The following article, “The Future of the Left in the 21st Century: (Part Three)” by Ruy Teixeira, politics editor of The Liberal Patriot newsletter, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of major works of political analysis, is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

This is the final part of a three-part series on the future of the left in the 21^st century (the first part is here and the second part is here). My basic thesis is that the left’s project in the first quarter of the 21^st century has failed and that a left project for the second quarter of this century must be based on core principles that break with the failures of the last 25 years.

Those principles must be based on the fundamental fact that the left has lost touch with baseline realities of how to reach ordinary working-class voters, what policies could actually deliver what these voters want and what kind of politics accords with these voters’ common sense rather than the biases of their professional-class base. They should provide a drastic course-correction toward realism to give the left a serious chance of decisively defeating right populism and achieving the good society they claim they are committed to.

In the first part of this series, I discussed two such principles: energy realism andgrowth realism. In the second part, I discussed two more principles, governance realism and immigration realism. In this concluding installment of this series, I will discuss three final principles: merit, biology, and patriotic realism.

Merit realism. The quintessential moral commitment of the 20^th century left was to make American society truly colorblind. It was unfair and egregious that racial discrimination could truncate the life chances of black people and visit misery upon them. Therefore, the left advocated and marched for ending discrimination and unequal opportunity. They won the argument, in the process pulling the entire Democratic Party in their direction. Not only was legislation passed to make such discrimination illegal but anti-discrimination and equal opportunity became as close to consensual beliefs as you can get in America.

Americans today believe, with Martin Luther King Jr., that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” In a 2022 University of Southern California Dornsife survey, this classic statement of colorblind equality was posed to respondents: “Our goal as a society should be to treat all people the same without regard to the color of their skin.” That view elicited sky-high (92 percent) agreement from the public.

Similarly, a 2023 Public Agenda Hidden Common Ground survey found 91 percent agreement with the statement: “All people deserve an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter their race or ethnicity.” This is what Americans deeply believe in: equal opportunity not, it should be noted, equal outcomes.

Read more…

As a registered voter in California, I’ve been watching the slowly developing 2026 gubernatorial race in which no Democrat seems to be breaking out of the bipartisan pack. I wrote an early assessment for New York:

The last three governors of California were all legendary, larger-than-life political figures. Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003–’11) was a huge Hollywood and pop-culture celebrity before he entered politics in a recall election that ejected his predecessor Gray Davis. He remains the last Republican to be elected as governor or U.S. senator in the Golden State. Jerry Brown (2011-2019) served in his second two-term gubernatorial stretch, having first been elected to the office way back in 1974 (he also ran for president three times). And the current and outgoing California governor, Gavin Newsom (2019-present), was San Francisco mayor and two-term lieutenant governor before stepping up to the top job in Sacramento. He, too, has dominated California politics in a big way.

The contest to choose the 41st governor of California currently has ten candidates — eight Democrats and two Republicans — and not that many voters could identify them in a line-up. Two Democratic politicians who did have some name ID and who might have dominated the field have given the race a pass. That would be former U.S. senator, vice president, and presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who may instead run for president again in 2028 (very likely against Newsom); and her successor in the Senate, Alex Padilla, who gained a lot of attention when he was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by Secret Service agents for trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question at a press conference.

With those big fish out of the tank, the remaining field is composed of candidates who are far from unknown, but are still small fry, relatively speaking. A well-known former Democratic member of the U.S. House, Katie Porter  (who ran for the Senate in 2024) and current House member Eric Swalwell (who very briefly ran for president in 2020), are running. One current Democratic statewide office-holder, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, is making a bid. So is former state comptroller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden administration HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and former state assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. The most recent Democrat to enter the race was hedge fund billionaire and liberal activist Tom Steyer (who ran a presidential campaign briefly more successful than Swalwell’s in 2020).

Alongside these eight Democrats are two Republicans: Fox News gabber and former British Tory political operative Steve Hilton, and current Riverside County (east of L.A.) sheriff Chad Bianco.

Polls consistently show these ten candidates struggling to break out of the pack. Early on, Porter, building on name ID from her unsuccessful 2024 Senate race, had some buzz, but she damaged herself by pitching a temper tantrum during a media interview that wasn’t going her way. Since then it’s become a sluggish race between snails. The latest public poll, from Emerson, released in early December, shows Bianco at 13 percent, Hilton and Swalwell at 12 percent, Porter at 11 percent, Villaraigosa at 5 percent, and Steyer and Becerra at 4 percent. The remaining candidates combine for 7 percent, and there’s an impressive 31 percent who are undecided or don’t know who these people are. Everyone but Porter has name ID under 50 percent, and hers isn’t all that positive. You may think that’s because it’s so very early in the contest, but in fact, the primary is on June 2, just over six months away.

