Sunday, June 28, 2026

The big tent of a two party system is not by design, but by necessity

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries invited the newly winning NY Democratic Socialists into the Democratic Party, just as Democrats have included  Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders in their Congressional caucus, even though most in the Democrats' House caucus do not share the anti-capitalist and one-class-of-workers rhetoric and ideology of the Democratic Socialists.  https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/jeffries-welcomes-democratic-socialists-fold-194230441.html    How did that happen ? Does it mean the Democratic Party embraces socialism, hook, line, and sinker? No. It has to do with reality: strength in numbers is a necessity, and a big ten strategy that dominates both parties. What Democrats and Social Democrats do share are the issues of "affordability" and anti-oligarchy.

 As Democrats now wrestle with the growing strength of the Democratic Socialist wing's rise in New York and the GOP barely disguises its White Christian Nationlist fascist like wing, voters are more and more divided into warring two political parties with each claiming the other has been taken over by wings to be feared.  The reality is that there has already been a two-party system in the US that forces compromise, exclusion, and inclusion within the US politics.  It is reflected in both elections and the makeup of caucus structures in Congress and state legislatures.  Independents, or those who identify with Democratic Socialism on the left and libertarians on the right, pick the caucus of one of the two major parties in Congress that most closely represents their ideology or issue positions, even though only a fraction of their preferences are accepted. The result is what we see now: the term "socialist," which used to scare more establishment Democrats and most voters, is no longer freaking out most New York voters, though that might not be true in the rest of the country.  What happened in NY could stay in NY, but probably not, because of a growing revolt against the GOP being the party of oligarchs and big business who care little about the kitchen table needs of working people and even the middle class.

 The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about their lower-class voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables.  Trump is still in power and governs by whipping self-identified members into loyal occupants of his Trumpist tent. He does it  by threats of being primaried if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction leader demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat."...but since numbers of votes count as a measure of strength and the road to power, they too invite all they can into their big tent, even if they have to hold their noses at the word socialist.  What has happened is that the traditional Democratic Party leaders now realize these socialists were onto a winning message: affordability. The result is yesterday, as the Democratic House minority leader invited Democratic Socialists into their caucus, even though most already there do not embrace the anti-capitalist rhetoric or ideology of the Democratic Socialists. 

Our founders did not plan it that way and, in fact, viewed political parties as a threat to the system they envisioned in the Constitution they were constructing. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, but arose as liberals and conservatives consolidated their power with organizations and names,  under the banner and protection of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the freedom to gather to air their grievances.  

Two parties have dominated throughout our history, but they have frequently changed names and even reversed political ideology,  even changing places, particularly in the wake of the Civil War. Their institutionalization can be found in the politics of individual states, protected by their own statutes and issues of gerrymandering, and the details of when and where and who qualifies to be on a ballot. Most voters like it simple and, if not very engaged in political news, check the box for the party's choice in general elections. Splinter parties, third parties, have a difficulty of even gathering enough votes to be a part of the power structure and how to influence the direction of the country,  or enven getting parts of their platform enacted into law, with the only route to be heard and to convince one or other party, Democrat or Republican, so they battle it out within the parties, and during the primary season, and political conventions.. 

There are no party membership cards; it is a matter of self-identification and of whether the party's leaders reach out to include them. There is a matter of reality, that in close partisan elections, every vote counts, and even the leadership has to welcome them as they hold their noses.  The result is the big tent: the bottom line in Congress and in primaries and general elections is which party gets the most votes.  In short, there is strength in numbers in a democracy.  It is a necessity. Fractions can only find their voice by joining a major party and making their case within it. From the perspective of the major party, the pressure is to be as big a tent as possible to win and gain the power to govern, even though not all in it are on the same page on every issue.

 The result is what we see now: the term socialist that used to scare the more establishment Democrats and voters themselves is now right out there in the open and winning localized elections. The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about the voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables, while whipping their members into loyal occupants of their tent by threats of being primaried and finding themselves excommunicated if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am  a Democrat." However, the reality and necessity persist: strength in numbers.


Y


Saturday, June 27, 2026

GOP: Be careful what you wish as Trumpism trashes affordaiblity and regulatory enforcement

 GOP: Be careful what you wish as Trumpism trashes affordability and regulatory enforcement. Last week, I caught a panel of experts on Stephanie Ruhle's new AM show on MSNow, who concluded it was the wild, wild west on Wall Street. That is a scary potential for our future becoming a crash and trash. In the present era, that is a threatening cloud on the horizon, but now the new threat du jour the GOP sees is democratic socialism.  In the wake of Democratic socialist candidates winning so much in the Democratic primaries last week in New York,, the right wing has found a new cause and has launched a political attack with howls of glee to paint all Democrats as the equivalent of communists (an echo of red scare tactic of the 1950's termonloty not heard by most voters who were not even born in the McCarthy era; it could work with some, though.. The GOP is not without its own wings, like de facto fascists and white nationalists.  The political discourse is now as wild as Wall Street.  New York is New York, and New York has never swung like the rest of the US,  and all politics is very local there, so let's get a grip on reality.

