Yes. And it is largely the Public Perception of the corruption that must be addressed.
It is more about getting truthful messaging to the majority of people. Many are hearing Trump & his accomplices non-stop lies 24/7. This eventually erodes one's perception of reality. He is great at capturing attention & emboldening hate & division.
The current GOP is blatantly breaking all records for outrageously corrupt behavior. Yet, they are effectively selling a false message of Trump & his regime as being truthful martyrs for a righteous cause! Break this bubble in ways that the majority cannot miss or ignore - keep in mind that nearly all media is largely influenced or controlled by anti-'American' propaganda.
Yes, Democrats need to stand more firmly on an anti-corruption platform - but we also need to educate about how Democrats have always promoted an agenda to benefit all citizens! Mostly, we need to capture the attention of citizens in a way that reveals the truth that Democrats are & have been fighting for our rights. At the same time, Democrats do need a much stronger, more effective leadership to meet the extreme corruption & assault on our government from all those who have been complicit.
The Democratic Party is too beholden to donors to do this. We've heard this directly from leadership regarding Gaza, and we see it in their treatment of Mamdani. Last week, 95 Democrats backed the resolution to honor a virulent bigot.
This isn't a party that can be reformed. This isn't a moment for more incrementalism, where we wait for the huge number of people, both young and old, to lose a primary or age out (which means, die, since no part of aging removes them from office). We need a dramatic change of the type that Democrats are proving ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต that they are not capable of providing.
Anti-corruption is a winner. Itโs a direct appeal to peopleโs values and emotions.
Itโs simpleโ-not about policies. Easy to link to ways it impacts people economically (eg healthcare costs; paying more taxes than the rich ). Appeals to status-sensitive menโwho hate getting used by elites (and thus reduced in status).
Interesting. Thatโs my concern about the anti corruption path. It is baked in the cake for Republicans. Despite the well documented corruption, Trump won, again. The only way I think anti corruption works is if we can tie it to how the corruption impacts every day people.
An excellent idea. I read the headline with skepticism but your essay makes a convincing case for adopting this approach. Nothing else has worked for Democrats.
Right on Point! Democrats have so much more to win by speaking out directly about corruption, as Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia is doing. The more he points out what Trump and others loyal to him are gaining monetarily, the more Americans are reminded of what they have lost through Trump's graft. Democrats have been too soft with their words, too afraid to rock the boat. It's Time!
I think the question here is how to restructure the PARTY itself to align with this goal. The means to this end requires an internal change of institutional logic before it's propagandized to the American public. That said, I think that's the only path forward and would lead the Democrats to a new place, far beyond the politics of today.
This is not the Age of โletโs return to the status quo.โ People want change, if they are not given positive change, they might even opt for negative change than the status quo. Thereโs a lot of brewing frustration with โcorruption,โ if the responses to my podcast (which was only indirectly about the US) offer a small clue: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china-update/ The way corruption has long been studied - as a problem that only afflicts poor countries - has contributed to the complacency thatโs blowing up today.
Anti-corruption message is strong. More is needed. The nonstop Democratic outrage over everything Trump does has blinded the party to the need for root and branch reform of itselfโ its messaging and what it stands for. In addition to fighting corruption, Democrats need their own version of law and order. Trump is chaos. Democrats should stand for stability and be credible on immigration, justice, crime and inflation.
I like this approach but have trouble understanding either party, any party in our broken system might function without big money, the life blood of politics. This is more true than ever following a series of Supreme Court decisions sanctioning its unrestrained role, as you know. Dark money is welcome now too, and has gobbled up everything in its path. How would such a โnewโ anti corruption democratic party get off the ground or through the gate into the arena even to compete much less win? And I ask this question in the most well meaning way. I agree with your premise but am puzzled by the practical aspect of implementation in our money-poisoned political environment.
New to substack, this post and bunch like it have been a great welcome, so thanks. Nice post, this is all good in theory and I agree with a lot of it. But if I understand it correctly, in the US campaign finance laws are tied to the first amendment/free speech by the Supreme Court. I guess that is extremely unlikely to change even under the Democrats (or change enough to make a diff), and as long that's the case, the USA can never be corruption free. I hope I'm wrong.
Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the like have been battling endemic, in your face, crippling corruption for decades, and that's how long it takes to shake it once it sets in properly or if a place is built on a corrupt system. Most of those authoritarian, kleptocratic rulers and parties held power for a long, long time.
The US is only just getting the in your face bit properly, it's an entirely different ball game, you can't compare it to the Nepals of the world. A change of leadership is the first step, but that seems a long way, away.
Anti-corruption, pro-truth.
Anti-destruction, health and wealth for all.
Anti-cheating, accountable to the people.
These are the 3 pillars of a party that can overcome the threats and structural barriers to win power and wield it legitimately.
Yes. And it is largely the Public Perception of the corruption that must be addressed.
It is more about getting truthful messaging to the majority of people. Many are hearing Trump & his accomplices non-stop lies 24/7. This eventually erodes one's perception of reality. He is great at capturing attention & emboldening hate & division.