That primary, by the way, is part of California’s non-partisan top two system in which the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party, proceed to the general election. And the early polling has created a bit of a freak-out among Democrats bewailing their candidates’ lack of star power, as Politico noted:

“California Democrats have a math problem: They’ve added so many candidates in the race to succeed Gavin Newsom that two Republicans could end up winning the state’s quirky ‘jungle primary,’ shutting the Democrats out.

“A Democratic wipeout is still unlikely. But the prospect of a humiliating pile-up, with no clear powerbroker to act as traffic cop, has put the state’s political class increasingly on edge with each new entrant into the field.”

Even though the race should intensify considerably as we get deeper into 2026, the candidate filing deadline isn’t until March. So the power vacuum in the gubernatorial field could yet attract a late entry from some celebrity (Hollywood is chock full of them) or insanely rich self-funder (one such bag of money, Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso, could run for governor if he doesn’t run again for L.A. mayor). Or more Lilliputs could join the race hoping that lightning strikes (e.g., state Attorney General Rob Bonta).

If the field remains as it is, keep an eye on Steyer, whose vast wealth could buy him the name ID he needs. Ideological divisions and factional alignments could also be key. Thurmond is touting his support for a single-payer health care system and has the endorsement by California’s powerful teachers unions. Villaraigosa (who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018) has a well-worn reputation as a Democratic “moderate.” Porter has scars from her battles with the crypto industry, which savaged her with negative ads in 2024, while Calderon has become a crypto bro ally. Becerra can run on his legal battles with the first Trump administration (when he served as California attorney general) and Swalwell has been trading insults with Trump for years. Meanwhile the two Republicans in the race can be expected to compete for a Trump endorsement (Hilton is a long-time Trump backer on Fox News, while Bianco is a former Oath Keeper).

Ethnic and geographical rivalries could matter too. Becerra, Calderon, and Villaraigosa are Latino; Yee is Asian-American; Thurmond is Black. Calderon, Porter, and Villaraigosa are from the greater Los Angeles area; Steyer, Swallwell, Thurmond, and Yee are from the San Francisco Bay area; and Becerra is from Sacramento. Schwarzenegger was the last California governor from Southern California, but he also represented the last gasp of truly moderate Republicanism.

While the field could shrink or expand even more before the filing deadline, the next governor of California probably won’t enter office with anything like the street cred and national prominence of the other 21st century chief executives, who often acted as though the state is an independent principality with its own foreign and domestic policies. Newsom will also leave some chronic fiscal problems, a perpetually fractious legislature, all sorts of natural resources and environmental challenges, and a housing “affordability” crisis that has spurred a national debate over a so-called “abundance” agenda prioritizing regulatory streamlining to speed up housing and other construction. It’s a lot, but whoever wins will become a lot more famous, fast.

Leading up to the 2024 elections, there was an undeniable trend of voters, as well as candidates, changing their allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republicans. Among the 30 states that kept tabs on party registration, from 2020 to 2024 Democrats lost a bit more than 2 million registrants, while Republicans gained about 2.4 million on their registration rolls.

The trend was underscored by Trump’s win in the 2024 presidential election and amplified in numerous polls. Of course, party switching of any kind is more common among voters than candidates. Trump bagged a high profile Blue to Fred switcher in recruiting RFK, Jr. to serve as his Secretary of Health and Human Services, even though the switch was roundly denounced by the Kennedy family along with countless voters who admired his father.

Previously, Sen Arlen Specter (PA) was the most high-profile elected official to switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat. But he was the exception and that was back in 2009. In that same year, the “Blue Dogs” caucus of conservative Democrats peaked at 54 members, but then lost members in the next three congressional elections. The years between then and 2025 have featured a steady stream of voters favoring Republicans. (for a comprehensive count of prominent party-switchers in American history, check out this list)

But now there are reasons to believe that the trend is beginning to flip in favor of Democrats. “In the second quarter of 2025, an average of 46% of U.S. adults identified as Democrats or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, while 43% identified as Republicans or said they lean Republican,” Jeffrey M. Jones reports at Gallup. In 2026, there are two high-profile Democratic candidates who were formerly Republicans: Geoff Duncan, a former Republican congressman and Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, who is running for Governor of Georgia; and George Conway, attorney and political commentator who is running for congress in NY-12. If both of these candidates are defeated, they will be considered political anomalies. If they are elected, they will be hailed as political visionaries, who saw the future before less-bright Republicans caught on. If one wins and the other loses, call it a split decision, which may or may not inspire more flippage.