 If capitalism fears democratic socialism, it has only its own excesses to blame, but the GOP is hoping most voters, their own especially, remain ignorant of what is and what is not democratic socialism. or communism, for that matter.  I'll leave that defining and name-calling to others and instead focus on what is happening, however, is reality, and who is feeling it. Unlike what Trumpists tout,  Dow is not the measure that counts if resentment grows, because 80% of the economy is driven by what consumers do and feel. Consumer confidence is now in the dumps per polls. That gets reflected in political action and votes., Politically, there is a growing resentment that the "affordability" that middle-class consumers treasure is slipping from their grasp, and they are pointing the blame at those in power. and who are becoming trillionaires. The voters' buck stops there.  Even some MAGA supporters are realizing that Trump betrayed them with his promises to lower their cost of living (AKA affordability).

 There is an old truism: action creates reaction; To put it another way, extreme action begets extreme reaction.  Capitalism is now facing a backlash of its own successes of the few,, causing the rise in political power of democratic socialism of many...  For that, capitalism has only itself to blame. Capitalism also has the ability to address the anger it has caused... to observe the reforms resulting from the 2008 crash or. Due to Trump's public policies that favor the rich and his disdain for their pain, however, the concept that business can regulate itself flies in the face of humanity's great weakness: greed. Get it while the getting is good; never mind tomorrow. The will to self-regulate, or for the government to impose constraints on their excesses, does not exist, and consumers resent the results. As investors and Wall Street love their gains, ordinary people are just feeling their own loss in living standards.

.The near-death of regulation is a ticking time bomb that has not yet been felt. Are we about to repeat the financial crash of 2008 or the scams of Bernie Madoff? Both are epic examples of a government's failure to enforce regulations. earlier in this century.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it is never more true than in the world of economics. The Trump regime is simply repeating what caused the 2008 crash and victims like those of Mdoff. The lack of regulatory enforcement. The result then was a strong backlash, evidenced by legislative reforms aimed at preventing a recurrence of the 2008 debacle.  Laws without enforcement are not worth the paper they are printed on.


I got this response to above from a FB friend...claiming i was against capitalism. After all, he opined, socialism has failed every place it has tried. It does not work.Ye, gads...the blanket indictment of democratic socialism that it does not work...is really divorced from reality in Europe and they hate communism. ,too. They know the difference. Get a grip on yourself: My family has been in the transatlantic business for years and intensely so now. This right-wing trope has no resemblance to reality. This is not to say that the US should ditto Europe, but half my family lives in Europe, and I even have a granddaughter who left the US to escape student debt, and frankly, really likes health care and the quality of life, and the economy of Austria. She works in tech, a data analysis program to provide marketing information to the thriving private businesses in Europe. She got her undergrad and grad degrees with no student debt hangover. There is no place like Vienna for a quality of life.  Also, within recent years, I visited Norway. Trump's invitation for immigrants from there has no takers. But it gave them a belly laugh. Why? Every poll I have seen calls countries like these (democratic and socialist) are the happiest in the world. It is all relative, of course, ... But I also know the reasons Europeans hate communism is what they have seen and experienced firsthand, that the economic system of a centrally controlled one-party failed. Instead of communism, the governments of Eastern Europe first replaced communism with something resembling fascism. until they, like Ukraine, revolted to join the EU, and western capitalism, warts and all, partially socialistic and regulated, but basically capitalistic. Taken as a whole, its economy is a rival to the US. 

.Russia and its kin run on the support of oligarchs and corruption and fear.. Trump worships Putin. He is a fascist in his heart, as one former military aide said. But as a small business person myself, and a family that includes Harvard MBAs and entrepreneurs, the current regime of Trump cares not a whit for us little guys. and entrepreneurs..and favors the millionaires,and those who contributed to them with loyalty and money... and I am surprised you do not know it. I love capitalism, but only if it is well-regulated to keep it stable, predictable, and and competitive based on performance, not fealty to some great leader.,.There must also be some force to fill the cracks that capitalism, based on profit, cannot and will not provide, such as health care, social security, and basic affordability, while balancing the ability of the spirit of innovation, risk-taking, and freedom that capitalism provides. It is a balancing act. Without that, expect democratic socialists to pick up steam because that balance has been jeopardized by Trump and his band of billionaires, his personal greed, his third finger raised against the rule of law, his amassing of federal power, and an attempted rule by fear and retribution. 

