Alas, Hope and Change Won’t Cut It

Former President Barack Obama at the inauguration of Donald Trump at the US Capitol on January 20, 2025. Kenny Holston/Sipa/AP

The other day, I received a press release from the Democratic National Committee announcing a new initiative: a billboard campaign! This is how the DNC is responding to the crisis that has been triggered by the Trump-Musk war on democratic governance, the rule of law, public health, the environment, worker safety, veterans, science, financial regulation, education, and decency? 

With billboards?

The plan is to erect them in congressional districts represented by Republican House members who have refused to hold town hall meetings with their constituents. They chide each of these legislators for being a “coward,” post the phone number for their office, and urge people to demand a town hall. Here’s a sample:

This is a perfectly fine idea. We’ve seen the reason why these lawmakers are hiding in videos of the town halls that have occurred. Voters have yelled, “Do your job!” at Republicans who have become no more than passive observers and enablers of the Trump-Musk assault. Veterans have complained about the cuts in services. Farmers have groused about the slashing of programs that support them. It’s been a mess.

But this pushback, aimed at a handful of possible toss-up districts in 2026, might be more effective were it happening within the larger context of a compelling Democratic message—which has yet to emerge. After Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer waved the white flag of surrender regarding the spending bill last week, the party appeared feckless to many of its own adherents. (Yes, Schumer was not wrong to fear a government shutdown might afford Donald Trump and Elon Musk more opportunity to annihilate important programs, but in a war you either fight or lose ground.) Many Democratic voters do not see their party rising to the moment, and unaffiliated voters who might be drawn to the party, if they are bothering to pay attention, see one that is not adopting a fierce stance or presenting a compelling and powerful counter-narrative to the story that conmen Trump and Musk are hawking about remaking a bloated, corrupt, and wasteful government to pave the way to a new Golden Age.

The tale that the Democrats need to tell is not just about a few House Republicans who are too chickenshit to face voters—though that could be useful in the fight to win elections 19 months from now. It is that Trump and Musk are attempting to turn the United States into an autocratic, oligarchic, and kleptocratic society in which middle-class families and workers and many others will be screwed.

This is an existential battle—for the Democratic Party and the nation. And it ain’t no secret. Consider this recent New York Times article:

Executive actions intended to cripple top Democratic law firms. Investigations of Democratic fund-raising and organizing platforms. Ominous suggestions that nonprofits aligned with Democrats or critical of President Trump should have their tax exemptions revoked.

Mr. Trump and his allies are aggressively attacking the players and machinery that power the left, taking a series of highly partisan official actions that, if successful, will threaten to hobble Democrats’ ability to compete in elections for years to come.

So far, the attacks have been diffuse and sometimes indiscriminate or inaccurate. But inside the administration, there are moves to coordinate and expand the assault.

Democrats, they are scheming to eradicate you. The Trumpers are coming after your funding mechanisms and seeking to use—that is, abuse—the government power they now possess to blow up the Democratic ecosystem. If you don’t forge a unified message and combat this with whatever force you can muster—and, granted, it’s tough for a party that houses diverse views and for now has no clear leader—you could end up toast.

It's indeed possible that Trump may be undone by his own excesses. If the economy crashes due to his tariffs and erratic economic policies, if inflation ticks up for the same reasons, if 401Ks wither for the same reasons, if government cuts lead to problems for Americans who depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, if the US invades Canada—any of these possible developments could generate a political backlash that slams the Republicans in 2026. But at the same time, Trump and his henchmen are speeding to impose authoritarian measures that could prevent fair elections or render them less consequential. A race is going on now between Trump and Musk’s efforts to subvert democracy and impose autocracy and the rise of a possible counterforce fueled by the disastrous results of their actions. 

The Democrats need to be leading and bolstering this counterforce, not waiting for it. A bunch of them know that and have been speaking out. Sen. Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have scheduled rallies around the country. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has been nailing it. While discussing the recent battle over the spending bill, he concisely captured what ought to be the Democrats’ collective message:

This is not a normal political moment. This is not a normal fight. What Donald Trump is doing right now is absolutely insidious. He is every single day acting unconstitutionally, he is trying to destroy the rule of law. And for what? To essentially hand our government over to the billionaire class so that they can steal from us. There is a level of corruption happening in this White House that is absolutely unprecedented… Part of our worry [about the spending bill was that] it gives [Trump] authority to move money around… This to me is a moment where we need to be restraining the president's power, not giving him new authorities.