In any case, both Duncan and Conway should be credited as candidates of conscience, former Republicans who decided that the GOP has become a corrupt personality cult, swamped by greed, callousness and hypocrisy. If elected, Conway and/or Duncan will also diversify the Democratic Party as proponents of conservative philosophy and strengthen the hand of centrists in American politics, as well as in the Democratic Party.

Benjamin Guggenheim reports that “9 Republicans back Dem effort to revive Obamacare subsidies: The vote put House Republicans on the record for the first time this Congress on the enhanced tax credits that expired at the end of last year” at Politico: “Nine House Republicans broke rank Wednesday in support of advancing a Democratic bill that would revive key Obamacare subsidies for three years — a move that sets up a final passage vote Thursday that will for the first time this Congress put members of the House GOP Conference on the record for or against the enhanced tax credits…House members voted 221-205 — with all Democrats voting in favor — to move forward with a Democratic-led discharge petition to force consideration of the legislation against the explicit wishes of Speaker Mike Johnson…The Louisiana Republican for months refused to put a bill on the floor to prevent the credits from ultimately expiring Dec. 31, citing divisions within the GOP ranks over the policy but also criticizing the credits himself…Lack of movement prompted four vulnerable House GOP moderates — Rep. Mike Lawler of New York and Reps. Robert Bresnahan, Brian Fitzpatrick and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania — to provide the four necessary signatures late last year, allowing the Democrats’ discharge effort to now proceed…These Republican centrists fear the political ramifications of allowing the subsidies to remain lapsed in the face of spiking insurance premiums in an election year. All four voted to move ahead with the legislation Wednesday, alongside GOP Reps. María Elvira Salazar of Florida, Nick LaLota of New York, David Valadao of California, Thomas Kean of New Jersey and Max Miller of Ohio…Democrats applauded as the gavel went down to close the vote…The bill stands no chance of passage in the Senate, where there aren’t 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. But a bipartisan group of senators continues to meet in hopes of reaching a compromise agreement to extend the subsidies alongside some modest policy changes.”

“Democrats romp to victory in Virginia special elections,” Emily Singer reports at Daily Kos: “Tuesday night brought fresh evidence that a blue wave is building for the 2026 midterm elections, after Democrats won a pair of special elections for vacant state legislative seats in Virginia. In each election, Democrats improved on the margins won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election…Democrat Mike Jones won the state Senate seat vacated by Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi. Jones defeated Republican John Thomas, 70% to 30%, marking an 8-percentage-point improvement on Harris’ performance in 2024, according to VoteHub…Democrats also notched an 8-point overperformance in a Richmond-based House of Delegates district, where Democrat Charlie Schmidt defeated Republican Richard Stonage Jr. 79% to 20%, according to VoteHub…Consistently overperforming in special elections is a good sign that a party is set to do well in the next general election…In special elections during the 2025-26 cycle, Democrats overperformed Harris’ margin by an average of 13.3%, according to data collected by The Downballot. That’s higher than the 10.6% average overperformanceDemocrats notched ahead of the 2018 midterms, when the party went on to easily retake control of the House…Democrats’ strong performances in special elections have spooked Republicans, who are sounding alarm bells about the 2026 midterms. In fact, the chair of the Republican National Committee has publicly said his party will likely lose.”

At SCOTUSblog, David Boies shares his thoughts with 25 years perspective on the highly controversial and consequential Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2001, the 25th anniversary of which was recently marked, alongside the 5th anniversary of the January 6th insurrection: As Boies, who represented Vice President Gore, explains: “In 2000, the Democratic candidate (Al Gore) received 48.4% of the popular vote, and the Republican candidate (George W. Bush) received 47.9%. In the days following the election, it was agreed that Gore had won 266 electoral votes, Bush had won 246, and Florida’s 25 votes were disputed. Bush led Gore in Florida by 537 votes. In close elections, Florida law provided for manual recounts to confirm “the intent of the voter.” This was especially important in the many Florida counties that still used old punch-card machines, which were notoriously error prone…On Thursday, Dec. 7, after a partial recount of four counties and full briefing, Barry Richards, representing Bush, and I, representing Gore, argued before the Florida Supreme Court. In its decision the following evening, that court agreed with me that certain votes that had been cast on time but excluded by Florida’s Republican secretary of state as recounted too late should be counted. This reduced Bush’s lead to less than 200 votes. The Florida Supreme Court also agreed with me that the entire state should be recounted. That court, however, rejected my argument that it should give the local canvassing boards guidance as to how to interpret Florida’s “intent of the voter” standard, appearing to accept Barry’s argument that the historical discretion accorded to the local boards had to be respected…The recount commenced the following morning, and by shortly after noon on Saturday, it was on schedule (with the possible exception of one county where the Republican canvassing board members refused to show up) to be completed by Sunday evening…During Saturday morning, Bush’s margin continued to decrease, and Gore believed the recount would soon show him narrowly ahead. I was less certain, but hopeful…However, on Saturday afternoon, five Republican members of the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting the votes. The five justices acted without a hearing or briefs on the merits. They gave no explanation as to what, if anything, was improper. The only explanation for stopping the vote count in mid-stream was given by Justice Antonin Scalia: if the vote count showed Gore winning and the court later invalidated it, Bush (and the court) would look bad.”

