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 presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. But individuals lusting for power does not typically end well for the masses—especially the working class.
There is a fable that when Kissinger and Nixon met with Mao Zedong, Mao wondered out loud why the physically unattractive Kissinger was so successful with women. Kissinger quipped, supposedly, that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Anyone who has spent time in political campaigns, political office, or corporate hierarchies, knows there is more than a little truth to Kissinger’s claim. If you hold power or have access to it you are attractive, or at least more attractive than you would be without it. You can feel it and you can use it, and you may do foolish things for fear of losing it. The hunger for it is strong enough to suck away your courage.
Kissinger’s insight gives us, perhaps, a better understanding about how Biden got away with running again when he was so obviously impaired. (You want to kill an aphrodisiac? Talk about your prostate cancer.)
The wound has been reopened with the publication of Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. It is the supposedly shocking story of how Biden’s mental and physical maladies were covered up. (What’s really shocking is how Tapper is hawking his own book on his own CNN show and then also covering it as major news, just a bit like Trump selling meme coins from the White House. Yes, in behalf of all authors, I’m jealous!)
And now the revelation that Biden has Stage 4 prostate cancer is leading to further recriminations that he was hiding his declining health both from the public and from his fellow Democrats.
The basic argument is that those in the know knew that Biden was growing more and more feeble during his presidency and covered up the growing problems by keeping him out of the public eye. As a result, Biden and his team pressed for his reelection, while virtually no one in the Democratic Party resisted publicly, even as polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old to run again.
Why didn’t the Democrats do something about this obvious train wreck in the making? Why didn’t Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren and other congressional progressives call this process into question so there would be time to select a new candidate through primaries? Why didn’t Governors Pritzker and Newsom, along with other presidential hopefuls, say something—anything—to the American public?
The current crop of answers goes something like this: Biden was protected by his “Polit Bureau” of close advisors, as Democrats labeled them. Those in government who were in contact with Biden always reported that he was sharp and fit because he was only made available during his good times. In short, it was largely his advisor’s fault, including his wife Jill, who failed the party and American democracy by protecting him from more scrutiny. And perhaps, more importantly, it was Biden’s foolish ego that pushed him to hold onto power until it was too late.
Much of that may be true, but it’s inadequate. Kissinger’s aphrodisiac explanation goes deeper.
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. How could anything match being the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief of the largest military arsenal in history, and the single person who can control U.S. laws and legislation, from the bully pulpit, by executive order, or with a veto? Everyone wants to kiss your ring.
The president has that power. Power for most everyone else (except for the Supreme Court justices, when they show some spine) is largely derivative. As a result, those who have access to the president are far more powerful than those who do not. Gaining presidential access and then holding on to it is the next best aphrodisiac.
Progressives in Congress—like Sanders, AOC, and Warren—believed they had great influence over Biden and his agenda. There was the repeated bluster that Biden was the most pro-working-class president since FDR. Big ideas, like the Green New Deal, gained Biden’s support, and progressives were often in the center of the action, passing progressive legislation and regulations (even when ambushed by Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema).
Had they dared to question Biden’s re-election run, it is likely, very likely, they would have lost their access in a hurry. That threat no doubt quieted their tongues. Proximity to power may even have led them to ignore Biden’s decline, to avoid seeing it, and even to choose not to think about it. The power-high can do that and more.
What about the presidential hopefuls? They are hungry for the fullest dose of the power aphrodisiac. If they challenged Biden and his incumbent advantage in 2024 and failed, they might never get another chance at that ultimate high. The Biden supporters among Democratic elites, especially, would never forgive them for stepping into the race. And if Biden beat them in the primaries, and then lost to Trump, or if they beat Biden and then lost to Trump, they would get blamed, and their lofty political ambitions would be quashed. Just calling Biden out, without challenging him in the primaries, would get them nowhere but down. Just ask Dean Phillips.
But if they sat back and let Biden win, or fail on his own, then the 2028 would be wide open. Their choice wasn’t that hard. The safest path to power was to bide their time.
Unfortunately, that political pragmatism and surrender to the aphrodisiac might turn out to be enormously problematic for the Democrats. It’s not a given that Trump’s scorched earth policies will flip the House back to the Democrats in 2026, and the Senate map is a particularly tough one for the Democrats. The Biden debacle has voters questioning why Democrats remained dead silent even as the rest of the country could see plainly that Biden was too old to govern.
That silence now leads to more questions about the timing of Biden’s cancer diagnosis. Did he release this information to turn media coverage away from the new book’s revelations? How could he not know of his ailment while he was president, given that he had the best health care support in the country, if not the world?
All this adds to the stains on the Democratic brand and further undermines their credibility, which already is severely tarnished among working-class voters.
