DJT is a bomb-throwing self-aggrandizing idiot. Until the chaos threatens folks making $150,000.00 a year, they will continue to support dear leader. PERIOD!!! The Civil Rights Movement had a great strategy that worked. Lawyers, judges, and politicians buried whatever the Civil Rights movement accomplished. Make it make sense!!!
I don't agree with any of those things but what about the stuff in an hour on the backyard? What about these things that we need to start figuring out in order to focus on moving forward? The points I made in this quick 10 minute teaser podcast are almost everything that we need to consider if winning in 2028 is something that we want
A great strategy trains the lowest members of the organization. Commitment is the key. The Civil Rights Movement had folks filling out their wills in case they were murdered in the streets. They taught non violent behavior and made certain that everyone on the team understood what non violent behavior was.
Reagan made government a pay-as- you-go business, rather than a public trust. He privatized government and plundered our entitlement systems. Lowered corporate rent from 90% to 28%, leaving taxpayers to make up the loss in revenue.
Hey Robert I'm thinking about taking your advice and taking a couple of days off substack because I have a podcast with the potential Congressman on Wednesday and I have a post for tomorrow done so I'm going to just let it ride. Any books that you might recommend?
I'm surprised to read that only 6% of the left identifies as socialist. So 94% of the left wants basically the same thing and can't pull it together? That doesn't look good. Still, we need to push to find people across the spectrum who are willing to play well with others.
I'm confident that it CAN happen. It's going to take time and dedication and those are two things that, obviously, are scarce resources.
I think the 6% number actually proves something important: most people on the left are not socialists. They're not asking for the government to own the means of production. They're asking for capitalism that still works for ordinary people.
The problem is that we've spent 30 years treating every criticism of corporate power as socialism and every criticism of government as right-wing extremism.
Americans overwhelmingly agree on more than social media would have you believe. Most people want affordable housing, affordable healthcare, wages that keep up with productivity, functioning infrastructure, competition instead of monopolies, and politicians who answer to voters instead of donors.
That's not socialism. That's the basic promise of a healthy republic.
The irony is that America's strongest periods weren't built on pure laissez-faire capitalism or centralized socialism. They were built on regulated markets, aggressive antitrust enforcement, strong labor participation, public investment, and private innovation working together.
The left won't save itself by moving further left. The right won't save itself by moving further right. America gets stronger when both sides stop treating compromise as surrender and start treating problem-solving as the job.
Most Americans aren't asking for a revolution. They're asking for a system that rewards work more than speculation, citizens more than lobbyists, and families more than political tribes. The fact that we've turned those goals into ideological warfare is probably the real problem.
Ideological warfare is the product that generates clicks, views and money. Follow the money. Who profits? Fox, Meta, TicToc, etc. The balanced economic model is boring and doesn’t sell or grab attention or mobilize.
America needs a lightning rod. A charismatic leader who speaks to the majority with a message for a system of checks and balances, rule of law and fairness… and a promise that something can be done about it.
Don’t conflate Socialism with Communism. One is the pipe dream of an embittered German philosopher & the other is, with a few fixes, a fairly workable governing philosophy.
Hey Robert! I'm glad you wrote I was thinking about you today and i haven't heard from you in a few days! I count on you to keep me honest, man! Haha. So… I know that socialism and communism aren't the same thing… and my point wasn't to conflate them when I gave that reply... it was just explaining what this poll I wrote about in the article said….
I do believe that most Republicans and at least the younger Democrats need a solid lesson on the difference between a word and what trade-offs would be necessary to accomplish this in the Democracy that we have currently.
For decades, socialism been used as a catch-all insult for everything from the Affordable Care Act to student loan relief to opposing right wing politicians… while others use it to describe Nordic-style social democracies.
The result is that people often end up arguing over labels instead of policies.
My concern isn't with social welfare programs…. We've got plenty of those: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, public schools, public infrastructure, and even enormous government support for industries like defense (which is pretty much a jobs program for 3 million people + a government subsidized weapons industry).
Those arencompatible with capitalism and have existed alongside it for a long time and do so in most countries. They're part of a mixed economy, which the United States has ALWAYS been.
I'm skeptical of organizations like the DSA advocating “replacing capitalism rather than reforming it or better yet and forcing the guardrails that we currently ignore.
My problem with the way that they campaign is that they are putting a divider down the left wing by misinforming people. If they're claiming that electing them to run the country I would make it possible redefine our economy.. when nobody has even figured out how to get a candidate to run for either party that isn't completely funded by billionaires and corporations… they're selling a bumper sticker word socialism as a cure-all for financially strapped Millennial and genZ generations… and we have understand why they are looking for a savior because the system sure hasn't worked in their adult life.
I don't think capitalism is what broke America. I think decades of weakened antitrust enforcement, regulatory capture, stagnant wages, monopolization, financialization, and the growing influence of money in politics broke the version of capitalism we have today.
To me, the answer isn't choosing between capitalism and socialism. It's enforcing the rules that made capitalism work in the first place: real competition, strong labor protections, antitrust enforcement, and public investments that create opportunity. We built one of the strongest middle classes in history with a mixed economy. I'd rather fix that model than throw it out.
Ironically, I think if we stopped arguing over labels and started talking about specific policies, we'd discover that people on both sides agree far more often than they realize. Humans do love turning vocabulary quizzes into blood feuds. It's one of our less efficient hobbies.
First comment; the use of Socialism & Communism as labels is usually the sign of lazy thinking. Left or Right.
Next, you are absolutely correct about the decline of Capitalism. As the guardrails weakened & collapsed the post war “Economic Miracle” deflated.
Excessive greed by large corporations & the strangling of the labor movement championed by so-called “Movement Conservatives”* & their Congressional allies as a case in point.
Which leads us to Grover Norquist & his attacks on the Progressive Taxation system. Pernicious & destructive & unimaginable in its consequences.
Can U say BillionaireBros?
Or Trillion Dollar corporations paying Zip-a-Dee-Do-Dah in taxes?
Just assessing & collecting their fair share of taxes would balance the budget & pay off the National Debt.
Harden your hearts & close your ears to “Higher Consumer Prices.”
That’s BS scare tactics.
Make’m bring those hidden profits back on-shore.
So, Capitalism with consequences, strong labor law, enforceable contract law & yes certain aspects of a socialist “Social Contract.”
Single Payer Health Care for all as a Public Health system, like clean water & clean air.
Free & equitable education K thru college or trade school - think GI Bill.
Solid infrastructure, roads, bridges, water ways, harbors & airports.
A government that serves the people.
& finally, a chastened, disciplined & expanded SCOTUS. Consequences for current & past corruption, an Ethics Code W teeth & staggered term limited service.
Resist
Ave Populus
We Shall Overcome
Avance la Lucha
*Not enough condemnation can be expressed about these idjits.
Their morphing into Neo-Liberals in order to present a more friendly face did nothing to mask the destruction they wrought. Not just here, the European Union is still cleaning up from their wrong headed actions.
Well I’m reading a bunch of Space Westerns & Fantasy as well as a dive into The Federalist Papers, which I haven’t read in 55 yrs or so. “The Pursuit of Liberty,” by Jeffery Rosen, Ty recommended that one. Blaze Ward, writes snappy SciFi series that are just plain fun. Snarky dialogue & ripping plots. & a very English fantasy series by Mark Hayden. The cultural stuff is almost incomprehensible but it adds to the fun. Pure escape. Very little redeeming intellectual merit.
First time here, Rxan, and the initial thing I always do is find out more about people's credentials. What is your background as an 'investigative journalist,' please? (Critical Thinking 101.) I just can't find it, but then I avoid social media.
Thank you for letting us comment. You make a lot of good points, many which have been made already by others, about the "Big Tent" party. The fact that everyone who is trying to flee overfed and abusive capitalism is forced to go to the one *other* party, is a problem. We eventually must have more parties -- parties that can serve as transactional buffers and instruments of nudging the mainstream into positive change. Like the rest of the developed world?
I do believe that there's a generational shift happening that is trying to find its way. Problem is, every damn time we try a label on, it's immediately demonized by the right's machine (Thanks, Rup, you bastard).
The young look at Europe and mistake "democratic socialism" for "socialism." The former is simply capitalism with a lot of popular input and extremely strong guardrails. That's how it should be, and we can design a political system tailored to *our* needs, as opposed to small EU nations.
Capitalism has been a horse out of the corral for a very long time. Some of our countermanding system has performed to saddle it; much has neglected the duty of harnessing capitalism or even exulted in and benefited from the wildness. That's destructive as hell. It just takes longer. In the event it's reparable, it usually takes extreme measures, as in FDR's personal income tax on the wealthy. The ricochet is harsh and enemies are made.
You are 100% correct in that Dems need branding. The problem is, it always gets pulled toward the Center, and that is somewhat stagnant at this point. And "socialism" is too scary to use in almost all campaigns. It's used carelessly to express a legitimate need that can't be ignored any longer.
We must solve this, and the DNC and DCCC don't help. Where is the damn "autopsy"? Where is our discussion of our problems? It must be center stage and look like solutions or else it weakens us profoundly. We can't let the right continue to demonize us. It's poison on a weakened media.
Your continued discussion of the "where do we go from here?" thing is welcomed. One cautionary: please do not cite the Manhattan Institute, led by Betsy DeVos, and birthed by a former head of our CIA? That is a thinktank that has its own agenda.
Thank you for the time you took to talk about this problem!
Hi S.A., Thanks for that thoughtful response and the time you took to write all of that out. Those kinds of comments are rare now because most online political discourse has pretty much devolve to people throwing tribal grenades at each other. I want to give you a complete answer and I'll do my best.