Boies continues, “True enough. But obscuring the consequences of government action has never been seen as an appropriate goal in a free society. The four remaining justices (two Republicans, two Democrats) filed a bitter dissent…Gore and his whole team were shocked. For the first time in our nation’s history, the court was intervening to affect a presidential election. And it was doing so without a hearing – and without giving any explanation as to what error, if any, it believed was occurring…Three days later, at 10:00 p.m. EST on Dec. 12, after accelerated briefing and oral argument before the court by me on behalf of Gore, Ted Olson on behalf of Bush, and Joseph Klock on behalf of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the same five justices held that Florida’s recount violated the equal protection clause because different canvassing boards interrupted the intent of the voter, making it more likely that a vote would be counted differently in some counties compared to others…The court further held that since Florida could not now complete a recount by the Dec. 12 “safe harbor” date, no further recount would take place. The majority ignored the procedures of the 1877 Act for resolving just such electoral college disputes… The four dissenting justices pointed out that the majority’s opinion was inconsistent with precedent, the rule of law, and the record below; that the federal issues were not substantial; that the court should never have taken the case in the first place; and that Dec. 12 was not a final date, and Florida, not federal judges, should choose whether Florida’s historical right to a recount outweighed any benefits of the safe harbor…The issue was not whether manual recounts to determine the interest of the voter were a good idea (a question that can reasonably be debated). The issue was whether, in the middle of an election, the Supreme Court would change the rules Florida had followed for a century (and that 35 other states followed, as well)…Although widely criticized by both conservative and liberal legal scholars, the initial public reaction was somewhat muted. People did not take to the streets. No shots were fired. No troops were needed. No bargains cut…In a gracious concession speech, Gore accepted the court’s decision and pledged his support for Bush as president. In his capacity as vice president presiding over the Senate’s count of the electoral votes, he even overruled objections to Florida’s slate of Republican electors.” More here.

From “What Americans Really Think About Trump’s Venezuela Gambit: New polling offers a revealing look into shifting U.S. public opinion” by Christina Lu at Foreign Policy:

Even as U.S. President Donald Trump hails the recent U.S. attack on Venezuela and ousting of the country’s president as “amazing,” new polling suggests that Americans remain deeply divided over the move.

Prior to last weekend’s operation, polling suggested that Americans were largely against any U.S. military action in Venezuela. A Quinnipiac University poll in December, for example, found that about 63 percent of respondents expressed opposition, while a whopping 70 percent said the same in a CBS News/YouGov survey from November.

But Americans are more evenly split in their approval and disapproval of this weekend’s developments, according to new polling published by Reuters/Ipsos on Monday. The poll, which was conducted on Jan. 4 and 5 and surveyed more than 1,200 adults nationwide, offers an illuminating look into how the American public views the controversial military operation that has come to dominate much of the world’s attention.

World leaders, it turns out, aren’t the only ones with mixed reactions to the U.S. attack. The poll’s findings suggest that the American public also harbors a wide range of views, with no one reaction clearly on top. What is clear, however, is a wariness that the White House will become too deeply mired in Venezuela’s domestic affairs.

“They don’t want to get too involved. They don’t want U.S. troops in Venezuela,” said Alec Tyson, a lead pollster and senior vice president at Ipsos Public Affairs, which conducted the polling.

“That presents really a narrow path here for the administration, where Americans are open to—or perhaps hoping for—some positive outcomes, but they’re very cautious about getting too involved,” he added.

That challenge is reflected in the data: 33 percent of the survey’s respondents approved of the U.S. military action, almost evenly matching the 34 percent of respondents who disapproved. There’s also a deep sense of uncertainty; 32 percent of people said they were not sure how to feel.

Public sentiment is even more sharply fractured along partisan lines. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans, for example, backed Trump’s operation. The same amount of Democrats opposed it.

More here.