As this story festers, it might be a good time for progressives to question their lifelong strategy of rebuilding the Democratic Party into an instrument of working-class justice. Maybe, just maybe, they should concede that task is doomed to failure. Most Democratic Party officials do not want to be the defenders of the working class. Most, in fact, are content to work hand-in-hand with their wealthy donors who have gained their riches by siphoning wealth away from working people.
Instead, it might be time to have a serious discussion about what it will take to build a new working-class political formation, possibly a new party, even if it is going to take a decade and maybe longer to come to fruition.
The billionaires have two political parties. We need one of our own—one that is not intoxicated by the enfeebling lust for power.
"We need to return the Democratic Party to its roots," said one attendee of Sen. Bernie Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy Tour, hoping for a party not beholden to "the corporate interests and the megadonors and the oligarchs."
Polling released Wednesday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows Democratic voters are cynical about the state of politics in the United States and how leaders are chosen under the political system, and they are increasingly pessimistic about their party's future.
The poll—conducted earlier this month, six months after President Donald Trump won a second term and Republicans narrowly claimed both chambers of Congress—found that 55% of Democrats are pessimistic about how political leaders are selected. Seventy-three percent said the same about the state of politics in the country.
Additionally, 36% of Democrats are pessimistic about the future of the party, compared with 35% who are optimistic and 29% who said they are neither. That's a major shift from July 2024, when just 26% were pessimistic, 57% were optimistic, and 16% were neither.
"I'm not real high on Democrats right now," said poll respondent Damien Williams, a 48-year-old Democrat from Cahokia Heights, Illinois and a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, which notably did not endorse in the 2024 presidential contest. "To me, they're not doing enough to push back against Trump."
Williams told The Associated Press that he likely won't feel good about the Democratic Party again "until somebody steps up in terms of being a leader that can bring positive change—an Obama-like figure."
The poll also asked all 1,175 respondents—including Independents and Republicans—about a few political leaders affiliated with the party: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.); Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats and sought their presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020; and progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
A plurality of all voters (43%) have an unfavorable view of Schumer, with 36% not knowing enough to say, and just 21% viewing him favorably. Among Democrats, 31% see him negatively, 34% don't know enough, and 35% have a positive opinion.
Schumer has come under fire for his response to the Trump administration and Republican control of Congress—particularly his March decision to help advance the GOP's stopgap funding bill, which led to calls for his resignation and for Ocasio-Cortez to launch a primary challenge against him for the 2028 cycle.
Across party lines, only 29% of respondents have a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez, but that jumps to 55% among Democrats. While 65% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of the "Squad" member, 50% of Independents don't know enough.
Sanders—who has been traveling the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, with appearances from House progressives including Ocasio-Cortez—has the highest favorability of the three. The full survey class was split: 43% favorable, 40% unfavorable, and 16% unsure. While 72% of Republicans have an unfavorable view, Independents were divided in thirds across the three categories, and 75% of Democrats have a positive view of the senator, with only 13% seeing him negatively and 12% unsure.
Sanders on Wednesday released a video from recent Fighting Oligarchy stops in which Pennsylvania residents shared critiques that align with the poll results. A man named Matthew Bennet said, "I'm not happy with the state of the Democratic Party. We need to return the Democratic Party to its roots, unbeholden [to] the corporate interests and the megadonors and the oligarchs."
Leading up to the November election, officials across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum worked to reelect then-President Joe Biden, who was ultimately replaced as the nominee by then-Vice President Kamala Harris after a disastrous debate performance raised concerns about his fitness for another term.
Writing about Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's new book, Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, for The Nation on Tuesday, Norman Solomon noted:
Partisan denial transcended ideology. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were outspoken in favor of Biden's reelection effort until he withdrew from the race. Progressive legislators were no better than their centrist colleagues in resisting pressure from the Biden White House to pretend that the president was fit to run again, while the Democratic Party's power structure insisted on a position opposed by a sizable majority of the party's voters.
[...]
The operative mentality of Democratic Party leaders is not much different now than it was during the protracted cover-up of Biden's cognitive decline. Today, like a political ghost, Joe Biden haunts the party, with leadership that prefers hagiography to candor.
Since the election, polling has shown that registered Democrats and Independent voters who lean Democratic are frustrated with the party, see no clear leader of it, and want to see elected officials fight harder for working people—and elected progressives, including Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, have been more critical of the party.
In November, Sanders said that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them," and predicted that "the big money interests and well-paid consultants" who control the party probably wouldn't "learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign."
Sanders' comments were met with swift backlash from then-Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who called his take "straight up BS." Six months later, as Wednesday's survey results make clear, voters aren't happy with the party.
"I just feel like the majority of the old Democratic Party needs to go," Democrat Monica Brown, a 61-year-old social worker from Knoxville, Tennessee, told the AP. "They're not in tune with the new generation. They're not in tune with the new world. We've got such division within the party."
