Did y’all know that FDR talked about a Second Bill of Rights in a SOTU address? (I didn’t, and thanks to the Contrarian). “In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognise and should now implement a "second bill of rights". Roosevelt argued that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:
* Employment (right to work)[notes 1]
* An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
When I first registered to vote half a century ago, as a Democrat, the list above reflects the party I thought I was joining. What I found instead was something else, and I wasn't happy. I left and went third party for decades. That went nowhere. A good faith effort turned into a spoiler situation hijacked by creepy people. I rejoined the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie in the primary. It was odd that he was an independent because he reflected the party of FDR IMO more than anyone.
I promise, if the Democrats put that FDR list in action, the grateful voters will return us to office again and again -- as long as we are also fierce about preventing corruption. It is time to put "greed is good" in the dustbin of grotesque ideas. No, greed is bad. Generosity is good. A generous society is a happy society as long as the generosity extends to everyone. This is the moral issue that belongs in the political realm, (not these right-wing freaks obsession with other people's sex lives that they for some reason call "morality.")
This predates MAGA. This toxic society is of long standing. Here's a song from 20 years ago, that captures the worldview that brought us here better than anything I've ever heard
Hi Simon and friends - I love that montage of headshots of our candidates, Simon. The face of a new and improved Democratic Party in the United States. Thanks for bringing us all the interviews, which have really been delightful to watch.
Simon's weekly call recap yesterday and discussion about liberty made me think of this excellent NYT op-ed from 3 years back about the end of Roe and the hypocrisy of the republican "pro life" stance. French outlines how republicans aren't even libertarian, they instead are libertines, where libertinism “says my desires are more important than your rights…which means that libertines are terrible ambassadors for any cause that requires self-sacrifice," as he says.
Trump himself embodies libertinism while rejecting the values of self-sacrifice and the development of character, which were once traditional conservative values meant to preserve the status quo. Instead, libertinism is “happy to inflict its will on others if it achieves what it wants," as the article says. For French, the Covid pandemic revealed the hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s libertine turn, demanding that women exercise self-control, while insisting on total freedom for themselves. As he notes in the article,
"I don’t think the pro-life movement has fully reckoned with the political and cultural fallout from the libertine right-wing response to the Covid pandemic. Here was a movement that was loudly telling women that they had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the physical transformations, risks and financial uncertainties that come with pregnancy and childbirth, at the same time that millions of its members were also loudly refusing the minor inconveniences of masking and the low risks of vaccination."
All republicanism is these days is, "I get to do what I want, when I want, and you can't do anything about it...and if you hold me accountable, I'm being unfairly restricted."
Simon, you have 10 (10!) requests for donations! It used to be a simple 1 or 2. I would like to ask you again to simplify your lists by combining groups (like Senators Fund) or something like that. Iowa is already in the Expanding the Map group. Add Ohio to that group. 10 separate donations is too many asks and is too confusing. The KISS principle has shown to be the most effective in soliciting donations. 10 choices for anything (like salsa?) is overwhelming. :-)
Mark, a few comments: 1) the playing field is bigger now, both in comparison to 2024 and now that many primaries have ended. There are more choices and opportunities so we will also have more here. 2) I am in the process of overhauling the recommendations. Some will contract, some will expand. 3) Not true that we ever had 1 or 2 options to give. In 2024 in the general we had many options to give, at least 7, perhaps more. Anyway I hear you on simplicity and look for changes in the coming days......
I cancelled my $10 recurring to Turek, but then put $15 recurring to "Winning Iowa". Postcarding. Looking forward to the Elias and Richardson discussions. I've been donating monthly to Democracy Docket for years now.
The "Winning Iowa" fund seems like money well spent. It goes toward building up the Iowa state party, Josh Turek for the Senate, the incredibly talented Rob Sand for governor, and three competitive Congressional races--all in a State with about 3.2 million people.
A word about the candidates in NY who Mamdami supported and who won over good, moderate Democrats already in Congress and who have been fighting the good fight against the regime. I think it’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to make the Big Tent so expensive that we allow candidates with extreme views, not reflective of Democratic Party views, to run as Democrats. They aren’t. I think they’re using the Democratic Party label but will hurt the Party in the end. It appears the incumbents lost because they chose to support Israel ( they could separate support of the country from supporting Bibi’s government, but that made no difference).