“After a slew of wins in November, Democrats are entering 2026 feeling hopeful and ready to take back the House come midterm season,” Douglas Schoen and Carly Cooperman write in “Democrats are poised to take the House, but don’t expect a blue wave” at The Hill. “And while they’ll likely do just that, the looming idea of a 2018-style blowout seems to be getting further and further out of reach… To be sure, conditions certainly favor Democrats: historical trends, increasing frustration with the Trump administration and encouragement from the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia all point to a Democratic majority in the lower chamber…That said, it is critical not to overstate the depth of this so-called blue wave; while it may resemble 2018 at first glance, the simple fact is that it will be essentially impossible for Democrats to flip 40 seats as they did on that occasion…Indeed, the battlefield appears to be smaller than ever before. Thanks to partisan gerrymandering, once-competitive districts have now become easy targets that fundamentally prevent a truly massive seat haul from actually panning out…Looking back to 2018, about three-quarters of the seats that Democrats flipped were in the competitive zone where President Trump had won by less than 5 points. This time around, the competitive zone is not nearly as populated. There are only 14 Republican-held toss-up seats, so a 40-seat pickup should be barred from Democrats’ expectations altogether.” See also Ed Kilgore’s “A Democratic Wave Would Be Nice in 2026. But a Ripple Will Do” at New York magazine, via The Democratic Strategist.

Many New York lefties are still enjoying a sugar-high in the wake of Mayor Mamdani’s inauguration. In  San Francisco, the other city often bashed for its ultra-progressive political culture, however, a very different story is taking shape. At Politico, Dustin Gardiner writes in “As Mamdani rises in New York, San Francisco turns away from the left” that, “If Zohran Mamdani represents the rise of progressive politics in America, San Francisco is fast becoming the deflating counterpoint for the left…It isn’t just that liberal lion Nancy Pelosi is on her way out or that moderate Democrats, backed by wealthy tech investors, have trounced the left in election after election over the last five years. It’s that San Francisco progressives who have been lost in a fog here — paying the price for voters’ frustrations over street conditions, homelessness and a drug addiction epidemic — have seen liberals in another big city suddenly supplant them…“The takeover is classic: San Francisco is the jewel in the crown of the crypto and tech industries,” vented Aaron Peskin, a progressive former president of the Board of Supervisors who lost last year’s mayoral election. “They want this to be the symbolic elite tech capital of the world.”…In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie, an heir to the billion-dollar Levi Strauss fortune, has focused on austerity measures, beefing up policing, reviving a hollowed-out downtown core and supporting the booming artificial-intelligence industry.” Calling San Francisco “a lefty caricature and punching bag for conservatives, pundits and politicians on the right,” Gardiner quotes leading local Democrat on the changes underway on the left coast: “The message is you can take things too far,” said Nancy Tung, chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party and a moderate who’s helped lead the city’s centrist shift. She added, “Don’t expect that voters won’t notice forever.”…Tech investors have outsize influence in San Francisco, a city of less than than 850,000 people where a few million dollars can blanket the local airwaves with ads…Silicon Valley interests have poured tens of millions of dollars into San Francisco elections over the last five years, often propelling messages about the city’s pandemic decline and blaming progressives for crime in the city…,The contrast in San Francisco is glaring: After years of progressives gaining power, voters in 2022 recalled progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin and three school board members who had pushed to rename public schools even as classrooms remained empty during the pandemic. Moderates then won a majority on the city’s Board of Supervisors, including ousting socialist Supervisor Dean Preston in a district that includes the Haight Ashbury, one of the city’s liberal enclaves.”

On this anniversary of the January 6th insurrection/riot it seems appropriate to share the description of this event by the person who conducted the most thorough investigation of it. Read former Special Counsel “Jack Smith’s Closing Argument” at The New Yorker, shared by Ruth Marcus, in which she quotes Smith: “…the evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit. So in terms of why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the Presidential election. I would never take orders from a political leader to hamper another person in an election. That’s not who I am…If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today,” he said, “I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat” Smith has conducted investigations of Democrats, as well as Republicans throughout his career. Marcus adds, “Smith’s deposition was, in all likelihood, as close as he will get to making a closing argument. It marks, most likely, the unsatisfying conclusion of an unsatisfying episode, one that underscored the limitations of the criminal-justice system in dealing with a lawless President.”