The current GOP is blatantly breaking all records for outrageously corrupt behavior. Yet, they are effectively selling a false message of Trump & his regime as being truthful martyrs for a righteous cause! Break this bubble in ways that the majority cannot miss or ignore - keep in mind that nearly all media is largely influenced or controlled by anti-'American' propaganda.
Yes, Democrats need to stand more firmly on an anti-corruption platform - but we also need to educate about how Democrats have always promoted an agenda to benefit all citizens! Mostly, we need to capture the attention of citizens in a way that reveals the truth that Democrats are & have been fighting for our rights. At the same time, Democrats do need a much stronger, more effective leadership to meet the extreme corruption & assault on our government from all those who have been complicit.
The Democratic Party is too beholden to donors to do this. We've heard this directly from leadership regarding Gaza, and we see it in their treatment of Mamdani. Last week, 95 Democrats backed the resolution to honor a virulent bigot.
This isn't a party that can be reformed. This isn't a moment for more incrementalism, where we wait for the huge number of people, both young and old, to lose a primary or age out (which means, die, since no part of aging removes them from office). We need a dramatic change of the type that Democrats are proving ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต that they are not capable of providing.
Anti-corruption is a winner. Itโs a direct appeal to peopleโs values and emotions.
Itโs simpleโ-not about policies. Easy to link to ways it impacts people economically (eg healthcare costs; paying more taxes than the rich ). Appeals to status-sensitive menโwho hate getting used by elites (and thus reduced in status).
Interesting. Thatโs my concern about the anti corruption path. It is baked in the cake for Republicans. Despite the well documented corruption, Trump won, again. The only way I think anti corruption works is if we can tie it to how the corruption impacts every day people.
I can see it working or failing spectacularly, what makes people get on board with trust freed from doubts.
don't look to the Democrats to solve the problem, look to the American people
Yes, and be open to transnationalizing the movement, making common cause with similar movements in other countries.
An excellent idea. I read the headline with skepticism but your essay makes a convincing case for adopting this approach. Nothing else has worked for Democrats.
Right on Point! Democrats have so much more to win by speaking out directly about corruption, as Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia is doing. The more he points out what Trump and others loyal to him are gaining monetarily, the more Americans are reminded of what they have lost through Trump's graft. Democrats have been too soft with their words, too afraid to rock the boat. It's Time!
Should add "support for voter ID" since its so popular and speaks to anti-corruption
Adding an ancient Roman alternative:https://open.substack.com/pub/thetimetravellers/p/the-return-of-the-roman-cato-the?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&r=69wi1d&utm_medium=ios
Yes. And we should let thieves write the laws against theft.
I think the question here is how to restructure the PARTY itself to align with this goal. The means to this end requires an internal change of institutional logic before it's propagandized to the American public. That said, I think that's the only path forward and would lead the Democrats to a new place, far beyond the politics of today.
This is not the Age of โletโs return to the status quo.โ People want change, if they are not given positive change, they might even opt for negative change than the status quo. Thereโs a lot of brewing frustration with โcorruption,โ if the responses to my podcast (which was only indirectly about the US) offer a small clue: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china-update/ The way corruption has long been studied - as a problem that only afflicts poor countries - has contributed to the complacency thatโs blowing up today.
Anti-corruption message is strong. More is needed. The nonstop Democratic outrage over everything Trump does has blinded the party to the need for root and branch reform of itselfโ its messaging and what it stands for. In addition to fighting corruption, Democrats need their own version of law and order. Trump is chaos. Democrats should stand for stability and be credible on immigration, justice, crime and inflation.
I like this approach but have trouble understanding either party, any party in our broken system might function without big money, the life blood of politics. This is more true than ever following a series of Supreme Court decisions sanctioning its unrestrained role, as you know. Dark money is welcome now too, and has gobbled up everything in its path. How would such a โnewโ anti corruption democratic party get off the ground or through the gate into the arena even to compete much less win? And I ask this question in the most well meaning way. I agree with your premise but am puzzled by the practical aspect of implementation in our money-poisoned political environment.
New to substack, this post and bunch like it have been a great welcome, so thanks. Nice post, this is all good in theory and I agree with a lot of it. But if I understand it correctly, in the US campaign finance laws are tied to the first amendment/free speech by the Supreme Court. I guess that is extremely unlikely to change even under the Democrats (or change enough to make a diff), and as long that's the case, the USA can never be corruption free. I hope I'm wrong.
Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the like have been battling endemic, in your face, crippling corruption for decades, and that's how long it takes to shake it once it sets in properly or if a place is built on a corrupt system. Most of those authoritarian, kleptocratic rulers and parties held power for a long, long time.
The US is only just getting the in your face bit properly, it's an entirely different ball game, you can't compare it to the Nepals of the world. A change of leadership is the first step, but that seems a long way, away.
Well argued essay, I went from skeptical to pretty convinced by your reasoning.