While Mamdami is a very attractive politician, I think it’s a mistake to allow people who hold too many positions that are at odds with those of the Democratic Party to run as Democrats. They aren’t. If they win on their own, calling themselves whatever they want, and then wish to caucus with the Democrats once in Congress, that can be decided separately. Republicans already falsely call all Democrats “ Communists” and “ Socialists,” so it doesn’t help to have people in the Party who are in fact more closely aligned in their thinking with those views. They are taking advantage of the Party label without truly being Democrats and I believe are hurting the Party brand in the process. We should not allow it.
Clara thanks for this thoughtful post on a tough subject. I think we are going to have to talk through all of this together, keeping a few things in mind: 1) The DSA see themselves as opponents to the Democratic Party, not a reform movement within it. Bernie for example remains an independent, outside the Party. 2) The issue that has come up in my mind is both extreme views *and* the lack of vetting of DSA backed candidates. If they want to become bigger players they are going to have to do a much better job at vetting their candidates.
As I said the other night we should welcome this discussion inside the family, not run from it.
Thanks as always Simon. I just made contributions across the board for many of these candidates. I’ve made some cuts to my fun projects and decided to move some of that money into higher contributions for our hardworking candidates. I’m not going to leave a penny on the table.
I've been going to some of the Progressive sites I follow on YouTube this morning where the DSA crowd is getting a bit too giddy over the results last Tuesday, equating the "establishment wing" with the GOP. I'm reposting comments I made there, adjusting my comments to the different audience.
"The difference between Republicans and Establishment Dems is FACISM. We must win the midterms for the Democratic Party to stop Trump and begin investigations on the adminstration criminals to set the stage for real consequences after Dems take control of the government in 2029.
Seating majorities in both houses in a peaceful transfer of power is job one for all pro-democracy activists and MUST be the focus now. THEN we can continue to push against the establishment wing of the blue team. IF we get out over our skiis too early fighting among ourselves and the FASCIST GOP wins this Fall, then we are all F*CKED.
FIrst things first. Progressives and DSA has made important strides this Primary season. In the General Election you go with the team you have and get behind ALL of them to halt the flow of Fascism.. The larger the Blue Tsunami in November, the harder it is for Maga and Trump to cheat and create a sh*tshow between November and January when the new Congress takes power."
We all need to recognize that every foreign government with sophisticated influence operations are going to be doing everything they can to foment a civil war between DSAers and the establishment party. Here's a statement from our ODNI in 2024 about how Iran amplified the Gaza protests in 2024:
"We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters."
These four paragraphs very clearly explain why people are voting out some Democratic incumbents:
"... I’m focused principally on DSA and DSA-aligned factional Democrats here because they’re having a moment. But the liberal establishment still runs the Democratic Party and their theory is, if anything, worse.
In the mainline, you’ll see influential figures who decline to endorse nominees to their left, or even threaten to leave the party when primary voters make choices they don’t like.
You see a strategic approach to building power and checking Trump that begins and ends with winning elections and padding margins. Winning is obviously the predicate of all political power building—but it is also table stakes. And in the establishment, the approach is rote and reductive: It’s to support primary candidates who poll best head-to-head against Republicans, which typically means throwing support to the most moderate, most change-averse candidate in every primary field.
But to what end? When a party selects for wallflowers, the ambition for reform of any kind—procedural or substantive—will be shallow. It will build a big majority that makes peace with the post-Trump status quo; that hopes people can be hypnotized—with antiseptic policy ideas and promises of normalcy—into treating Trump-era wreckage as a new baseline. ..."
Many Democrats are tired of Democrats winning and then not much happening to reform our system. They want real reform so that average people are in charge of the government, not billionaires, not corporate CEOs, not politicians. They want a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not one that says, "well we can't do that because the existing laws or rich, powerful people or religious customs from 15th century puritans say we can't." They want fighters who will change society so it is actually responsive to them.
SubStack is so confusing!!
Where is the new "Listen" button?
The button is definitely easier to find than the arrow, but shouldn't it be there on every post?