To answer your question directly: I’m not a traditional investigative journalist in the traditional career path sense. My background is actually in business administration and management, with an M.A. in Political Science. Both degrees are from the University of Delaware in Newark. Most of my life was spent building businesses while independently studying politics, history, economics, media systems, psychology, and institutional behavior obsessively for years. I moved to Washington DC in 2022 for an interesting opportunity within the political infrastructure working as a very strategic component in a much bigger system and after about 18 months I needed to leave because it made me so jaded and that's one of the reasons that I need to write on substack privately now ( something I started in the fall of 2025, and just started engaging with readers last month. I wanted to take a lot of my work, polish it up, and format it for substack and I did my best to build a credible Foundation so if somebody wants to dive down the rabbit hole, they should get a good sense of who I am.
What I’m trying to do now is combine that with writing, commentary, and evidence-based analysis outside the typical partisan ecosystem.
I probably should make that clearer publicly, honestly. However, even the detail I've given above is such a small part of the whole story and I'd rather talk about that outside of the comment section. I haven't decided how much I'm going to disclose when I start my podcast on sub stack which will be a weekly live feature that I teased today a bit….
But… what pushed me into this space is EXACTLY the broader issue you’re describing: beyond feeling… a knowing that both parties, media institutions, and even many ideological movements have become trapped in branding, tribalism, donor incentives, and reactionary politics instead of structural reform. Trump accelerated many of these fractures, but I believe he created few (maybe none) of them. In many ways he exposed weaknesses that were already there, and if you know his bankruptcy background, and a lot of bankruptcy backgrounds of billionaires in this country , who become Wealthy by bleeding the beast, it would make sense as somebody that is really anything but your traditional (R). Bernie Sanders felt the opposite result.
I also agree with you that Americans confuse “democratic socialism” in the European sense with centralized state socialism. Most successful societies are still fundamentally capitalist. The difference is whether capitalism is restrained by strong guardrails, labor PROTECTIONS, functional healthcare Systems, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY anti-corruption mechanisms /campaign finance limits/nstitutions that prevent wealth from swallowing democracy.
Where I diverge from parts of the modern left is that I how I view branding and messaging. They matter far more than many activists want to admit. If a label instantly alienates half the country before policy is discussed, it becomes politically self-defeating whether the underlying ideas have merit or not. Republicans understood emotional branding decades before Dems and they played dirty long before Dems, who are very bad at it.
I SO share your frustration w/ DNC’s inability to conduct a serious public autopsy after repeated failures. A healthy political movement MUST criticize itself openly without treating dissent like betrayal. That’s why I wrote this piece in the first place. It's it's inevitable so I started.
And regarding the Manhattan Institute point: fair enough. I actually think people should critically examine ALL think tanks, left and right. One thing I try to do is pull data, arguments, and observations from across ideological lines without fully outsourcing my thinking to any institution. Everyone has incentives and blind spots. My goal = trying to triangulate reality underneath narratives.
Why aren’t you in some leadership role trying to steer the country or party ? It seems we need people who are thinkers and can clearly articulate the problems. Something we are seriously lacking.
Thank you for the compliment, Jo. I never considered public service but it has been occurring to me lately that one of the most certain ways out of this chaos and corrupt country that we currently live in, is for people that never thought they would run for office... Try to get involved in running... I would consider it but I would certainly need help for my subscribers to figure out the best way. I am about 6 miles from the capitol so I'm in the right location
I'm so sorry, Rxan . . . I got behind in my email and missed your extremely helpful response. Surely all of your readers will appreciate this personal detail. You have an impressive resume! You should do well on Substack, given enough time.
I was into my bank yesterday and the young woman teller said she watched a number of Substacks. It's going places, and interesting, intelligent people want to be along for the ride. (Long story as to why we got on the subject, but it made sense at the time. ;)
Looking forward to more of your thoughtful screeds!
Well that's good news. I am ironically on it because I don't like social media and have been pretty invisible and pretty handicapped by the fact I can't crosspost to other platforms, but the reason that I picked Substack was because of the caliber of people I found. The fact that readers actually engaged meaningfully and do so after reading things was a welcome change for me... Those 15 second videos really rub me the wrong way and every platform rewards of people that posts them..
I posted something yesterday it's part of my narrative verse reality series called the Doom generation. I think you would like it... Explored why Gen-Z approaches politics the way that they do.
Both parties run bad candidates. Both parties mostly ignore the needs/wants of the 80%. Why? How can they possibly win? Because the voters are given 2 bad choices. It's as if one party runs Hitler and the other runs Stalin, and the public is asked to vote for one of those. And if you don't then your are throwing your vote away. ... .SO the parties know, or believe, they can run awful candidates and awful platforms, and will get votes anyway. It's worked so far....
I think you're getting at the incentive problem more than the candidate problem... Although the candidates they let us see are all really bad... If voters are repeatedly told, "This is the most important election ever, so you have to pick one of these two," the parties have less reason to earn support and more reason to rely on fear of the other side.
That's how standards keep dropping. The real question isn't whether one party is worse than the other. It's why a system with 330+ million people keeps producing choices that leave tens of millions feeling politically homeless. Until we fix the incentives, we'll keep arguing over symptoms instead of the disease.
Somehow, the parties don't have to align with the values of the voters. Not even 80% of the voters. They throw out emotional divisive stuff like Guns, Abortion, to get those one-issue voters. It feels like distraction.
There is a HUGE concern that emotionally charged issues can dominate campaigns and media coverage.
And if those issues matter “deeply” to many people…they claim that they're not just distractions. That's true, but my point is this country has bad things happening that we don't know about all of the time and you could get upset every second of every day. Certain things are just not news and the way they frame them is shameful.
The challenge is making room to discuss the outrage with a priority restriction without ignoring the broad economic and governance issues that affect nearly everyone.
I don’t know if the Democrats can stop the DSA from taking their party over, but I sure hope they can. I view the DSA as an existential threat to the Republic. They want to dismantle the constitution nationalize airlines and all other essential industries defund the police close all the jails in prison just the name a few of their incredible policies which birder in communism an and anarchy.
Democrats such as James Carville and Al Hunt have openly and emphatically said an emotionally said that the tent is not big enough to include these folks. They’re dangerous and they will destroy the Democrats as we know them (whether we like them or not) and eventually the Republic if they’re allowed to take over and given them the generational issue, we’ve got with young Democrats in particular who are ashamed of their country instead of being proud of it, who favored socialism over capitalism, this is not some sort of dystopic science fiction scenario.
The poll you cite says that only 6% of Democrats are socialist, but those 6% turn out at about 100% and in deep blue areas like New York City. I think the figure is much higher. They’re active, energetic, motivated, organized, dangerous revolutionaries.
I certainly hope Democrats can put a stop to this because if they don’t, somebody’s gonna have to.
They'll certainly cause Independence to vote the other way but I wrote an article that breaks down the stats… the DNC knows this and they're going to squash them because they know internal stuff is not going to help. The Forward Party has hundreds of candidates and if you have been elected to local offices. It's basically the potty trained Republicans and the Democrats that are talking with you. Andrew Yang and Christy Whitman started it… didn't bodies everything that liberalism embodies and a lot of fairness is restored but obviously the incentives to stay in the party must be so great that it doesn't move the needle yet
That's exactly right… Every successful country in the world uses capitalism without problems… While we claim to be the ones that set the tone for democracy… Wow , doing homeless , nothing that the other countries do maintain it. We have all of these guardrails that we elect politicians to make up excuses to NOT enforce…
When bill clinton was president and I watched my walmart beat that monopoly case , because they funded his campaign , I knew it would be the start of something bad a night , just had no idea how quickly it would happen.
How would you answer the question that the proposed changes by the DSA would cost $5 trillion dollars per year and that taxing every billionaire in America at 90% of their net worth currently... Which is illegal and would require a historic and would require a historic measure would only bring in 90% of a total of 8.3 trillion... That would fund programs for about 3 years and if you implement the taxing code that mimics europe, you could probably even go as far as 6 years by the money you'd save in the first three... however in the 6 years all of these people have the opportunity to move their businesses offshore and we would certainly lose our ability to borrow money if we start borrowing it just to spend it on things that have no gross attached to them.. Their biggest reform coming out of Medicare for all... plain and simple is very difficult to fund because of the fact that the insurance industry has existed in America for so long causing our cost of healthcare to be double the current.... Instead of trading recommendations with the post with the faces with overlapping users I actually have been posting in their chat rooms but the people that they recommend are all people that have huge followings and that can offer them something in return most of them don't respond to any communication.... I am willing to look into advertising if there's a way that using Google AdWords or AdSense or meta or whatever else can make sure that it's seen by substatic users with whatever cookies they've enabled and that's what I'm not sure about because.... Even if I can have my articles viewed because so many of them are about Evergreen topics... I'm not sure that this address is the problem that I've seen which is that people that aren't members of substack don't find an article and then join substack and then become paid subscribers or even subscribers at all ... If they decide more thinking can we pull any data on what advertising does and look at everything I've given you and also try to explain to me from what you've seen what you think the most likely algorithm or source they're using to detect these patterns may be
Hi Ryan, I’m just beginning to follow you, however I already subscribed. I clicked on a notice for some Substack posts and saw your post on the 9 filters with in the voting illusion. I started reading it and somehow caused my phone to change the page and lost it. I could not figure out how to get it back.
Would you either tell me how to get back to that page or send me a link for it? I’d prefer a link.