It's not that tough to get this message right. I’ve grown tired of saying this but will repeat it once more: If the Democrats don’t sound the alarm about this fight for survival—their own and the nation’s—who the hell will? A growing number of commentators have suggested that a Democratic-leaning tea party might emerge (or explode) and threaten establishment Democrats who are sticking with a conventional playbook. That could be. Or Democrats could get ahead of this wave and lead it, rather than be swamped by it.

In my inbox, I recently found an email that Barack Obama had signed soliciting donations to the DNC. The former president has been largely absent from the frontlines these past weeks, and there’s probably a lot that can be said about that. But for now, let’s focus on this effort to reach Democratic voters. The email he affixed his name to was vintage Obama—just right for 2010, not 2025. He noted that democracy is being “challenged.” But his missive, mostly loaded with generalities and stale rhetoric, said little about the true nature of the crisis at hand. See for yourself:

Living in a democracy is about recognizing that our point of view won't always win out, but continuing to fight for the change we believe in. Since the last election, the foundational principles of our democracy have been challenged, and it would be easy to give in to fear and despair. But the change we seek—the change we need—will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. The best way to make a difference is to get up and do something. Don't wait for the next election. Go out and make a difference right now. Because through your action, you will fill others with hope. And you might just fill yourself with hope. Today, I am asking you to do something that will give Democrats across the country hope that the next election will be different. In the face of steep odds, it’s always been the people who love this country who change it.

So, we’re back to “hope and change”? Really? That’s not going to cut it. Especially since Trump now owns the hopey changey message. He has successfully exploited the wishful thinking of millions of voters and promises an American renaissance, selling himself and Musk as the radical agents the nation needs to reach the promised land. It’s all bunk, of course. But it’s up to the Democrats to make that case relentlessly while real-world events show voters that Trump and Musk are pushing hokum.

There’s that old saying that generals are always fighting the last war. And the Dems as a group remain stuck in same-old-same-old politics. They are accusing Republicans of threatening Social Security and Medicare (a true charge) and targeting GOP House members who may well be vulnerable next year. This might score them some points. But the times they have a-changed. On Thursday, Schumer acknowledged that Trump’s abuses of power have yielded a “constitutional crisis.” But he and many of his party comrades are not taking steps that demonstrate they feel that in their bones. Trump and Musk are waging a political battle unlike any other in modern times. The Democrats only have a chance if they understand that, call it what it is, and act accordingly. With or without billboards.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com

Days ago, Trump disgracefully ordered the shutdown of Voice of America. Was it because he disliked its coverage of him? Or was it to help autocrats overseas—perhaps one in particular—who despise its reporting on their repressive regimes? No need to choose, it could be both. Trump’s assault on this journalistic outlet—which in several authoritarian states was the only source of news not controlled by these tyrannical governments—was yet another sign he doesn’t care about democracy overseas or at home. And Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, not only cheered on this decision; she boosted the Russian critique of VOA. When Ian Miles Cheong, a Malaysia-based right-wing podcaster who has written for RT, the Russian propaganda outfit, hailed Trump’s demolition of VOA and echoed the Russian line by claiming it had “perpetuated pro-war narratives against Russia,” Gabbard shared his post. Here was the top intelligence official in Trump’s administration accepting and spreading Vladimir Putin’s take on VOA.

Yet again, we have behavior by administration officials that should be shocking, but isn’t. I recently broke the story that Gabbard had tried to hire as her deputy a right-wing podcaster named Daniel Davis who has frequently amplified Kremlin talking points by booking pro-Putin commentators, including a former CIA analyst who has long disseminated conspiracy theories about the Russia-Ukraine war and other matters. Gabbard wanted to place Davis in a highly sensitive position that has the responsibility of providing Trump his daily intelligence briefing. This was nuts. Davis’ appointment was nixed after news reports pointed out that he has been harshly critical of the Netanyahu administration and Israel’s war against Gaza. Yet it was ridiculous for him to have been considered in the first place. A supposed military expert who has relied on and boosted pro-Putin proponents, as well as a Kremlin-supporting conspiracy theorist, ought not be in charge of the daily intelligence report the president receives. You can read my story on this here.