Some insights from “Unsolicited advice for Democrats” by Jonathan P. Baird at the Concord Monitor: “It is not enough to simply be defined as against Donald Trump and his fascist regime. Democrats need a more affirmative identity…We have been losing elections with regularity, but I have not seen much soul-searching. Now the Democratic leaders hope to win with only minor adjustments…It is past time for Democrats to develop a far more progressive, economic populist identity. The billionaire class is buying elections like they would any commodity. We need a vision that can attract the American majority. The pieces of this vision should not be any great mystery but I will suggest some policy planks: Medicare for all. It is wildly popular and needed especially as we watch the disappearance of Obamacare subsidies, which will devastate 24 million people and make health care unaffordable. Universal health care is exactly the kind of value Democrats should embrace enthusiastically…Expanding the Supreme Court. Democrats should push to add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has been corrupted and it has acted like a tool of the Republican Party. Nothing prevents Congress from changing the number of seats on the Court. As currently embodied, Democrats can expect the Court to veto any legislation that helps the majority of the American people, just as it did when Biden was president…Democrats need to create a far more welcoming approach to all working people and we should get away from the snobbiness, disdain and moral judgmentalism that has characterized many college-educated Democrats. Politics is a game of addition, not subtraction. I think anger at Trump voters is stupid…The sociologist C. Wright Mills once wrote about “crackpot realism” and how ruling circles indulged in that type of thinking. That is exactly the kind of thinking too many Democrats indulge. Even if masses of people hate what the Trump regime is doing, there is no guarantee they will vote for Democrats. The Democrats need to give the people reasons to vote for them…”

The following article stub for, “Are There Green Shoots of a ‘Post-Woke’ Left?” by Justin Vassallo, is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:

In the year since Trump’s reelection, there has been an outpouring of commentary on the confused state of the Democrats but also the disarray of the political left more broadly. One could make the case, as Ruy Teixeira has for TLP, that the modern left, after a brief resurgence in the 2010s following the Great Recession, has hit its nadir due to an excess of cultural radicalism. Another perspective, offered variously by John B. Judis and Jacobin’s Bhaskar Sunkara, counters that despite recent setbacks, the left enjoys more relevance and soft support than it has in several decades.

There is a good case to be made that the bleak prognosis for the American left is overstated. Public trust in political institutions is in free fall in America and across the West, to the presumed benefit of MAGA and “anti-establishment” right-wing populists elsewhere. Yet nearly forty percent of Americans hold a favorable view of socialism—a number that was, ironically, hardly conceivable sixty years ago when Cold War America, though in the birth pangs of its “Second Reconstruction,” was otherwise much more social democratic than it is today. Evidently, more than festering consumer angst over high prices for groceries, concerts, and sporting events is at play here.

In fact, there are indications that the green shoots of a “post-woke” left are already emerging, sometimes far from where the left typically predominates. How this left is construed in the public mind, and whether we can truly deem it as properly of the left in a macro-historical sense, will depend in large part on the ability of insurgents to draw on America’s egalitarian political traditions, in speech and gestures unimpeded by a progressive intelligentsia consumed with America’s sins. Indeed, its ability to flourish will require a studied independence from the repertoire and sectarianism that has characterized the left in the last decade. The central problem for the left as it is presently constituted—or at least the one recognized by friend and foe alike as defining the alternative to right-populism and “zombie neoliberalism”—is that it has heretofore fettered the growth of a flexible oppositional politics, predicated on restoring positive government and the associative power of common people, in the regions the Democrats have abandoned, thus precluding the very realignment in the party system the left professes to seek.

Before addressing the left’s prospects and challenges, it is worth elaborating on what the left as a force engaged in electoral politics means in the present context. Granting that there is no monolithic left in America (or anywhere really), there are two main factions with considerable overlap that have defined what it means to be on the democratic left and which, when push comes to shove, duly back the Democrats in most elections. To some, these strands might be self-evident or not wholly distinct. People’s beliefs and judgments of effective politics change over time, even when they don’t adopt an entirely different outlook on power, rights, and responsibilities. Still, the fact that these strands have contributed profoundly to how we interpret the possibilities for American politics, while fundamentally failing to prevent the return of what they abhor, merits review.

More here.

A new era of New York City’s politics began yesterday with the inauguration of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, sworn in by avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, no less. It marks an historic transformation on a number of fronts: Mamdani is the first Muslim Mayor of New York; first Asian-American Mayor of NYC; first Ugandan-born Mayor of the Big Apple; and, more significantly, the first NYC mayor who is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Estimates of the number of Democratic Socialist of America members in the U.S. are north of 90,000, and are going to grow at a quickening pace in the months and perhaps years ahead. The group does provide the most vigorous left-leaning voice among Democratic voters. If you want to read more about Mamdani’s policies, check out the current issue of Jacobin, which features articles on “Municipal Socialism.”