This might help. https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/7265753724692-How-do-I-listen-to-a-Substack-post
Did y’all know that FDR talked about a Second Bill of Rights in a SOTU address? (I didn’t, and thanks to the Contrarian). “In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognise and should now implement a "second bill of rights". Roosevelt argued that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:
* Employment (right to work)[notes 1]
* An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
* Farmers' rights to a fair income
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
* Decent housing
* Adequate medical care
* Social security
* Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
When I first registered to vote half a century ago, as a Democrat, the list above reflects the party I thought I was joining. What I found instead was something else, and I wasn't happy. I left and went third party for decades. That went nowhere. A good faith effort turned into a spoiler situation hijacked by creepy people. I rejoined the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie in the primary. It was odd that he was an independent because he reflected the party of FDR IMO more than anyone.
I promise, if the Democrats put that FDR list in action, the grateful voters will return us to office again and again -- as long as we are also fierce about preventing corruption. It is time to put "greed is good" in the dustbin of grotesque ideas. No, greed is bad. Generosity is good. A generous society is a happy society as long as the generosity extends to everyone. This is the moral issue that belongs in the political realm, (not these right-wing freaks obsession with other people's sex lives that they for some reason call "morality.")
This predates MAGA. This toxic society is of long standing. Here's a song from 20 years ago, that captures the worldview that brought us here better than anything I've ever heard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_7SnuZ2IA
god bless fdr! our best ever president!
Hi Simon and friends - I love that montage of headshots of our candidates, Simon. The face of a new and improved Democratic Party in the United States. Thanks for bringing us all the interviews, which have really been delightful to watch.
Please include Central and Pacific Time in your announcements and automatic calendar posts.
Simon's weekly call recap yesterday and discussion about liberty made me think of this excellent NYT op-ed from 3 years back about the end of Roe and the hypocrisy of the republican "pro life" stance. French outlines how republicans aren't even libertarian, they instead are libertines, where libertinism “says my desires are more important than your rights…which means that libertines are terrible ambassadors for any cause that requires self-sacrifice," as he says.
Trump himself embodies libertinism while rejecting the values of self-sacrifice and the development of character, which were once traditional conservative values meant to preserve the status quo. Instead, libertinism is “happy to inflict its will on others if it achieves what it wants," as the article says. For French, the Covid pandemic revealed the hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s libertine turn, demanding that women exercise self-control, while insisting on total freedom for themselves. As he notes in the article,
"I don’t think the pro-life movement has fully reckoned with the political and cultural fallout from the libertine right-wing response to the Covid pandemic. Here was a movement that was loudly telling women that they had to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the physical transformations, risks and financial uncertainties that come with pregnancy and childbirth, at the same time that millions of its members were also loudly refusing the minor inconveniences of masking and the low risks of vaccination."
All republicanism is these days is, "I get to do what I want, when I want, and you can't do anything about it...and if you hold me accountable, I'm being unfairly restricted."
https://archive.ph/XEBnH
Simon, you have 10 (10!) requests for donations! It used to be a simple 1 or 2. I would like to ask you again to simplify your lists by combining groups (like Senators Fund) or something like that. Iowa is already in the Expanding the Map group. Add Ohio to that group. 10 separate donations is too many asks and is too confusing. The KISS principle has shown to be the most effective in soliciting donations. 10 choices for anything (like salsa?) is overwhelming. :-)
Mark, a few comments: 1) the playing field is bigger now, both in comparison to 2024 and now that many primaries have ended. There are more choices and opportunities so we will also have more here. 2) I am in the process of overhauling the recommendations. Some will contract, some will expand. 3) Not true that we ever had 1 or 2 options to give. In 2024 in the general we had many options to give, at least 7, perhaps more. Anyway I hear you on simplicity and look for changes in the coming days......
I cancelled my $10 recurring to Turek, but then put $15 recurring to "Winning Iowa". Postcarding. Looking forward to the Elias and Richardson discussions. I've been donating monthly to Democracy Docket for years now.
The "Winning Iowa" fund seems like money well spent. It goes toward building up the Iowa state party, Josh Turek for the Senate, the incredibly talented Rob Sand for governor, and three competitive Congressional races--all in a State with about 3.2 million people.
A word about the candidates in NY who Mamdami supported and who won over good, moderate Democrats already in Congress and who have been fighting the good fight against the regime. I think it’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to make the Big Tent so expensive that we allow candidates with extreme views, not reflective of Democratic Party views, to run as Democrats. They aren’t. I think they’re using the Democratic Party label but will hurt the Party in the end. It appears the incumbents lost because they chose to support Israel ( they could separate support of the country from supporting Bibi’s government, but that made no difference).