So far what I’ve read and heard you say I like a lot and appreciate your style. Thank you look forward to reading and listening to more of your content.
Also my homepage is amazing I always have my most recent five posts, whatever posts that I have the most likes and restax from sunset, five posts I can at the top, and nine more I have at the bottom in the mirror section.
Party politics is dead. Liberal Dan Osborn is running as an Independent in red Nebraska -and is winning because hes anti corporation. Same with R. Sand running as a Democrat in red state Iowa. Hes got a record of busting fraud and takes no corporare money. He will easily win. Anti militarism and anti corporate power take different names in different states these days. But the label “Democrat” will remain meaningless. No one just looks at party any more. After enough socialists are elected we will become more comfortable with it as label.
That's the thing we're going to need if we ever want to get this country back. It's actually pretty easy to win state and local elections without a party, but getting on the presidential ballot without one is a completely different story. Ballot access is still handled state by state, and it takes hundreds of volunteers or paid staff in every small state, and probably 500 to 1,500 people in states with more than 5 million residents. It's just not easy to do without party support.
But I think you're right. I do think an independent is eventually going to run. The barriers I mentioned wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem for a billionaire because they could easily hire staff, recruit volunteers, and they already have the connections to get media coverage. All of that is essential in a presidential race, especially when you're trying to reach independents and swing voters, who are often influenced by things most people don't even think about.
If I were ever going to run for president, and I don't even know if that's realistic, I'd probably do what Trump proved was possible. You can basically hijack one of the two major parties because they're both so dependent on corporate money. That's the real reason party politics is dying. Ironically, that's also where citizens could get their revenge. If corporations are going to fund both parties, lobby both parties, and make sure whoever wins serves their interests, then the parties become vulnerable to someone who isn't playing by the old rules.
That also means a lot of senators, members of Congress, governors, mayors, and presidential candidates end up looking like puppets. Very few of them come across as genuine because they're stuck acting like polished, scripted politicians. I think people are done with that.
One thing Trump undeniably changed was that he normalized authenticity, even in its most extreme form. People don't need another polished politician kissing babies, pointing at the crowd, and repeating rehearsed talking points. That old political theater is dying.
The real problem in this country is that our most important rules aren't enforced because the incentives to enforce them are weaker than the incentives to ignore them. Until that incentive structure changes, nothing really changes.
Eventually, somebody is going to get so fed up that they're willing to dedicate eight years in office, plus a year or more campaigning, just to try to fix it. Realistically, it'll probably have to be a billionaire, or at least someone with substantial wealth and a circle of idealistic wealthy friends. That's hard to find because most wealthy people are already donors to one of the two parties.
So it almost has to be someone who could spend the rest of their life doing anything they want, but chooses public service instead. That's probably why people like Mark Cuban and other billionaires haven't done it. They're already living incredible lives, and even if they see the problems, giving up a decade of their life in their 60s is a huge sacrifice.
I just hope somebody eventually decides it's worth it.
Seems that the Dems should take this 5 week break to sit down with everybody-politicians, constituents, thinkers, to talk about these very thing! AOC - Bernie - oh! The people who are running for office that might have a more open mind about the things you talked about in your Substack. I’ve always thought we shouldn’t use the word socialism. The history of that word hasn’t been good. Branding IS important! Dems get it together! I don’t know who the leader will be that’s going to show up to get our country out of this horrendous mess!!!!!
Daria, thanks for engaging. I actually agree with every single point you made.
Ironically, that's exactly why I come across as being so hard on "socialism." My issue isn't simply the concept itself. It's true that countries built around traditional socialist models haven't produced the outcomes many advocates hoped for. At the same time, I'm not so close-minded that I'd argue something can never work simply because it hasn't worked before.
My bigger concern is that what made America successful was capitalism with guardrails. The problem isn't that those guardrails were never written. It's that neither party consistently enforces them.
That's why I struggle with many Democratic Socialists of America politicians. There are only two possibilities. Either they genuinely don't understand how our current economic system already works, which is concerning, or they understand it perfectly and use the word "socialism" because it's an effective political brand that people can project their hopes onto. Whether that's ignorance or ambition without much concern for accuracy, I have a problem with it.
I've spent enough time studying economics to realize Americans don't even agree on what the word "socialism" means. Meanwhile, many people who support it don't realize how much of our federal budget already consists of government-funded social insurance and public programs. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, defense spending, and countless other programs all involve significant government funding and redistribution. We already have a mixed economy. That's why I always ask: when someone says they want to replace capitalism with socialism, what exactly are they proposing to replace?
Universal health care is a good example. I understand why people want it. I do too. But a Medicare for All proposal would require trillions of dollars annually, and I rarely hear detailed discussions about how to sustainably pay for it. The same goes for expanded child care, paid family leave, and other worthwhile priorities. Good intentions aren't a funding mechanism.
One proposal that almost never gets serious attention is a value-added tax. Most European countries use one, and even a substantially lower rate in the United States could generate enormous revenue to help fund major programs. Yet most Americans have never even heard of it.
That's one reason Andrew Yang stood out to me in 2020. Whether people agreed with him or not, he talked about structural problems instead of just partisan talking points. Universal basic income, AI-driven job displacement, automatic voter registration, simplified taxes, value-added taxes, and election reforms were all part of the conversation.
Personally, I'd rather see stronger antitrust enforcement and laws preventing highly profitable corporations from eliminating jobs at rates completely disconnected from productivity or growth. AI should improve human prosperity, not simply maximize shareholder returns while hollowing out the workforce. That's not socialism. It's making capitalism live up to the promises its supporters make about competition and opportunity.
Instead, Yang was largely pushed aside, eventually left the Democratic Party, and founded the Forward Party. Whether someone agrees with him or not, I think it says something about how resistant both major parties are to structural reforms that don't fit neatly into existing ideological boxes.
To me, that's the bigger issue.
The problem isn't necessarily the system. It's that we've stopped maintaining it. We don't enforce antitrust laws aggressively enough. We allow regulatory capture. We let lobbying dominate policymaking. We tolerate deficits while pretending to care about fiscal discipline. We complain about monopolies while allowing them to become even larger.
That's why I think what you wrote actually highlights the Democrats' biggest challenge. Before they decide who their next leader is, they first have to decide what lessons they're actually willing to learn.
My argument has never been that they should abandon progressive values. It's that they have to reconnect those values with political reality. Branding matters. Persuasion matters. Listening matters. If voters stop trusting you, good intentions stop mattering because you lose the ability to accomplish the goals you care about.
I don't know. I always make a point of pulling older posts back out because I started writing in September and published 3 to 4 times a week for seven months. That gave me about 100 posts to practice and slowly refine my style, transitioning from being a speaker to being a writer.
I specifically wanted an audience on Substack because, generally speaking, people who enjoy reading are the audience I was looking for. I got tired of trying to squeeze complex ideas into 15-second, 30-second, or even 3-minute clips.
So I wrote... and I didn't share any of that writing for seven full months. Then I finally started sharing it in late April, about three months ago. I went from around 400 subscribers to 800, and now I'm knocking on the door of 2,000.
As for the post you're talking about, it may have been published before under a different title or with a different thumbnail. I change both pretty regularly, so older pieces can be easy to miss.
Lynette. You're not alone.. it took me quite a while .. The good news is that once it's figured out, you get to realize that versus all the other social media platform is that this has the smartest people with the most authentic discussions and comments and posts.
Your whole argument makes zero sense. You’re arguing for Capitalism with guardrails, while espousing the characteristics of shared services - in other words, socialism. You described characteristics that Americans are tired of - never being able to get ahead, having to deal with health care costs, unfair wage gauging by employers- in other words, Capitalism. You also are mixing Marxism (Communism) with socialism and they are two very different things. (Sidenote: pure Communism the way Marx envisioned has never been implemented).
Americans historically have bristled at the Socialist label, but they are not shy about what Democratic Socialism has to offer - free healthcare, free education including in many cases university, living wages, child care, and a social safety net. Virtually every survey has shown that when you ask Americans about these things, they are very supportive. So, it’s a name issue, not a policy issue. My prediction is the number of people supporting Socialist candidates will only improve IF they continue to deliver on services people really care about, as NYC Mayor has so far done for New Yorkers.
As for the “Americans want Democrats to be MORE moderate, not less” line - I’ve seen those surveys, and as someone who has designed surveys for years, I can tell you the surveys are not designed well, which leads to false conclusions. Americans are tired of not seeing much of a difference between MAGA and Democrats who are bought and paid for by AIPAC, Crypto, AI, and other corporations. Americans are tired of losing out, and increasingly they are seeing that moderates- who tend to accept donations from PACs supporting the above - are part of the problem, not the solution. This is happening in real time, right before elections, so this won’t fully play out until later, but I think the tide is turning, and moderates will need to deliver for the people if they want to retain power.
I don't argue ideology. I compile evidence, statistics, polling, and research, then explain what they show. If the data changes, my conclusions change.
You're also responding to arguments I never made. I never argued against universal healthcare, public education, Social Security, childcare, or a social safety net. America already has a mixed economy. In fact, much of what you listed exists on a spectrum that virtually every developed market economy already occupies.
What the polling I cited actually measured was identity and messaging, not whether individual policies are popular. Those are two completely different questions.
You're absolutely right that healthcare, childcare, and other public services often poll well. I've never argued otherwise. But when registered Democratic primary voters were asked how they identified politically and economically, only about 6% identified as socialist. And when respondents were presented with the choice between "capitalism with guardrails" and "democratic socialism" as competing frameworks for many of the same underlying goals, roughly 62% preferred capitalism with guardrails. That doesn't contradict support for public programs. It suggests the label itself carries political baggage that the policies often do not.