Mamdani’s ardent embrace of Democratic Socialism sets eyes rolling among centrist Democrats, who believe, probably correctly, that the Democratic Socialist dog will not hunt statewide anywhere in the U.S.  No matter, say the Democratic Socialists, we will be delighted to run America’s largest cities. And they have a good start in the most populated American city, which has more people than most states.

Mayor Mamdani has an extremely ambitious agenda, which reportedly includes free bus service, public ownership of utilities, a city-owned supermarket in every Burough, a $30 per hour minimum wage, universal child care, affordable housing and a big hike in taxes for corporations and the wealthy. Not a lot of low-hanging fruit on that tree. If he achieves half of his agenda, expect his popularity to soar.  If Mayor Mamdani fails to achieve any of these goals in his first year, his popularity will likely tank.

“Under-promise and over-deliver” says a motto pasted on many a cubicle wall. Mayor Mamdani has arguably taken a pretty big risk in staking out his agenda in such specifics. But he has done pretty good so far without heeding advice to the contrary. It is often noted, however, that Democrats in recent times are long on promise and short on deliverables, which is one reason why its party approval statistics are lagging. Mamdani has to produce to remain credible. If he does, his bright future in American politics is assured – and with it the prospects for Democratic Socialism.

Happy New Year! Welcome to Republican health care, in which “A KFF analysis last month found that people who buy insurance from the marketplace, and receive financial assistance, would see their premiums rise by about 114% on average, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026,” Mary Kekatos writes at ABC News in her article, “ACA subsidies that lower monthly insurance premiums for millions of Americans set to expire: About 22 million Americans are currently receiving enhanced premium tax credits.” Further, “Eligibility for the subsidies can be determined by factors such as household income and geographic location…The subsidies were part of the original ACA passed during the Obama administration and were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the amount of financial assistance to those who were already eligible and to expand eligibility to more people…and many are preparing to see their premiums soar in 2026.” In November, “the Senate reached a bipartisan deal to end the shutdown — that deal did not include any of the Democratic demands on health care.” What begins today is Republican health care in its purest form. Kekatos adds that “Sources told ABC News that Republican leadership promised to allow a vote on a bill of Democrats’ choosing related to the ACA in December, but a pair of competing health care-related bills failed to advance in the [GOP-controlled] Senate earlier this month. “The ACA tax credits expire at midnight,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X Wednesday morning. “Millions will see their premiums skyrocket because Republicans refused to act. You deserve better, and Democrats will keep fighting to lower costs.”

In “‘Trump’s Economic Policies Did This’: US Business Bankruptcies Surge to 15-Year High: At least 717 US companies filed for bankruptcy through November 2025—the highest figure recorded since the aftermath of the Great Recession,” Jake Johnson writes at Common Dreams: “Businesses in the United States have filed for bankruptcy this year at a level not seen since 2010 as President Donald Trump’s tariff regime has jacked up costs for companies in manufacturing and other major sectors…Citing data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, the Washington Postreported over the weekend that at least 717 US companies filed for bankruptcy through November 2025, the highest figure recorded since the aftermath of the Great Recession and a 14% increase compared to the same period last year…“Companies cited inflation and interest rates among the factors contributing to their financial challenges, as well as Trump administration trade policies that have disrupted supply chains and pushed up costs,” the Post noted. “But in a shift from previous years, the rise in filings is most apparent among industrials—companies tied to manufacturing, construction, and transportation. The sector has been hit hard by President Donald Trump’s ever-fluid tariff policies—which he’s long insisted would revive American manufacturing.”…Recent data shows that the US has lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump’s return to office…The bankruptcy figures add to the growing pile of evidence showing that Trump’s tariffs and broader policy agenda have harmed the US economy—weakening job growth, driving the unemployment rate up to the highest level since the Covid-19 pandemic, and worsening the nation’s cost-of-living crisis.”

Some insights from “Why Does Trump Get Away With It?” by Thomas B. Edsall at The New York Times: “How does Trump get away with doing things, repeatedly, that would have been disastrous for previous presidents — Republican and Democratic?…Neither the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush nor the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have survived intact if they and their families had started a multibillion-dollar business supported by foreign interests similar to the Trump Organization’s cryptocurrency operations or issued pardon after pardon to drug dealers, campaign contributors and political supporters on the scale Trump has engaged in.”  Edsall cites a number of reasons for Trump’s “stew of corruption,” including “The news media, which has become polarized into pro- and anti-Trump camps, effectively gutting its role as an enforcer of accountability…The liabilities of the opposition. Democratic overreach — encapsulated in the term “wokeness” — has severely damaged the party’s moral credibility, making it harder to criticize Trump productively…Structural frailty. American democracy and the Constitution are not equipped to deal in an effective and timely manner with a president who aggressively and willfully tramples the law…The Supreme Court’s conservative majority. The court has, with some recent exceptions, failed to fulfill its role as enforcer of restraints. The majority’s support of the unitary executive theory, combined with such rulings as Trump v. United States, has effectively approved presidential criminality…A supine Republican Party. Republican majorities in the House and Senate have abandoned all semblance of institutional and constitutional integrity, passively allowing Trump to wrest away their powers over taxing and spending, turning Congress into a collection of sycophants.”