While Mamdami is a very attractive politician, I think it’s a mistake to allow people who hold too many positions that are at odds with those of the Democratic Party to run as Democrats. They aren’t. If they win on their own, calling themselves whatever they want, and then wish to caucus with the Democrats once in Congress, that can be decided separately. Republicans already falsely call all Democrats “ Communists” and “ Socialists,” so it doesn’t help to have people in the Party who are in fact more closely aligned in their thinking with those views. They are taking advantage of the Party label without truly being Democrats and I believe are hurting the Party brand in the process. We should not allow it.
Clara thanks for this thoughtful post on a tough subject. I think we are going to have to talk through all of this together, keeping a few things in mind: 1) The DSA see themselves as opponents to the Democratic Party, not a reform movement within it. Bernie for example remains an independent, outside the Party. 2) The issue that has come up in my mind is both extreme views *and* the lack of vetting of DSA backed candidates. If they want to become bigger players they are going to have to do a much better job at vetting their candidates.
As I said the other night we should welcome this discussion inside the family, not run from it.
I Will do a couple of Hopium things today, then onto my own work. Have a good Saturday everyone.
Thanks as always Simon. I just made contributions across the board for many of these candidates. I’ve made some cuts to my fun projects and decided to move some of that money into higher contributions for our hardworking candidates. I’m not going to leave a penny on the table.
I've been going to some of the Progressive sites I follow on YouTube this morning where the DSA crowd is getting a bit too giddy over the results last Tuesday, equating the "establishment wing" with the GOP. I'm reposting comments I made there, adjusting my comments to the different audience.
"The difference between Republicans and Establishment Dems is FACISM. We must win the midterms for the Democratic Party to stop Trump and begin investigations on the adminstration criminals to set the stage for real consequences after Dems take control of the government in 2029.
Seating majorities in both houses in a peaceful transfer of power is job one for all pro-democracy activists and MUST be the focus now. THEN we can continue to push against the establishment wing of the blue team. IF we get out over our skiis too early fighting among ourselves and the FASCIST GOP wins this Fall, then we are all F*CKED.
FIrst things first. Progressives and DSA has made important strides this Primary season. In the General Election you go with the team you have and get behind ALL of them to halt the flow of Fascism.. The larger the Blue Tsunami in November, the harder it is for Maga and Trump to cheat and create a sh*tshow between November and January when the new Congress takes power."
We all need to recognize that every foreign government with sophisticated influence operations are going to be doing everything they can to foment a civil war between DSAers and the establishment party. Here's a statement from our ODNI in 2024 about how Iran amplified the Gaza protests in 2024:
"We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters."
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2024/3842-statement-from-director-of-national-intelligence-avril-haines-on-recent-iranian-influence-efforts
I think this op-ed by Brian Beutler is very smart and insightful: "In Search Of A Shared Theory Of Power"
https://www.offmessage.net/p/shared-theory-of-power-zohran-mamdani-bernie-sanders-hakeem-jeffries-darializa-avila-chevalier-newyork-donald-trump-gavin-newsom-gerrymandering-beto-orourke-pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-
These four paragraphs very clearly explain why people are voting out some Democratic incumbents:
"... I’m focused principally on DSA and DSA-aligned factional Democrats here because they’re having a moment. But the liberal establishment still runs the Democratic Party and their theory is, if anything, worse.
In the mainline, you’ll see influential figures who decline to endorse nominees to their left, or even threaten to leave the party when primary voters make choices they don’t like.
You see a strategic approach to building power and checking Trump that begins and ends with winning elections and padding margins. Winning is obviously the predicate of all political power building—but it is also table stakes. And in the establishment, the approach is rote and reductive: It’s to support primary candidates who poll best head-to-head against Republicans, which typically means throwing support to the most moderate, most change-averse candidate in every primary field.
But to what end? When a party selects for wallflowers, the ambition for reform of any kind—procedural or substantive—will be shallow. It will build a big majority that makes peace with the post-Trump status quo; that hopes people can be hypnotized—with antiseptic policy ideas and promises of normalcy—into treating Trump-era wreckage as a new baseline. ..."
Many Democrats are tired of Democrats winning and then not much happening to reform our system. They want real reform so that average people are in charge of the government, not billionaires, not corporate CEOs, not politicians. They want a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not one that says, "well we can't do that because the existing laws or rich, powerful people or religious customs from 15th century puritans say we can't." They want fighters who will change society so it is actually responsive to them.