
The DOJ's decision to drop the antitrust lawsuit, which was initially filed during the final days of the Biden administration, allows Amex GBT's acquisition of rival CWT Holdings to move forward despite concerns that the merger would harm competition in the travel management sector. Amex GBT said it was "pleased" the DOJ dropped the case ahead of trial, which was set to begin in September.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the anti-monopoly American Economic Liberties Project, called the Justice Department's move "so so so corrupt" and urged observers to "follow the money."
Amex GBT paid Ballard Partners $50,000 in the first quarter of 2025 and $150,000 in the second quarter to lobby the Justice Department. Jon Golinger, democracy advocate with Public Citizen, said last week that "the American people deserve to know whether Attorney General Bondi has been involved with her former firm's lobbying and if the red carpet is being rolled out for these clients by the Department of Justice because of her former role at Ballard."
"If Bondi has been involved with the Ballard firm's lobbying, she has likely violated the ethics pledge," Golinger added. "The American people deserve an attorney general who always puts their needs above the special interest agendas of former business associates."
Scrutiny of the Justice Department's decision to drop the Amex GBT case comes amid allegations of corruption surrounding the DOJ's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks last month. It also comes days after the Justice Department fired two of its top antitrust officials.
The American Prospect's David Dayen noted Tuesday that the Justice Department's voluntary dismissal of the Amex GBT lawsuit means the case—unlike the Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper settlement—doesn't have to face a Tunney Act review.
In a statement to the Prospect, a Justice Department spokesperson denied that Bondi had any involvement in the antitrust division's decision to drop the Amex GBT case.
"The smell of corruption has gotten bad enough that they're trying to shape the information environment," Dayen wrote in response to the DOJ statement.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.