You also say my argument "makes zero sense" because capitalism with guardrails is just socialism by another name. It isn't. Strong antitrust enforcement, banking regulation, consumer protections, labor standards, and breaking up monopolies are longstanding features of regulated market economies. They regulate capitalism. They don't replace private ownership with public ownership. Those are fundamentally different approaches, even if they sometimes pursue similar outcomes.
As for the polling, simply saying, "I've designed surveys," isn't evidence that these findings are flawed. If you think the methodology is unsound, point to the specific flaw. And it wasn't just one poll. Multiple independent polls after the 2024 election found that Democratic voters, on balance, wanted the party to move more toward the political center than further left.
Ironically, the one point where we're probably closest is your criticism of corporate influence. I write extensively about regulatory capture, corporate lobbying, and the outsized influence of money in politics. None of that conflicts with advocating for regulated capitalism. In many ways, it's exactly why stronger guardrails are needed.
If your position is that democratic socialism will become a more politically effective label as leaders deliver tangible results, that's a perfectly legitimate prediction. It just isn't a rebuttal to the argument I actually made.
Yes, I am new here, but have never been one to shy away from a political argument, so let’s try this again. Going back to your question of economic populism vs. socialism (I think that was the comparison; I can’t see your original post when I’m commenting), I think Democrats should avoid the term Socialism like the plague, because the US has a long history of demonizing Socialists, even though basic tenets of Socialism (as I pointed out before) poll extremely well - subsidized healthcare, childcare, education, etc. To muddy the waters further, the countries most admired (Norway, Sweden, Finland) are Social Democrat models with considerable public/private sector structures, including healthy entrepreneurship - not what comes to mind in this country when we think of Socialism. Strangely enough, Socialists like Mamdani are electing to keep the label and are doing the uphill work of showing real results. Whether than can change most Americans’ opinion of Socialism remains an open question.
Capitalism with guardrails sounds great, but rarely works for long in this country- the broligarchs can’t help themselves. Seeing the longtime resistance to any sort of taxation/funding of public services and consistent exploitation of workers and natural resources, I am skeptical that this model can work again (the heyday was post WW2 until the late 70’s). We are far beyond tweaking around the edges, which most moderates call for.
As for surveys, the one question that infuriates me most in all polls is: “Do you think this country is on the right track?” Nearly everyone would answer no to this question, but for vastly different reasons. Without more context, this question is useless, but I’ve seen it used over and over to prove someone’s point.
I prefer Social Democrat. The word "socialism" carries too much baggage. Capitalism is good but we have deregulated too much. Capitalism on steroids is not good.
Hey guys put Evelyn on the list of wise contributors saying things that we can all learn from... This is actually a MUCH more useful framing than either party uses.
The real divide isn't capitalism vs. SOCIALISM.... it's regulated vs. unregulated concentration of power, and both labels can get there if nobody's watching.
"Capitalism on steroids" is exactly RIGHT, gang.
Deregulation without a floor doesn't create more freedom, it just lets the biggest winners write the next round of rules for everyone else.
She's going to have to soar to the top of the list because she possesses the ability everyone knows I lack.... Brevity. It took me a whole post to say what she said in just a few words.. A Mentor of mine back when I did the books for school districts.. he had the same gift. He could take an article I wrote in a 500 word essay on and recite it back to me in 50 words or less. https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/its-not-capitalism-vs-socialism-the
Also, stockholder rights have gotten out of hand. Stockholders are important, but not more so than the customer nor the rank and file employees. Employees get left behind all the time. Since the 60s Management and Stockholders have gotten all the goodies while regular workers have been left behind. There was a time when workers could count on a defined benefit retirement plan and employer-provided health care….no more!
Evelyn first of all welcome to the community and I'm thrilled to have you join because the readers are the community I'm just a guy that started it so here's my input which keep in mind… by my design… can be adversarial…
I 110% agree on the mechanism, not just the outcome. Since "maximize shareholder value" became the default legal cover in the 70s, quarterly stock price started outranking almost everything else, including the workers who actually generate the value being maximized….so that's not a partisan failure, it's a governance structure that NOBODY voted on.
If we want a real fix, it looks less like "tax the rich" and more like binding stakeholder requirements or claw-backs tied to buybacks during layoff years. Structure over slogans.
It has surprised me a lot that recently the media and thus the people are acting like redistricting/gerrymandering is something new. This has been going on since the 1780's (in the late 1780s when James Madison was nearly gerrymandered out of a congressional seat) and was made significantly worse by The U.S. Supreme Court rulings that both state assemblies and state senates must follow the "one person, one vote principle on June 15, 1964, in the landmark case Reynolds v. Sims. This ruling followed the 1962 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case, Baker v. Carr, regarding Tennessee's districting. Prior to this, most states had governments similar to the federal government where the state senators represented the county they lived in and the state assemblies were like the US house of representatives. After 1964 everything became 1 man 1 vote and the ridiculously shaped districting became much worse. One of many things that was supposedly fixed by the politicized courts and it happens on both sides of the fence.
“Nobody in that story did anything illegal. Nobody twirled a mustache. The system just worked exactly as designed.
This is not a conspiracy.
It is a structural outcome”
It might be structural on the first time a corp fires people to increase profits/investment.
But in the next few demonstrations of this tack the super capitalists are laughing up their sleeves at those commoner suckers! Always trying to get a leg up by coming to work with one of them. Aha ha ha - sucka!
Maybe not a formal conspiracy but a PRACTICE that MAKES MONEY on the BACKS OF THE FIRED bread winners, the bill payers, the ones who pay their bills on their left hand and then next payday pay their bills on their right hand. Always getting a bit further behind.
I have always done it. My husband was a high school teacher in northern California.
Dianne, you're not actually disagreeing here, you're describing exactly what "structural" means.
A conspiracy needs people in a room agreeing to screw people over. A structural outcome doesn't need that room, because the incentives already point everyone toward the same behavior on their own, which is what makes it worse, not better. It's not a plot, it's a design, and a design that keeps squeezing teachers and bill payers doesn't need malice to keep running. Just inertia, and nobody with the power to stop it deciding it's their problem. Your husband's story isn't an exception to the argument. It's the evidence for it. I laid out exactly how that design got built, piece by piece, over 40 years: https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/its-not-capitalism-vs-socialism-the
In answer to your question, at the moment I fear the Democrats are unable to profit from the energy, enthusiasm, and lamentable popularity and momentum of the DSA losing their soul, such as it is. Their problem is, as you know, they don’t have much of a soul; they’re a classic example of a political entity that justifies your cynicism and skepticism which I know you are trying to overcome—aren’t we all— as well as trying to avoid despair.
I certainly hope I am wrong about the Democrats, but as I’ve taken the same lately to try to preserve my own morale ultimately I guess it’s in God‘s hands.
I’ve been reading more and more of your writing, and it occurred to me that now might be a good time to share this: base on my all too long experience in life, the core problem his human nature. Until we change that, the best we can do design systems that channel it optimally.
You can try to take the money out of politics, which is something of a quixotic quest shared by many, but ultimately conflicts of interest are the whole problem.
I think that’s the fatal flaw in communism, whether you call it socialism by any other name: it only works if men are angels. We only achieve the socialist paradise if men are angels, and they are not, at least not yet. Perhaps one day religious faith or secular humanism will rid hs of our obsolete and counterproductive adapttionis tendencies, but they haven't so far.
The same applies to all forms of government, including ours here in the US. Government could be a panacea if all the people in government were angels, but they aren't.
That’s why the best remedy I can think of as pertains to the public sector is to keep it as small as possible; acknowledge that people are going to be self-serving, self dealing, and that they end up succumbing to the overpowering temptations that lead to corruption (at least that’s what the history of the world tells us).
So, until men are angels I say keep their footprint as small as possible, and only delegate things to the public sector when we have a clear market failure; in other words when we can’t take care of ourselves then we have to appoint some of us to take care of the rest of us—to protect us from enemies, both domestic and abroad, for example.
Under that rubric, government is best viewed as a necessary evil to be kept to the bare necessary minimum.
So,that’s my thought for the day. Keep up the good work and I will continue to stay engaged for as long as I have the means at my disposal.
DJT is a bomb-throwing self-aggrandizing idiot. Until the chaos threatens folks making $150,000.00 a year, they will continue to support dear leader. PERIOD!!! The Civil Rights Movement had a great strategy that worked. Lawyers, judges, and politicians buried whatever the Civil Rights movement accomplished. Make it make sense!!!
I don't agree with any of those things but what about the stuff in an hour on the backyard? What about these things that we need to start figuring out in order to focus on moving forward? The points I made in this quick 10 minute teaser podcast are almost everything that we need to consider if winning in 2028 is something that we want
This is where history comes in. You don't have to begin from nothing. Study what others have done in similar situations
You aren't the first, so take heart.
A great strategy trains the lowest members of the organization. Commitment is the key. The Civil Rights Movement had folks filling out their wills in case they were murdered in the streets. They taught non violent behavior and made certain that everyone on the team understood what non violent behavior was.
Reagan made government a pay-as- you-go business, rather than a public trust. He privatized government and plundered our entitlement systems. Lowered corporate rent from 90% to 28%, leaving taxpayers to make up the loss in revenue.
The mix is the message. The reactionaries are tight, on message & corrupt. The left changes, morphs & is never the same.
Viva la diffèrence
Resist
Avance la Lucha
Hey Robert I'm thinking about taking your advice and taking a couple of days off substack because I have a podcast with the potential Congressman on Wednesday and I have a post for tomorrow done so I'm going to just let it ride. Any books that you might recommend?