The judges were astonished. While drinking White Russians and playing foosball in the break room at Our Land World Headquarters the other day, they were listening to NPR, and they caught a news report about the latest DOGE misdeed. But as the anchor was reading the dispatch, he referred to DOGE as Elon Musk’s “cost-cutting” operation. The judges put down their drinks and looked at each other. Cost-cutting? Here was NPR accepting Trump and Musk’s term for their effort to eviscerate government to clear the path toward the autocracy Trump craves and the libertarian dystopia Musk dreams of. With this one word, NPR legitimized their illegal war on government.

The next day, the judges, while reviewing our tax filings (which are prepared by a Sumo wrestling coach who retired and became a CPA), came across a New York Times article reporting that Musk has made campaign contributions to House Republicans who support impeaching federal judges who rule against Trump. This is how the piece referred to DOGE: “Musk’s government cost-cutting team.” Thus, NPR and the Times share this nomination.

Fox host and unfunny comedian Greg Gutfeld has decided the US Constitution is a bad idea. While discussing the case in which a federal judge blocked Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport immigrants supposedly tied to a Venezuelan criminal gang, Gutfeld blasted Chief Justice John Roberts for chastising Trump after the president called this judge a “Radical Left Lunatic” and urged his impeachment:

Maybe a guy in a robe in DC can follow all the protocols, but Trump is the f-ing president of the United States who protects 300 million plus people. He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read, "Oh, my god, maybe he didn't do it the right way." Roberts, shut the eff up. 

Disdain for the rule of law is just sooooo hilarious.

The MAGA rebellion, we are told by its proponents, is a populist rebellion against elites. Yet one billionaire backer of Donald Trump and JD Vance is quite the elitist. Recently, Peter Thiel appeared on the podcast of conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who, according to a federal indictment filed last year, was secretly funded by Russian state media. Thiel denigrated the Democratic Party for becoming less Ivy League–ish:

Any sort of elite credentialing has collapsed on the left… Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, Yale Law, Hillary Clinton was Yale Law. Obama was Harvard Law. I think Kerry was Harvard undergrad. And there was some way the Democratic Party used to be more elite. And then when Biden said he was a transitional candidate…he wasn’t going to have a sex-change operation, but he was transitional from smart to dumb, from elite to very non-elite. And then Kamala was—Howard was not Harvard. You couldn’t even point this out. It was probably a racist thing to say. And then by the time you get to Walz, it’s way worse. His credentials are even dumber than Kamala’s. Now there are no smart people left.

Thiel believes that only Ivy-educated politicians should rule. Naturally, this also includes Stanford because that’s his alma mater. (By the way, Kerry went to Yale, not Harvard, for his college years.) It doesn’t get more un-populist than that. During a week of robust competition, for his racially tinged snobbishness, Thiel places first.

But the judges do wish to award an honorable mention to Nick Denton, the British internet entrepreneur and sometime-journalist who was the founder of Gawker. On X, he chimed in: “Thiel is right, as usual. The Dems have gotten dumber, especially as they’ve pushed out the Jews. They’re basically irrelevant at this point, a permanent minority party.”

What made Denton’s remark especially galling was that his Gawker was decimated by a libel lawsuit filed against it by Hulk Hogan that forced the outlet to shut down in 2016. As the previous issue of this newsletter noted, that legal action was secretly financed by Thiel. Now Denton is sucking up to the oligarch who forced him out of business. Maybe he was taught to do that when he attended Oxford.

Americans ought to check out what’s happened in Belgrade. Citizens have been protesting government corruption.

Many readers weighed in on how Democrats—particularly Sen. Chuck Schumer—handled the recent congressional showdown on a spending bill, a matter I wrote about two issues ago.

Teresa Harper emailed:

The Senate Democrats were between a rock and a hard place. I understand Schumer's fear that shutting the government down might result in closing programs for low-income Americans. However, when Trump posted on Truth Social (what a bullshit name) that it took guts and courage for Schumer, that would have irked me so much that I would have said, “Fuck it, I'm voting no, and everyone else should do the same.” Do you think there are enough fiery Democrats to save our party?

As of now, no. Ultimately, though, it’s not a matter of whether there’s enough fiery Democrats. The question is if there are enough fiery citizens who demand a change in course. If that happens, Democrats will become fierier. 