One more little bite of good electoral news from “Democrat wins Iowa state Senate race, blocking GOP from regaining supermajority” by Julia Mueller  at The Hill: “Democrat Renee Hardman won a special election for state Senate in Iowa on Tuesday, preventing Republicans from regaining a supermajority in the chamber, Decision Desk HQ projects…Hardman, the West Des Moines mayor pro tempore, defeated Republican Lucas Loftin to fill the seat that has been vacant since state Sen. Claire Celsi (D) died in October…Her victory denies Republicans a two-thirds majority in the upper chamber, which would have given them the power to override a governor’s veto, call for special sessions and approve a governor’s appointees on a party-line vote… With Hardman’s win, Iowa Democrats are closing out the year strong. Back in January, Democrat Mike Zimmer flipped an Iowa state Senate district that had overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2024. And in August, Democrat Catelin Drey flipped another open state Senate seat, breaking the GOP supermajority…Her win is also the last in a string of notable victories for the party nationwide. Democrats most recently saw success in a special election for a state Senate seat in Kentucky. Prior to that, the party overperformed in a special election in Tennessee. And Democrats had a better-than-expected election in November, when they overwhelmingly won the governors’ mansions in New Jersey and Virginia, the mayor’s office in New York City, and a number of other notable downballot races…DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement. “With the last special election of the year now decided, one thing is clear: 2025 was the year of Democratic victories and overperformance, and Democrats are on track for big midterm elections.”

From “What My Party Needs to Do: To win again, we need to speak to voters about the ideas that drew me to the party in the first place: opportunity, security, and justice,” by U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) at Democracy: A Journal of Ideas:

“When did Democrats stop caring about working people?”

I hear that question a lot from Delawareans—nurses and cops, dental hygienists and mechanics. I also heard it plenty in 2024 as I campaigned for Kamala Harris and Senate Democrats. Elected Democrats—me included—still see ourselves as fighting hard for the middle class, protecting the rights of workers, and trying to make life easier for working families. These are the people who are on our minds when we write bills and take votes. But when those same people look at us, they don’t feel that we care about them or their needs. We lost an election in 2024, but more than that, we’ve lost Americans’ trust.

Little more than a year later, the luster is coming off President Trump thanks to his unfulfilled promises and his assault on our rights and Constitution. His approval rating, alongside that of Republicans in Congress, has fallen sharply, and this summer he rammed through one of the least popular pieces of legislation in modern American history. Even so, Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on most of the issues that matter, from the economy to safety.

Democrats need to stop telling Americans how to be and what to feel and believe. Instead, we need to listen. Then we need to solve the problems they’ve shared with us. In the last few years, it’s not just our message that was wrong—it was some of our policies, too. People didn’t recognize the impacts of the bills we wrote and the votes we took. That’s why Americans don’t believe us when we preach at them from auditorium stages, cable news desks, and social media posts.

We have to get back to the values and ideas that draw people to be Democrats to begin with.

I would know because they’re what drew me to the party. I didn’t begin my political life as a Democrat. My parents were Republicans, and I was raised on the idea that if you worked hard, you could attain the American dream the way my family had. In college, I helped found the Amherst College Republicans. My freshman summer, I interned with Senator Bill Roth, a Delaware Republican.

It was a wealthy, white bubble, and by my junior year, I realized I had to experience something from the world beyond it. So I decided to study abroad at the University of Nairobi.

In Kenya, I experienced what I came to think of as radical hospitality. I stayed with people who, although enduring terrible material circumstances, were sustained by their faith and family—and who welcomed strangers in openhearted ways I’d never seen in this country. They showed me a kind of worship I hadn’t experienced before either. I grew up going to Red Clay Creek Presbyterian Church, a suburban, mostly prosperous, and mostly white church in Wilmington, Delaware, where, although the sermons were moving and the choir compelling, there was a reserved determination to the services. Now, half a world away, I was at lively, joyful, four-hour church services filled with music and with people truly relying on the hope they gained through worship to get them through hard days.

More here.