I'm surprised to read that only 6% of the left identifies as socialist. So 94% of the left wants basically the same thing and can't pull it together? That doesn't look good. Still, we need to push to find people across the spectrum who are willing to play well with others.
I'm confident that it CAN happen. It's going to take time and dedication and those are two things that, obviously, are scarce resources.
I think the 6% number actually proves something important: most people on the left are not socialists. They're not asking for the government to own the means of production. They're asking for capitalism that still works for ordinary people.
The problem is that we've spent 30 years treating every criticism of corporate power as socialism and every criticism of government as right-wing extremism.
Americans overwhelmingly agree on more than social media would have you believe. Most people want affordable housing, affordable healthcare, wages that keep up with productivity, functioning infrastructure, competition instead of monopolies, and politicians who answer to voters instead of donors.
That's not socialism. That's the basic promise of a healthy republic.
The irony is that America's strongest periods weren't built on pure laissez-faire capitalism or centralized socialism. They were built on regulated markets, aggressive antitrust enforcement, strong labor participation, public investment, and private innovation working together.
The left won't save itself by moving further left. The right won't save itself by moving further right. America gets stronger when both sides stop treating compromise as surrender and start treating problem-solving as the job.
Most Americans aren't asking for a revolution. They're asking for a system that rewards work more than speculation, citizens more than lobbyists, and families more than political tribes. The fact that we've turned those goals into ideological warfare is probably the real problem.
Ideological warfare is the product that generates clicks, views and money. Follow the money. Who profits? Fox, Meta, TicToc, etc. The balanced economic model is boring and doesn’t sell or grab attention or mobilize.
America needs a lightning rod. A charismatic leader who speaks to the majority with a message for a system of checks and balances, rule of law and fairness… and a promise that something can be done about it.
I have written about this so much… you must join this community. Your worldview in this sentence is close to the theme of the entire publication.
Conflict is the product.
Outrage is the revenue model.
And the audience never has to ask whether anything actually got fixed, because the show never ends.
https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/negative-partisanship-destruction-of-democracy
This is so on point!
Don’t conflate Socialism with Communism. One is the pipe dream of an embittered German philosopher & the other is, with a few fixes, a fairly workable governing philosophy.
Hey Robert! I'm glad you wrote I was thinking about you today and i haven't heard from you in a few days! I count on you to keep me honest, man! Haha. So… I know that socialism and communism aren't the same thing… and my point wasn't to conflate them when I gave that reply... it was just explaining what this poll I wrote about in the article said….
I do believe that most Republicans and at least the younger Democrats need a solid lesson on the difference between a word and what trade-offs would be necessary to accomplish this in the Democracy that we have currently.
For decades, socialism been used as a catch-all insult for everything from the Affordable Care Act to student loan relief to opposing right wing politicians… while others use it to describe Nordic-style social democracies.
The result is that people often end up arguing over labels instead of policies.
My concern isn't with social welfare programs…. We've got plenty of those: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, public schools, public infrastructure, and even enormous government support for industries like defense (which is pretty much a jobs program for 3 million people + a government subsidized weapons industry).
Those arencompatible with capitalism and have existed alongside it for a long time and do so in most countries. They're part of a mixed economy, which the United States has ALWAYS been.
I'm skeptical of organizations like the DSA advocating “replacing capitalism rather than reforming it or better yet and forcing the guardrails that we currently ignore.
My problem with the way that they campaign is that they are putting a divider down the left wing by misinforming people. If they're claiming that electing them to run the country I would make it possible redefine our economy.. when nobody has even figured out how to get a candidate to run for either party that isn't completely funded by billionaires and corporations… they're selling a bumper sticker word socialism as a cure-all for financially strapped Millennial and genZ generations… and we have understand why they are looking for a savior because the system sure hasn't worked in their adult life.
I don't think capitalism is what broke America. I think decades of weakened antitrust enforcement, regulatory capture, stagnant wages, monopolization, financialization, and the growing influence of money in politics broke the version of capitalism we have today.
To me, the answer isn't choosing between capitalism and socialism. It's enforcing the rules that made capitalism work in the first place: real competition, strong labor protections, antitrust enforcement, and public investments that create opportunity. We built one of the strongest middle classes in history with a mixed economy. I'd rather fix that model than throw it out.
Ironically, I think if we stopped arguing over labels and started talking about specific policies, we'd discover that people on both sides agree far more often than they realize. Humans do love turning vocabulary quizzes into blood feuds. It's one of our less efficient hobbies.
First comment; the use of Socialism & Communism as labels is usually the sign of lazy thinking. Left or Right.
Next, you are absolutely correct about the decline of Capitalism. As the guardrails weakened & collapsed the post war “Economic Miracle” deflated.
Excessive greed by large corporations & the strangling of the labor movement championed by so-called “Movement Conservatives”* & their Congressional allies as a case in point.
Which leads us to Grover Norquist & his attacks on the Progressive Taxation system. Pernicious & destructive & unimaginable in its consequences.
Can U say BillionaireBros?
Or Trillion Dollar corporations paying Zip-a-Dee-Do-Dah in taxes?
Just assessing & collecting their fair share of taxes would balance the budget & pay off the National Debt.
Harden your hearts & close your ears to “Higher Consumer Prices.”
That’s BS scare tactics.
Make’m bring those hidden profits back on-shore.
So, Capitalism with consequences, strong labor law, enforceable contract law & yes certain aspects of a socialist “Social Contract.”
Single Payer Health Care for all as a Public Health system, like clean water & clean air.
Free & equitable education K thru college or trade school - think GI Bill.
Solid infrastructure, roads, bridges, water ways, harbors & airports.
A government that serves the people.
& finally, a chastened, disciplined & expanded SCOTUS. Consequences for current & past corruption, an Ethics Code W teeth & staggered term limited service.
Resist
Ave Populus
We Shall Overcome
Avance la Lucha
*Not enough condemnation can be expressed about these idjits.
Their morphing into Neo-Liberals in order to present a more friendly face did nothing to mask the destruction they wrought. Not just here, the European Union is still cleaning up from their wrong headed actions.
Brexit anyone?
We may never recover from the damage.
Well I’m reading a bunch of Space Westerns & Fantasy as well as a dive into The Federalist Papers, which I haven’t read in 55 yrs or so. “The Pursuit of Liberty,” by Jeffery Rosen, Ty recommended that one. Blaze Ward, writes snappy SciFi series that are just plain fun. Snarky dialogue & ripping plots. & a very English fantasy series by Mark Hayden. The cultural stuff is almost incomprehensible but it adds to the fun. Pure escape. Very little redeeming intellectual merit.
If you haven’t yet read the following analysis, you should. Data driven historic analysis of civilization cycles and where the USA is in the timeline. Chilling. https://stbadhon.substack.com/p/a-scientist-fed-10000-years-of-history?r=nfskf&utm_medium=ios
I read it & left a comment
Thanks a bunch
First time here, Rxan, and the initial thing I always do is find out more about people's credentials. What is your background as an 'investigative journalist,' please? (Critical Thinking 101.) I just can't find it, but then I avoid social media.
Thank you for letting us comment. You make a lot of good points, many which have been made already by others, about the "Big Tent" party. The fact that everyone who is trying to flee overfed and abusive capitalism is forced to go to the one *other* party, is a problem. We eventually must have more parties -- parties that can serve as transactional buffers and instruments of nudging the mainstream into positive change. Like the rest of the developed world?
I do believe that there's a generational shift happening that is trying to find its way. Problem is, every damn time we try a label on, it's immediately demonized by the right's machine (Thanks, Rup, you bastard).
The young look at Europe and mistake "democratic socialism" for "socialism." The former is simply capitalism with a lot of popular input and extremely strong guardrails. That's how it should be, and we can design a political system tailored to *our* needs, as opposed to small EU nations.
Capitalism has been a horse out of the corral for a very long time. Some of our countermanding system has performed to saddle it; much has neglected the duty of harnessing capitalism or even exulted in and benefited from the wildness. That's destructive as hell. It just takes longer. In the event it's reparable, it usually takes extreme measures, as in FDR's personal income tax on the wealthy. The ricochet is harsh and enemies are made.
You are 100% correct in that Dems need branding. The problem is, it always gets pulled toward the Center, and that is somewhat stagnant at this point. And "socialism" is too scary to use in almost all campaigns. It's used carelessly to express a legitimate need that can't be ignored any longer.
We must solve this, and the DNC and DCCC don't help. Where is the damn "autopsy"? Where is our discussion of our problems? It must be center stage and look like solutions or else it weakens us profoundly. We can't let the right continue to demonize us. It's poison on a weakened media.
Your continued discussion of the "where do we go from here?" thing is welcomed. One cautionary: please do not cite the Manhattan Institute, led by Betsy DeVos, and birthed by a former head of our CIA? That is a thinktank that has its own agenda.
Thank you for the time you took to talk about this problem!
Hi S.A., Thanks for that thoughtful response and the time you took to write all of that out. Those kinds of comments are rare now because most online political discourse has pretty much devolve to people throwing tribal grenades at each other. I want to give you a complete answer and I'll do my best.