 Going back to the last century, the financial crash and poverty caused by the Great Depression led to FDR.His New Deal reforms and new government services were, in modern terms, an exercise in and implementation of what we now call democratic socialism, which is now inadequate to meet all the needs citizens demand as they struggle to keep up with even the basic economic needs of food and housing.


Monday, June 22, 2026

/what really is at stake in the Colorado AG';s race and why Griswold's opponents have been engaged mostly in character attacks

 I have seen some interesting local media articles, one from the Denver Post carrying a story that the GOP sees a real chance to win the  Colorado AG seat this November (of course, they have a plan, and this helps), and another hit job article today is focusing on Jena Griswold's alleged lie about an outhouse as a symbol of her alleged bad character. Heads up. Griswold's race is about democracy, not about ouhouses.In Colorado, in November, the issue is whether the GOP can get their election-denying candidate into the AG seat so they can control the outcome in 2028. This kind of character assassination campaign against Griswold is just the warm-up for the GOP's main event.  The three GOP candidates ...AG. SOS and gov...are all election deniers. Democracy is at stake, and Colorado is ground zero.

Griswold's opponents in the Democratic primary are serving the GOP's purposes, whether they intend it or not, by also relying on character assassination, with nary a word from them about experience, platform, or priorities related to election integrity in Colorado. This race has already had national attention because of Griswold's successful protection of the integrity of the ballot and its counting in the face of at least 3 elections denying Trump loyal county clerks playing illegal keepaway of ballots and/or calculators,from bipartisan hands as proscribed by law. Tina Peters, Trump's poster child for loyalty to him above sworn duty, is one of those clerks...FYI, Peters also committed crimes in her cover-up, and Griwold and the Colorado AG caught her at it and put her in jail. Her conviction was by jury trial and upheld on appeal, though Polis released her after she had served half her term.

. Jena Griswold's Democratic primary opponents for attorney general (AG) have no experience with what the job of AG mostly entails. .. Claiming Griswold is a bad administrator is political BS. Business records and elections ran smoothly during her terms as Secretary of State. That's the bottom line. She successfully ran a large state 300-person enforcement office, while at the same time fighting election deniers and the Trump attempt at a federal takeover of our elections. (.Griswold is a national leader in this effort as Secretary of State... SOS). and the GOP is running an election denier in the general. The race has national attention because of this issue, and her primary opponents have neither experience nor have acknowledged anything about the real issue of election denial. So what if her trial experience is lacking?AG's are rarely the ones doing the trials. There is a whole section of trial attorneys among the 300 attorneys in a 700-attorney staff office, which an AG must also manage. Griwsold's primary opponents are inexperienced in managing a large enforcement office and unaware of what issues are really at stake.

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Campaign tactics opposing Jena Griswold for AG are deflective and deceptive

From Felicia Muftic's posting on Facebook (The Muftic Forum) 6/17/2026 and from a response to a meme on 6/21/2026, Jena Griswold's opponents have no experience in what the job of AG mostly calls for. ..either in the administration ( Business records and elections ran smoothly during her terms as Secretary of State..the bottom line)) or of a large enforcement office, or in fighting election deniers and the federal takeover of our elections. (.Griswold is a national leader in this effort as SOS). AG's are rarely the ones doing the trials. There is a whole section of trial attorneys among the 300 attorneys in a 700-attorney staff office, which an AG must also manage.. The GOP in Colorado is running election deniers for SOS, AG, and Governor.

 Heads up on what issue is at stake in the next couple of years.


Pinned post

Once again...I am getting references to a few articles in some media, posted by opponents to Secretary of State Jena Griswold's candidacy for Attorney General of Colorado, and accepted as if they were gospel truth, claiming that Griswold is a terrible manager and has a bad character. These are deflective and deceptive campaign tactics. Give me a break: if she were such a bad manager, how does it happen that she as Secretary of State, ran years of fair and free elections, administered well the business records section, user-friendly, too, and kept elections from subversion of the ballot and tabulating by election deniers. This resulted in the conviction of Tina Peters, who had answered Trump's call instead of her oath (Peters's conviction was never overturned; the length of the sentence was at issue). A campaign of character assassination is being conducted now, misleading the public in understanding what both the AG and the Secretary of State do. Worse, it will benefit those who want to turn attention away from the real issue facing us until November 2028: who will protect the integrity of the ballots best, election deniers or those best equipped to protect Colorado's control of the election process? FYI, trial attorneys without the kind of administrative and demonstrated enforcement experience she has are opposing her in the primary and show no interest or understanding of protecting elections from election deniers or giving it priority. AG has a whole section of trial attorneys to handle courtroom drama, as they did so well in the Peters case. Being a trial attorney is not what the AG is all about. If Grislwold survives the primary, these kinds of character assassinations will only benefit a GOP election-denier candidate in the general