Even in a Populist Moment, Democrats Are Split on the Problem of Corporate Power

Will be a one-party system.

Because there is no legal pathway[1] towards solving the conditions that create the two party system, but there are many illegal offramps that will get rid of one of those parties.

---

[1] There are way too many obstacles, and the bar for consensus is too high to legally have these reforms. The bar is much lower for having them illegally - all you need is a single-party trifecta - lead by the kinds of people who'd start a coup rather than relinquish power.

The fences on many countries are to keep people in. For the US, it is to keep people out.

Unfortunately, ignoring the public sphere and pretending that professionals are above such things is why we're now stuck with someone like Robert Kennedy Jr running HHS. This guy grew enough of a following and movement to reach a position of power and influence and he was barely challenged by experts all along the way.

That would actually be a major improvement over what we have. Right now public policy decisions seem to get hashed out by nutjob activists on social media, not "average people."

Also the "research[ers and] experts" need to own up to their own responsibility for this situation. Right now we live in a populist moment because they got caught up in their own ideology and group-think, which created an opening for someone like Donald Trump. They should have seen the problems he used to build his support, and came up with effective solutions for them.

Please, can you even hear yourself?

Last election cycle, the incumbent president was pushed out of the race, largely initiated by an actor that lacks a college degree.

> The end result is of course populism. Each election cycle gets us closer to the policy positions of the Republicans being "Immigrants are bad" and Democrats being "Billionaires are bad".

Except immigrants have nothing to do with how bad things are going, while billionaires (and what they represent) are effectively the architects of this situation. "Billionaires are bad" is an oversimplified, but ultimately correct analysis of the issues of our time.

FDR basically saved the country from fascism with his "robber barons are bad" campaign. I deplore the fall into populism just as much as the next guy, but this is what the situation calls for. Social networks only play a minor part in all of this. Material conditions are degrading, and unrest will only grow until they start improving.

This country's governance has been subservient to capital, basically forever, and unchecked private power is now eating it from the inside. This is what must be fixed if this republic is to have any future, and the populist left is the only band of the political spectrum that at least acknowledges the issue.

Maybe not, but, then again, it might not work with them on board, either. The problem is that the Hastings-Klein branch of the Democratic party is incompatible with the populist/anti-corporate branch. Either one could form the basis of a viable electoral strategy, but not both at the same time. At bare minimum, they need to adopt the Republican strategy of picking one and not saying the quiet part out loud about the other.

We are probably overdue for a realignment of the two parties on the major issues, like the Grainger Movement, New Deal or Southern Strategy.

> How many people would jump ship if you excommunicated Reed Hastings and Ezra Klein, and which are the Republican voters who would be swayed to replace (and hopefully more-than-replace) them? Without good answers to these questions, there's a very real risk of creating an energized, passionate, anti-corporate Democratic party which simply does not have any path to 270 electoral votes.

Some large fraction (enough to tip the election) voted mainly on "are prices higher today than 4 years ago?" and "are jobs harder to find than they were 4 years ago?". The current administration's campaign largely got the diagnosis right, even if its prescription is the political equivalent of bloodletting and leeches.

Those are easy pickings for an anti-corporate Democratic party with the right message. By contrast, voters economically aligned with Hastings-Klein make up probably only 10% (the most wealthy 10%) of the population. That seems like an obvious trade. The two problems are: the money spigot turns off if you make that trade; and to really pull off this strategy probably requires a tricky (without seeming heartless) policy realignment on certain parts of immigration policy.

OTOH, they could fully align with Hasting-Klein economically. But that requires a different set of policy realignment tradeoffs to remain viable: A significant rightward shift on most social issues (like LGBTQ rights, guns, religion in schools and police) to peel off some of those voters from the Republican party. Probably also pot legalization and assistance for drug-addicted rural voters.

By people do you mean voters or donors?

I suspect that approximately zero voters would care.

> which are the Republican voters who would be swayed to replace (and hopefully more-than-replace) them?

This is a false dichotomy. At this point, Republicans cannot be swayed by anything. Trump just said that Rob Reiner was murdered because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome". It's impossible for him to lose his loyal followers, no matter what he does or anyone else does.

Both major political parties are extremely unpopular among nonpartisans. They plug their noses and vote, if they vote at all. In the 2024 Presidential election, 37% of eligible voters voted for neither, mostly for nothing, whereas only 32% of eligible voters voted for Trump. Swing voters and nonvoters are not necessarily "moderate". That's a myth. They're nonpartisan, which is not to say that they're "between" the two parties. Many of them hardly even pay attention to politics. There's a lot of room to appeal to people who are disaffected with the system.

The most popular politician in the US is Bernie Sanders. And the reason is that he's the most popular politician among political independents. He's not the most popular politician among Democrats (which is why he lost the Democratic nomination), and obviously he's not the most popular politician among Republicans, but across the whole spectrum, he's more popular than anyone else.

It's also important to note that it wasn't until after the Reagan Presidency (and arguably due to its policies) that the ultra-wealthy came to monopolize most increases in personal income, so populism itself wouldn't have been as popular in the 1980s as it is now, as economic disparity has grown unabated in the decades since.