To answer your question directly: I’m not a traditional investigative journalist in the traditional career path sense. My background is actually in business administration and management, with an M.A. in Political Science. Both degrees are from the University of Delaware in Newark. Most of my life was spent building businesses while independently studying politics, history, economics, media systems, psychology, and institutional behavior obsessively for years. I moved to Washington DC in 2022 for an interesting opportunity within the political infrastructure working as a very strategic component in a much bigger system and after about 18 months I needed to leave because it made me so jaded and that's one of the reasons that I need to write on substack privately now ( something I started in the fall of 2025, and just started engaging with readers last month. I wanted to take a lot of my work, polish it up, and format it for substack and I did my best to build a credible Foundation so if somebody wants to dive down the rabbit hole, they should get a good sense of who I am.
What I’m trying to do now is combine that with writing, commentary, and evidence-based analysis outside the typical partisan ecosystem.
I probably should make that clearer publicly, honestly. However, even the detail I've given above is such a small part of the whole story and I'd rather talk about that outside of the comment section. I haven't decided how much I'm going to disclose when I start my podcast on sub stack which will be a weekly live feature that I teased today a bit….
But… what pushed me into this space is EXACTLY the broader issue you’re describing: beyond feeling… a knowing that both parties, media institutions, and even many ideological movements have become trapped in branding, tribalism, donor incentives, and reactionary politics instead of structural reform. Trump accelerated many of these fractures, but I believe he created few (maybe none) of them. In many ways he exposed weaknesses that were already there, and if you know his bankruptcy background, and a lot of bankruptcy backgrounds of billionaires in this country , who become Wealthy by bleeding the beast, it would make sense as somebody that is really anything but your traditional (R). Bernie Sanders felt the opposite result.
I also agree with you that Americans confuse “democratic socialism” in the European sense with centralized state socialism. Most successful societies are still fundamentally capitalist. The difference is whether capitalism is restrained by strong guardrails, labor PROTECTIONS, functional healthcare Systems, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY anti-corruption mechanisms /campaign finance limits/nstitutions that prevent wealth from swallowing democracy.
Where I diverge from parts of the modern left is that I how I view branding and messaging. They matter far more than many activists want to admit. If a label instantly alienates half the country before policy is discussed, it becomes politically self-defeating whether the underlying ideas have merit or not. Republicans understood emotional branding decades before Dems and they played dirty long before Dems, who are very bad at it.
I SO share your frustration w/ DNC’s inability to conduct a serious public autopsy after repeated failures. A healthy political movement MUST criticize itself openly without treating dissent like betrayal. That’s why I wrote this piece in the first place. It's it's inevitable so I started.
And regarding the Manhattan Institute point: fair enough. I actually think people should critically examine ALL think tanks, left and right. One thing I try to do is pull data, arguments, and observations from across ideological lines without fully outsourcing my thinking to any institution. Everyone has incentives and blind spots. My goal = trying to triangulate reality underneath narratives.
Stay in contact. Please
Why aren’t you in some leadership role trying to steer the country or party ? It seems we need people who are thinkers and can clearly articulate the problems. Something we are seriously lacking.
Thank you for the compliment, Jo. I never considered public service but it has been occurring to me lately that one of the most certain ways out of this chaos and corrupt country that we currently live in, is for people that never thought they would run for office... Try to get involved in running... I would consider it but I would certainly need help for my subscribers to figure out the best way. I am about 6 miles from the capitol so I'm in the right location
I'm so sorry, Rxan . . . I got behind in my email and missed your extremely helpful response. Surely all of your readers will appreciate this personal detail. You have an impressive resume! You should do well on Substack, given enough time.
I was into my bank yesterday and the young woman teller said she watched a number of Substacks. It's going places, and interesting, intelligent people want to be along for the ride. (Long story as to why we got on the subject, but it made sense at the time. ;)
Looking forward to more of your thoughtful screeds!
Well that's good news. I am ironically on it because I don't like social media and have been pretty invisible and pretty handicapped by the fact I can't crosspost to other platforms, but the reason that I picked Substack was because of the caliber of people I found. The fact that readers actually engaged meaningfully and do so after reading things was a welcome change for me... Those 15 second videos really rub me the wrong way and every platform rewards of people that posts them..
I posted something yesterday it's part of my narrative verse reality series called the Doom generation. I think you would like it... Explored why Gen-Z approaches politics the way that they do.
I saw that and will be reading it when my life calms down. Thanks!
Both parties run bad candidates. Both parties mostly ignore the needs/wants of the 80%. Why? How can they possibly win? Because the voters are given 2 bad choices. It's as if one party runs Hitler and the other runs Stalin, and the public is asked to vote for one of those. And if you don't then your are throwing your vote away. ... .SO the parties know, or believe, they can run awful candidates and awful platforms, and will get votes anyway. It's worked so far....
Hey John.
I think you're getting at the incentive problem more than the candidate problem... Although the candidates they let us see are all really bad... If voters are repeatedly told, "This is the most important election ever, so you have to pick one of these two," the parties have less reason to earn support and more reason to rely on fear of the other side.
That's how standards keep dropping. The real question isn't whether one party is worse than the other. It's why a system with 330+ million people keeps producing choices that leave tens of millions feeling politically homeless. Until we fix the incentives, we'll keep arguing over symptoms instead of the disease.
Somehow, the parties don't have to align with the values of the voters. Not even 80% of the voters. They throw out emotional divisive stuff like Guns, Abortion, to get those one-issue voters. It feels like distraction.
There is a HUGE concern that emotionally charged issues can dominate campaigns and media coverage.
And if those issues matter “deeply” to many people…they claim that they're not just distractions. That's true, but my point is this country has bad things happening that we don't know about all of the time and you could get upset every second of every day. Certain things are just not news and the way they frame them is shameful.
The challenge is making room to discuss the outrage with a priority restriction without ignoring the broad economic and governance issues that affect nearly everyone.
I don’t know if the Democrats can stop the DSA from taking their party over, but I sure hope they can. I view the DSA as an existential threat to the Republic. They want to dismantle the constitution nationalize airlines and all other essential industries defund the police close all the jails in prison just the name a few of their incredible policies which birder in communism an and anarchy.
Democrats such as James Carville and Al Hunt have openly and emphatically said an emotionally said that the tent is not big enough to include these folks. They’re dangerous and they will destroy the Democrats as we know them (whether we like them or not) and eventually the Republic if they’re allowed to take over and given them the generational issue, we’ve got with young Democrats in particular who are ashamed of their country instead of being proud of it, who favored socialism over capitalism, this is not some sort of dystopic science fiction scenario.
The poll you cite says that only 6% of Democrats are socialist, but those 6% turn out at about 100% and in deep blue areas like New York City. I think the figure is much higher. They’re active, energetic, motivated, organized, dangerous revolutionaries.
I certainly hope Democrats can put a stop to this because if they don’t, somebody’s gonna have to.
This DSA stuff is divisive. It will make even more voters declare themselves 'independent', like the Gallop polls are showing.
They'll certainly cause Independence to vote the other way but I wrote an article that breaks down the stats… the DNC knows this and they're going to squash them because they know internal stuff is not going to help. The Forward Party has hundreds of candidates and if you have been elected to local offices. It's basically the potty trained Republicans and the Democrats that are talking with you. Andrew Yang and Christy Whitman started it… didn't bodies everything that liberalism embodies and a lot of fairness is restored but obviously the incentives to stay in the party must be so great that it doesn't move the needle yet
We may be seeing a reduction of the 2 parties and eventual formation of a party for all of those independents. Maybe it's natural selection in action?
Most voters are these days, which is a whithering indictment of the major parties. Hopefully independents will stamp out the DSA.
Common Sense is a great name for a blog. Too bad it isn't so common anymore.
Indeed!
Get rid of the electoral college! Constrain capitalism for the people. Corps must be given a conscious! Or else the people suffer!
That's exactly right… Every successful country in the world uses capitalism without problems… While we claim to be the ones that set the tone for democracy… Wow , doing homeless , nothing that the other countries do maintain it. We have all of these guardrails that we elect politicians to make up excuses to NOT enforce…
When bill clinton was president and I watched my walmart beat that monopoly case , because they funded his campaign , I knew it would be the start of something bad a night , just had no idea how quickly it would happen.
Many of us who identify as democratic socialists would not identify as socialists. This article is about bullshit.
How would you answer the question that the proposed changes by the DSA would cost $5 trillion dollars per year and that taxing every billionaire in America at 90% of their net worth currently... Which is illegal and would require a historic and would require a historic measure would only bring in 90% of a total of 8.3 trillion... That would fund programs for about 3 years and if you implement the taxing code that mimics europe, you could probably even go as far as 6 years by the money you'd save in the first three... however in the 6 years all of these people have the opportunity to move their businesses offshore and we would certainly lose our ability to borrow money if we start borrowing it just to spend it on things that have no gross attached to them.. Their biggest reform coming out of Medicare for all... plain and simple is very difficult to fund because of the fact that the insurance industry has existed in America for so long causing our cost of healthcare to be double the current.... Instead of trading recommendations with the post with the faces with overlapping users I actually have been posting in their chat rooms but the people that they recommend are all people that have huge followings and that can offer them something in return most of them don't respond to any communication.... I am willing to look into advertising if there's a way that using Google AdWords or AdSense or meta or whatever else can make sure that it's seen by substatic users with whatever cookies they've enabled and that's what I'm not sure about because.... Even if I can have my articles viewed because so many of them are about Evergreen topics... I'm not sure that this address is the problem that I've seen which is that people that aren't members of substack don't find an article and then join substack and then become paid subscribers or even subscribers at all ... If they decide more thinking can we pull any data on what advertising does and look at everything I've given you and also try to explain to me from what you've seen what you think the most likely algorithm or source they're using to detect these patterns may be
Hi Ryan, I’m just beginning to follow you, however I already subscribed. I clicked on a notice for some Substack posts and saw your post on the 9 filters with in the voting illusion. I started reading it and somehow caused my phone to change the page and lost it. I could not figure out how to get it back.