That division was on full display last December, when Ocasio-Cortez ran for ranking member of U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, but lost to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)—a 75-year-old soon leaving the post due to his battle with cancer.
Ocasio-Cortez left the panel, and the 35-year-old confirmed last week that she will not return to seek the leadership role, telling reporters, "It's actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary, so I believe I'll be staying put at Energy and Commerce."
On that committee, Ocasio-Cortez called out Republican members early Wednesday for rushing ahead with their proposal to cut Medicaid "at 2:38 in the morning, when everyone is asleep, when we've asked for the opportunity to do this in the light of day so that people can call their representatives' offices in order to stop this disaster."
While there was a clear age gap with Ocasio-Cortez and Connolly, people of various generations fall into the Democratic Party's different factions. For example, 48-year-old Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was sharply criticized for suggesting last month that Americans don't know what oligarchy means, so Democrats should stop saying it—as 83-year-old Sanders' tour centered on that term has drawn more than 250,000 people across several states.
Last week, 42-year-old Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) said he refuses to hold town halls because of Indivisible, a grassroots movement "with a mission to elect progressive leaders, rebuild our democracy, and defeat the Trump agenda."
Both Indivisible and Sanders are now working to mobilize voters nationwide against Republicans' emerging reconciliation package that would provide tax giveaways to wealthy individuals and corporations by gutting programs like Medicaid that serve the working class and raising the national debt they so often complain about by trillions of dollars over the next decade.
"If Trump's 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill goes through, 13.7 million people will lose their health insurance and even more will become underinsured," Sanders warned Tuesday. "Make no mistake, thousands of low-income and working-class Americans will die unnecessarily if it passes. We must not allow it."
A new Brennan Center study found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020.
Every day brings a new story about the outsized role of private wealth in American politics. Elon Musk slashing and burning his way through federal agencies. Billionaire campaign donors like Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon running cabinet departments. Other Trump patrons reportedly shaping policy on everything from crypto to the Middle East. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a small group of major donors is organizing to fund the party’s 2026 push to retake Congress.
And these are only the donors we know about.
The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision ushered in the era of “dark money”—ballooning campaign spending by groups that do not disclose their funding sources. On Wednesday, the Brennan Center published a study by the journalist Anna Massoglia. She found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020. And that’s the money Massoglia could identify—the real total is almost certainly higher, perhaps substantially so.
Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical.
The term “dark money” as we use it refers to election spending by groups that are not legally required to—and do not—disclose their donors. Most of this spending would have been illegal before Citizens United, which eviscerated many long-standing limits on campaign money and led to the creation of super PACs, political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited money on campaigns.
The justices got many things wrong in Citizens United. One of them was their assurance that all the new campaign spending they had just allowed would be transparent, allowing Americans to be fully informed about who was trying to influence their votes.
The justices seem not to have realized, however, that many of the new groups they were now permitting to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns were not subject to any disclosure rules. There have since been numerous efforts to fix this oversight and require all major campaign donors to be made public—most recently as part of the Freedom to Vote Act, which came within two votes of overcoming a Senate filibuster in 2022—but none of those bills have made it through Congress.
Meanwhile, dark money in federal elections has continued to rise—and become even harder to trace. In the years immediately after Citizens United, groups that didn’t reveal their donors tended to purchase their own campaign ads, which were at least reported to the Federal Election Commission if they ran in the weeks before the election and were therefore fairly easy to track. Even if the source of the money was opaque, we could see the spending itself.
Now, as our new analysis shows, reported campaign ads account for just a tiny fraction of dark money spending. Most of it now goes directly into the coffers of super PACs, and some of it pays for online ads and early-cycle TV and radio ads not subject to any legally required disclosure. We are able to track down some of that money due to voluntary disclosures and research using services that monitor TV advertising, but our overall tally of dark money spent in 2024 is an undercount, possibly by a large margin.
Both Republicans and Democrats benefited from significant dark money support in 2024, but the majority of traceable dark money backed Democrats. Most of those funds went toward enormous spending in the presidential race—$1 out of every $6 in dark money that we can track was funneled to Future Forward, the super PAC backing Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. Trump’s dark money support that we know about was not as high, although it still amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars (including more than $35 million that paid for apparent “false flag” ads in swing states designed to look like they came from Harris).
Ultimately, neither party will have any incentive to curb reliance on secret spending absent a change in the law. To congressional Democrats’ credit, they included a fix in the Freedom to Vote Act. It was among the most popular provisions in the bill, enjoying broad public support among voters from both parties.
Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical. Regaining Americans’ trust must include concrete steps to make it easier for them to hold political leaders accountable. Providing the transparency that even Citizens United promised 15 years ago would be a good place to start.