John Ranta shared this:

You listed two narratives for why Senate Democrats didn’t oppose the CR spending bill—fear of being blamed for a shutdown and concern about playing into Trump’s and Musk’s desire for a shutdown. I think there’s a third: Fear of being blamed for pending economic woes. Trump is well on his way to causing inflation, a stock market crash, and a recession— likely by Q2 —with his tariffs, deportations, and Cabinet chaos. Trump would blame all of that on the “Democratic shutdown” if Dems had filibustered the CR. By allowing it to pass, all the blame will lie solely with Republicans, Trump, and Musk.

That may be. But Trump will still find a way to blame the Dems, if the economy goes south. I don't think Dems should operate in fear of Trump. That's just another manifestation of weakness—which is perhaps their biggest PR problem now.

Dene Karaus made a similar argument:

I'm shocked at both you and the rest of the left-leaning press. Chuck Schumer knew exactly what was going on. If the government had shut down, Trump would have kept it shut, dismantled it, and it would never have reopened in a form we would have recognized. It was perfectly clear. Trump didn't say a word as a shutdown loomed because it was exactly what he wanted. There was a game of three-dimensional chess going on here, and Schumer, with his twin 800s on the SAT, saw through it. He must have quietly explained it to just enough senators to get the votes he needed. There was so much going on here that people did not understand. If you disagree, we need to talk. You need to put this information out there.

I understand this point. But at this stage, I lean toward the view that the Dems need to be in full oppositionist mode to convey the reality of the crisis at hand to the public and to show they have some fight. Trump might have exploited the shutdown for his own nefarious ends, but doing anything that affirms his legitimacy—such as agreeing with him on the CR—bolsters his standing, as he tries to implement an autocracy. Obviously, there is room for disagreement here—and, unfortunately, within the fractured Democratic Party. But I will add that I don’t believe SAT scores are the best measurements of intelligence. 

Bettina Norton had a complaint:

What in the hell are we supposed to do about all these emails asking for money? Hasn't it gotten out of hand? Fake surveys, new pleas... Should/could the Democratic National Committee help us cull the list? Centralize the effort? 

I know it's a problem. I confess I contribute a bit to it, since I send out solicitations for this newsletter. I doubt there is a central committee that can rein in this flood of begging and establish priorities. You just have to be a discerning consumer—and contributor.

Steven Kane didn’t like my take on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-Calif.) new podcast:

You and the majority of the left-wing press have come down too hard on Gov. Gavin Newsom's podcast because he provides his conservative guests a platform to spout disinformation. First, each of his initial three guests (Charlie Kirk, Michael Savage, and Steve Bannon) have no use for Newsom's platform. They are each successful in their own rights. If anything, they risk alienating parts of their base by consorting with the enemy. Second, although I have known of these three guests, I have avoided exposure to them, lest I suffer significant emotional and intellectual distress. I am still a bit traumatized by the experience of listening to nearly three hours of their drivel, but if Newsom can take the time to prepare for and endure these guests, I sure can survive the experience myself. Finally, Newsom comes across as a well-informed, sensitive, and nuanced person. He also seems to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the art of governing. His guests? Not so much. They behave like bomb-throwers, creating and inflaming partisan tensions with absolutely no intention of doing the hard work of finding and implementing workable, humane solutions. Unfortunately, they have found that this schtick appeals to a lot of people, leading them to great financial and political success, much to the detriment of everyone. As a progressive Democrat, I think I know the appropriate antidote: genuine, sincere and forceful advocacy of policies that help most Americans.

My critique of Newsom’s podcast made clear I believe that his task as governor of California and as a leader of the Democratic Party is to confront the Trump-Musk attack and to make sure residents of his state and voters across the nation fully understand what’s going on. Platforming people who have promoted racism and Trump’s Big Lie and who are now supporting moves toward authoritarianism and treating these folks as worthy of a polite policy debate does not serve these missions. Let Rachel Maddow or another journalist interview and grill them so people can see what they are truly like. This podcast may be good for Newsom. It’s not good for the effort to beat back the enemies of democracy and decency.

“What are you doing with that suitcase? Are you going somewhere?”
“Um, Moxie, I’m just moving some things around.”
“You can tell me the truth. How long will you be gone?”
“Not long. And they say dogs don’t have a strong sense of time.”
“They also say miserable people lead ‘a dog’s life.’ That’s not true, either, and frankly, it’s insulting.”