Would you either tell me how to get back to that page or send me a link for it? I’d prefer a link.
So far what I’ve read and heard you say I like a lot and appreciate your style. Thank you look forward to reading and listening to more of your content.
Hey Todd. Sorry for the delay I just saw this now. And thanks for subscribing and I definitely can help you. The five filter post from today is https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/who-is-he-talking-to
The voting post is - https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/the-house-always-wins-you-do-not
Also my homepage is amazing I always have my most recent five posts, whatever posts that I have the most likes and restax from sunset, five posts I can at the top, and nine more I have at the bottom in the mirror section.
https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/
Send me a direct message anytime and I'll get back to you. I'm usually pretty quick to reply.
Party politics is dead. Liberal Dan Osborn is running as an Independent in red Nebraska -and is winning because hes anti corporation. Same with R. Sand running as a Democrat in red state Iowa. Hes got a record of busting fraud and takes no corporare money. He will easily win. Anti militarism and anti corporate power take different names in different states these days. But the label “Democrat” will remain meaningless. No one just looks at party any more. After enough socialists are elected we will become more comfortable with it as label.
That's the thing we're going to need if we ever want to get this country back. It's actually pretty easy to win state and local elections without a party, but getting on the presidential ballot without one is a completely different story. Ballot access is still handled state by state, and it takes hundreds of volunteers or paid staff in every small state, and probably 500 to 1,500 people in states with more than 5 million residents. It's just not easy to do without party support.
But I think you're right. I do think an independent is eventually going to run. The barriers I mentioned wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem for a billionaire because they could easily hire staff, recruit volunteers, and they already have the connections to get media coverage. All of that is essential in a presidential race, especially when you're trying to reach independents and swing voters, who are often influenced by things most people don't even think about.
If I were ever going to run for president, and I don't even know if that's realistic, I'd probably do what Trump proved was possible. You can basically hijack one of the two major parties because they're both so dependent on corporate money. That's the real reason party politics is dying. Ironically, that's also where citizens could get their revenge. If corporations are going to fund both parties, lobby both parties, and make sure whoever wins serves their interests, then the parties become vulnerable to someone who isn't playing by the old rules.
That also means a lot of senators, members of Congress, governors, mayors, and presidential candidates end up looking like puppets. Very few of them come across as genuine because they're stuck acting like polished, scripted politicians. I think people are done with that.
One thing Trump undeniably changed was that he normalized authenticity, even in its most extreme form. People don't need another polished politician kissing babies, pointing at the crowd, and repeating rehearsed talking points. That old political theater is dying.
The real problem in this country is that our most important rules aren't enforced because the incentives to enforce them are weaker than the incentives to ignore them. Until that incentive structure changes, nothing really changes.
Eventually, somebody is going to get so fed up that they're willing to dedicate eight years in office, plus a year or more campaigning, just to try to fix it. Realistically, it'll probably have to be a billionaire, or at least someone with substantial wealth and a circle of idealistic wealthy friends. That's hard to find because most wealthy people are already donors to one of the two parties.
So it almost has to be someone who could spend the rest of their life doing anything they want, but chooses public service instead. That's probably why people like Mark Cuban and other billionaires haven't done it. They're already living incredible lives, and even if they see the problems, giving up a decade of their life in their 60s is a huge sacrifice.
I just hope somebody eventually decides it's worth it.
Seems that the Dems should take this 5 week break to sit down with everybody-politicians, constituents, thinkers, to talk about these very thing! AOC - Bernie - oh! The people who are running for office that might have a more open mind about the things you talked about in your Substack. I’ve always thought we shouldn’t use the word socialism. The history of that word hasn’t been good. Branding IS important! Dems get it together! I don’t know who the leader will be that’s going to show up to get our country out of this horrendous mess!!!!!
Daria, thanks for engaging. I actually agree with every single point you made.
Ironically, that's exactly why I come across as being so hard on "socialism." My issue isn't simply the concept itself. It's true that countries built around traditional socialist models haven't produced the outcomes many advocates hoped for. At the same time, I'm not so close-minded that I'd argue something can never work simply because it hasn't worked before.
My bigger concern is that what made America successful was capitalism with guardrails. The problem isn't that those guardrails were never written. It's that neither party consistently enforces them.
That's why I struggle with many Democratic Socialists of America politicians. There are only two possibilities. Either they genuinely don't understand how our current economic system already works, which is concerning, or they understand it perfectly and use the word "socialism" because it's an effective political brand that people can project their hopes onto. Whether that's ignorance or ambition without much concern for accuracy, I have a problem with it.
I've spent enough time studying economics to realize Americans don't even agree on what the word "socialism" means. Meanwhile, many people who support it don't realize how much of our federal budget already consists of government-funded social insurance and public programs. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, defense spending, and countless other programs all involve significant government funding and redistribution. We already have a mixed economy. That's why I always ask: when someone says they want to replace capitalism with socialism, what exactly are they proposing to replace?
Universal health care is a good example. I understand why people want it. I do too. But a Medicare for All proposal would require trillions of dollars annually, and I rarely hear detailed discussions about how to sustainably pay for it. The same goes for expanded child care, paid family leave, and other worthwhile priorities. Good intentions aren't a funding mechanism.
One proposal that almost never gets serious attention is a value-added tax. Most European countries use one, and even a substantially lower rate in the United States could generate enormous revenue to help fund major programs. Yet most Americans have never even heard of it.
That's one reason Andrew Yang stood out to me in 2020. Whether people agreed with him or not, he talked about structural problems instead of just partisan talking points. Universal basic income, AI-driven job displacement, automatic voter registration, simplified taxes, value-added taxes, and election reforms were all part of the conversation.
Personally, I'd rather see stronger antitrust enforcement and laws preventing highly profitable corporations from eliminating jobs at rates completely disconnected from productivity or growth. AI should improve human prosperity, not simply maximize shareholder returns while hollowing out the workforce. That's not socialism. It's making capitalism live up to the promises its supporters make about competition and opportunity.
Instead, Yang was largely pushed aside, eventually left the Democratic Party, and founded the Forward Party. Whether someone agrees with him or not, I think it says something about how resistant both major parties are to structural reforms that don't fit neatly into existing ideological boxes.
To me, that's the bigger issue.
The problem isn't necessarily the system. It's that we've stopped maintaining it. We don't enforce antitrust laws aggressively enough. We allow regulatory capture. We let lobbying dominate policymaking. We tolerate deficits while pretending to care about fiscal discipline. We complain about monopolies while allowing them to become even larger.
That's why I think what you wrote actually highlights the Democrats' biggest challenge. Before they decide who their next leader is, they first have to decide what lessons they're actually willing to learn.
My argument has never been that they should abandon progressive values. It's that they have to reconnect those values with political reality. Branding matters. Persuasion matters. Listening matters. If voters stop trusting you, good intentions stop mattering because you lose the ability to accomplish the goals you care about.
How is it I did not see this until July 23rd it was put out in May
I don't know. I always make a point of pulling older posts back out because I started writing in September and published 3 to 4 times a week for seven months. That gave me about 100 posts to practice and slowly refine my style, transitioning from being a speaker to being a writer.
I specifically wanted an audience on Substack because, generally speaking, people who enjoy reading are the audience I was looking for. I got tired of trying to squeeze complex ideas into 15-second, 30-second, or even 3-minute clips.
So I wrote... and I didn't share any of that writing for seven full months. Then I finally started sharing it in late April, about three months ago. I went from around 400 subscribers to 800, and now I'm knocking on the door of 2,000.
As for the post you're talking about, it may have been published before under a different title or with a different thumbnail. I change both pretty regularly, so older pieces can be easy to miss.
Still trying to figure out Substack it’s been a year and I still can’t figure it out.
Lynette. You're not alone.. it took me quite a while .. The good news is that once it's figured out, you get to realize that versus all the other social media platform is that this has the smartest people with the most authentic discussions and comments and posts.
Best people strangest algorithms 😂
I just posted a complicated but information packed graphic if anyone is interested
https://substack.com/@2tuttlechris/note/c-300952953?r=8ahw20&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Your whole argument makes zero sense. You’re arguing for Capitalism with guardrails, while espousing the characteristics of shared services - in other words, socialism. You described characteristics that Americans are tired of - never being able to get ahead, having to deal with health care costs, unfair wage gauging by employers- in other words, Capitalism. You also are mixing Marxism (Communism) with socialism and they are two very different things. (Sidenote: pure Communism the way Marx envisioned has never been implemented).
Americans historically have bristled at the Socialist label, but they are not shy about what Democratic Socialism has to offer - free healthcare, free education including in many cases university, living wages, child care, and a social safety net. Virtually every survey has shown that when you ask Americans about these things, they are very supportive. So, it’s a name issue, not a policy issue. My prediction is the number of people supporting Socialist candidates will only improve IF they continue to deliver on services people really care about, as NYC Mayor has so far done for New Yorkers.
As for the “Americans want Democrats to be MORE moderate, not less” line - I’ve seen those surveys, and as someone who has designed surveys for years, I can tell you the surveys are not designed well, which leads to false conclusions. Americans are tired of not seeing much of a difference between MAGA and Democrats who are bought and paid for by AIPAC, Crypto, AI, and other corporations. Americans are tired of losing out, and increasingly they are seeing that moderates- who tend to accept donations from PACs supporting the above - are part of the problem, not the solution. This is happening in real time, right before elections, so this won’t fully play out until later, but I think the tide is turning, and moderates will need to deliver for the people if they want to retain power.
You must be new here.
I don't argue ideology. I compile evidence, statistics, polling, and research, then explain what they show. If the data changes, my conclusions change.
This article wasn't about capitalism versus socialism. I wrote an entirely separate article on that subject because it's a much bigger conversation than a single comment can cover: https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/its-not-capitalism-vs-socialism-the
You're also responding to arguments I never made. I never argued against universal healthcare, public education, Social Security, childcare, or a social safety net. America already has a mixed economy. In fact, much of what you listed exists on a spectrum that virtually every developed market economy already occupies.
What the polling I cited actually measured was identity and messaging, not whether individual policies are popular. Those are two completely different questions.
You're absolutely right that healthcare, childcare, and other public services often poll well. I've never argued otherwise. But when registered Democratic primary voters were asked how they identified politically and economically, only about 6% identified as socialist. And when respondents were presented with the choice between "capitalism with guardrails" and "democratic socialism" as competing frameworks for many of the same underlying goals, roughly 62% preferred capitalism with guardrails. That doesn't contradict support for public programs. It suggests the label itself carries political baggage that the policies often do not.
You also say my argument "makes zero sense" because capitalism with guardrails is just socialism by another name. It isn't. Strong antitrust enforcement, banking regulation, consumer protections, labor standards, and breaking up monopolies are longstanding features of regulated market economies. They regulate capitalism. They don't replace private ownership with public ownership. Those are fundamentally different approaches, even if they sometimes pursue similar outcomes.
As for the polling, simply saying, "I've designed surveys," isn't evidence that these findings are flawed. If you think the methodology is unsound, point to the specific flaw. And it wasn't just one poll. Multiple independent polls after the 2024 election found that Democratic voters, on balance, wanted the party to move more toward the political center than further left.
Ironically, the one point where we're probably closest is your criticism of corporate influence. I write extensively about regulatory capture, corporate lobbying, and the outsized influence of money in politics. None of that conflicts with advocating for regulated capitalism. In many ways, it's exactly why stronger guardrails are needed.
If your position is that democratic socialism will become a more politically effective label as leaders deliver tangible results, that's a perfectly legitimate prediction. It just isn't a rebuttal to the argument I actually made.
Yes, I am new here, but have never been one to shy away from a political argument, so let’s try this again. Going back to your question of economic populism vs. socialism (I think that was the comparison; I can’t see your original post when I’m commenting), I think Democrats should avoid the term Socialism like the plague, because the US has a long history of demonizing Socialists, even though basic tenets of Socialism (as I pointed out before) poll extremely well - subsidized healthcare, childcare, education, etc. To muddy the waters further, the countries most admired (Norway, Sweden, Finland) are Social Democrat models with considerable public/private sector structures, including healthy entrepreneurship - not what comes to mind in this country when we think of Socialism. Strangely enough, Socialists like Mamdani are electing to keep the label and are doing the uphill work of showing real results. Whether than can change most Americans’ opinion of Socialism remains an open question.
Capitalism with guardrails sounds great, but rarely works for long in this country- the broligarchs can’t help themselves. Seeing the longtime resistance to any sort of taxation/funding of public services and consistent exploitation of workers and natural resources, I am skeptical that this model can work again (the heyday was post WW2 until the late 70’s). We are far beyond tweaking around the edges, which most moderates call for.
As for surveys, the one question that infuriates me most in all polls is: “Do you think this country is on the right track?” Nearly everyone would answer no to this question, but for vastly different reasons. Without more context, this question is useless, but I’ve seen it used over and over to prove someone’s point.
I prefer Social Democrat. The word "socialism" carries too much baggage. Capitalism is good but we have deregulated too much. Capitalism on steroids is not good.
Hey guys put Evelyn on the list of wise contributors saying things that we can all learn from... This is actually a MUCH more useful framing than either party uses.
The real divide isn't capitalism vs. SOCIALISM.... it's regulated vs. unregulated concentration of power, and both labels can get there if nobody's watching.
"Capitalism on steroids" is exactly RIGHT, gang.
Deregulation without a floor doesn't create more freedom, it just lets the biggest winners write the next round of rules for everyone else.
She's going to have to soar to the top of the list because she possesses the ability everyone knows I lack.... Brevity. It took me a whole post to say what she said in just a few words.. A Mentor of mine back when I did the books for school districts.. he had the same gift. He could take an article I wrote in a 500 word essay on and recite it back to me in 50 words or less. https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/its-not-capitalism-vs-socialism-the
Also, stockholder rights have gotten out of hand. Stockholders are important, but not more so than the customer nor the rank and file employees. Employees get left behind all the time. Since the 60s Management and Stockholders have gotten all the goodies while regular workers have been left behind. There was a time when workers could count on a defined benefit retirement plan and employer-provided health care….no more!
Evelyn first of all welcome to the community and I'm thrilled to have you join because the readers are the community I'm just a guy that started it so here's my input which keep in mind… by my design… can be adversarial…
I 110% agree on the mechanism, not just the outcome. Since "maximize shareholder value" became the default legal cover in the 70s, quarterly stock price started outranking almost everything else, including the workers who actually generate the value being maximized….so that's not a partisan failure, it's a governance structure that NOBODY voted on.
If we want a real fix, it looks less like "tax the rich" and more like binding stakeholder requirements or claw-backs tied to buybacks during layoff years. Structure over slogans.
It has surprised me a lot that recently the media and thus the people are acting like redistricting/gerrymandering is something new. This has been going on since the 1780's (in the late 1780s when James Madison was nearly gerrymandered out of a congressional seat) and was made significantly worse by The U.S. Supreme Court rulings that both state assemblies and state senates must follow the "one person, one vote principle on June 15, 1964, in the landmark case Reynolds v. Sims. This ruling followed the 1962 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case, Baker v. Carr, regarding Tennessee's districting. Prior to this, most states had governments similar to the federal government where the state senators represented the county they lived in and the state assemblies were like the US house of representatives. After 1964 everything became 1 man 1 vote and the ridiculously shaped districting became much worse. One of many things that was supposedly fixed by the politicized courts and it happens on both sides of the fence.
“Nobody in that story did anything illegal. Nobody twirled a mustache. The system just worked exactly as designed.
This is not a conspiracy.
It is a structural outcome”
It might be structural on the first time a corp fires people to increase profits/investment.
But in the next few demonstrations of this tack the super capitalists are laughing up their sleeves at those commoner suckers! Always trying to get a leg up by coming to work with one of them. Aha ha ha - sucka!
Maybe not a formal conspiracy but a PRACTICE that MAKES MONEY on the BACKS OF THE FIRED bread winners, the bill payers, the ones who pay their bills on their left hand and then next payday pay their bills on their right hand. Always getting a bit further behind.
I have always done it. My husband was a high school teacher in northern California.
Not a conspiracy per say - but just as pervasive!
Dianne, you're not actually disagreeing here, you're describing exactly what "structural" means.
A conspiracy needs people in a room agreeing to screw people over. A structural outcome doesn't need that room, because the incentives already point everyone toward the same behavior on their own, which is what makes it worse, not better. It's not a plot, it's a design, and a design that keeps squeezing teachers and bill payers doesn't need malice to keep running. Just inertia, and nobody with the power to stop it deciding it's their problem. Your husband's story isn't an exception to the argument. It's the evidence for it. I laid out exactly how that design got built, piece by piece, over 40 years: https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/its-not-capitalism-vs-socialism-the
In answer to your question, at the moment I fear the Democrats are unable to profit from the energy, enthusiasm, and lamentable popularity and momentum of the DSA losing their soul, such as it is. Their problem is, as you know, they don’t have much of a soul; they’re a classic example of a political entity that justifies your cynicism and skepticism which I know you are trying to overcome—aren’t we all— as well as trying to avoid despair.
I certainly hope I am wrong about the Democrats, but as I’ve taken the same lately to try to preserve my own morale ultimately I guess it’s in God‘s hands.
I’ve been reading more and more of your writing, and it occurred to me that now might be a good time to share this: base on my all too long experience in life, the core problem his human nature. Until we change that, the best we can do design systems that channel it optimally.
You can try to take the money out of politics, which is something of a quixotic quest shared by many, but ultimately conflicts of interest are the whole problem.
I think that’s the fatal flaw in communism, whether you call it socialism by any other name: it only works if men are angels. We only achieve the socialist paradise if men are angels, and they are not, at least not yet. Perhaps one day religious faith or secular humanism will rid hs of our obsolete and counterproductive adapttionis tendencies, but they haven't so far.
The same applies to all forms of government, including ours here in the US. Government could be a panacea if all the people in government were angels, but they aren't.
That’s why the best remedy I can think of as pertains to the public sector is to keep it as small as possible; acknowledge that people are going to be self-serving, self dealing, and that they end up succumbing to the overpowering temptations that lead to corruption (at least that’s what the history of the world tells us).
So, until men are angels I say keep their footprint as small as possible, and only delegate things to the public sector when we have a clear market failure; in other words when we can’t take care of ourselves then we have to appoint some of us to take care of the rest of us—to protect us from enemies, both domestic and abroad, for example.
Under that rubric, government is best viewed as a necessary evil to be kept to the bare necessary minimum.
So,that’s my thought for the day. Keep up the good work and I will continue to stay engaged for as long as I have the means at my disposal.
Hey would you ever want to do a podcast with me
Sure. I have a face made for radio and a voice made for silent movies, but with those caveats, if you're game, so am I.
I've never heard that before maybe we can do it in ASL… hands only