It might be tempting for progressives, watching the drama unfold as Kevin McCarthy fights to maintain power and his speakership, to proverbially sit back with the popcorn and enjoy watching the Republicans slog it out amongst themselves.  But that would be a terrible mistake.  In fact, what has happened at the House of Representatives should be downright disturbing.  A tiny minority of people have successfully politically outmaneuvered a major party, and gotten their extreme and at times utterly bizarre agenda put forward.  They have proven to themselves and others that they are capable of grinding the business of government to a halt, and they have learned that the Republican party is willing to let them get away with it.  These now emboldened extremists have effectively shut down the government before they have even been sworn in.

The Republicans have developed a mindset that they can keep this small, vocal minority around and ignore them.  This is very foolhardy.  When it comes to people bent on obstructionism, it doesn’t take more than a few to sabotage the everyday business of a democratic government.  We now have seen that play out right in front of us as Republicans spent days just getting to the point where staffers could be assured of getting paid.  If this is a harbinger of things to come, this could be a long two years of getting nothing done.

What Republicans like McCarthy don’t understand is that there is a difference between having people with different points of view and people whose only point of view is refusing to find common ground with any other point of view.  The “Republican” holdouts on the far right of McCarthy’s party are not people with a differing ideology.  Ideological conflicts need to be, and can be, mediated. These members of McCarthy’s party exist solely to keep things from getting done.  Obstructionism is their ideology.  They believe in nothing else.  They will never be appeased.  Such people exist in every society at every time.  The trick is to keep them out of power.  Any society that fails to do that does so at its own peril.  

For the moment, McCarthy seems blind to the true motivations of the far right.  He has convinced himself that he can appease them for the meantime and that they will help him later.  He is sorely mistaken.  Like the plant from The Little Shop of Horrors, the alt-right’s demands are sure to grow.  

This fight is far from over.  Be it remembered that it was not people voting for McCarthy, but people voting “present” that got him the speakership.  Progressives now have to ask themselves what role they should play.  There is only one thing that we can do, and that is encourage McCarthy to see these members of his caucus for what they are, make it clear that we will not simply tolerate their attempts to undermine the most important aspect of any democracy–the day to day business of being a functional government.

The story of Elise Stefanik says a lot about what has really gone wrong within the Republican party in the Trump era.   In her, we see the way in which the Republicans have truly wronged the American people and the world–not by believing Trump, but by doing what is politically expedient.  Doing not what is right but what they perceive to be right in that political moment for their careers.

Stefanik is part of a phenomenon that is tearing apart the Republican party and the nation.  She started out being a traditional Republican, a sort of understudy to Paul Ryan.  That was, until, she discovered that casting her lot in with Trump was the only way to get ahead.  When Paul Ryan was forced to retire and it looked as if she might share the same fate, Stefanik did a political 180, even as she lost the respect of close friends.  She went from calling President Trump a “whack job” to using his divisive message to propel her career forward.

Stefanik represents the underlying problem of American politics that allowed Trump to get political traction in the first place.  It masquerades as political pragmatism.  In reality, it is a fundamental lack of political integrity.  The problem with Stephanik is not what she believes in, it is her failure to believe in anything.  That is even more dangerous.  It is very doubtful that she actually believes Trump’s lies about a stolen election, or anything else for that matter.  Stafanik is a chameleon.  She believes whatever makes most sense for her at a given political moment.  She is, in short, the most dangerous thing there is to a democracy.

 The most important thing a democracy demands is representatives that are truthful with, and to, those they represent, no matter what the immediate political costs.  Granted, people need to respond to their constituencies.  But Stephanik and others like her shaped their constituencies by playing on hatred and division for their own personal political gain.  Stephnik was not listening to her constituents, she was helping someone lie to them, and doing it for raw power and personal gain.

Trump is a cancer.  But he didn’t come out of nowhere and he is ultimately the symptom of a disease.  Trump gained power and continues to have power because of people like Stephanik.  She is in many ways the true villain.  Trump is bad; he’s evil–power hungry, egotistical, self-serving.  There will always be men like Trump.  And men like Trump will always be dangerous.  But they will not truly become a threat to democracy until people like Stefanik use the kind of internal logic that she does about keeping them in power.  Trump found, and exploited,  a weakness in the Republican party.  He found enough people willing to help him lie to the people they were supposed to represent.  And as long as that weakness remains, so will the threat to democracy.  And if a stop isn’t put to it, American democracy is imperiled.

Once again financial regulators have dropped the ball.  Crypto may have been a new currency, but by all accounts it was good old-fashioned embezzlement.  The law enforcement officers who eventually tracked down Mr. Bankman-Fried are to be applauded as individuals, but the situation begs the question, how did he get away with it for so long?  

The fraud committed by FTX comes amid a series of warning signs in crypto currencies, most notably their sudden devaluation.  Investors have lost big, and many did not go into their investment with their eyes wide open.  As investors were losing, many inside the industry were warning that crypto was a new form of commerce that presented a new set of challenges for regulators and law enforcement; and that the people who needed to most weren’t paying enough attention.    

That isn’t to say crypto is bad.  However, like all financial innovations there is a lot of initial hype about what crypto can and cannot do.  Regulators have a responsibility to begin wading through what the real benefits of crypto are, and what risks are unique to it as a financial innovation.  In particular, regulators should bear in mind that crypto only recently evolved into an investment, and was designed to be purely transactional.  What investors, and the world, need right now is for the government to step in and start evaluating the risks of crypto currencies and communicating what those risks are to investors.  Then, investors can make informed decisions.   

Crypto has promise.  There is strong evidence that it could revolutionize the way money is raised.  And, it may have the potential to make more mundane things a lot easier.  Crypto may very well live up to its promise of being the money of the future.  It may be that crypto allows us to do things in the future that are difficult or impossible now.  But every new technology presents problems.  In life, the more powerful a tool for good something is, the more potential for evil it has.  Regulating crypto will mean coming to terms with both its overall potential and its potential to be abused.

In the meantime, federal monetary regulators have a responsibility to get ahead of the curve.  If this was old-fashioned embezzlement why was it not discovered until 8 billion dollars and been stolen?  Had there never been what was essentially a run on the bank, the fraud at FTX theoretically could have continued far into the future.  In many ways it was other crypto currency companies, not regulators or law enforcement, that discovered the fraud. 

The way this situation unfolded really shows just how little protection federal regulators were affording small time, inexperienced investors.  Changes need to be made now.  It isn’t good enough to just prosecute one man reasoning he is one bad apple.  This incident was a failure at many levels.  Let us hope that regulators begin the process of ensuring that old-fashioned embezzlement doesn’t continue to occur with the world’s newest financial technology.

The general consensus is that Ukraine is winning the war–that things are not going well for the Russians.  In many ways, this would seem to be the case.  But in important ways, Russia is winning.  You would be, for instance, hard pressed to convince the people of Moldova that the status quo is sustainable.  In this small, poor country whose fate it is to be situated between Russia and Ukraine, people are suffering and being pushed past the breaking point. Meanwhile, Russia is following a familiar playbook of fomenting political unrest–the kind of fomenting of unrest that has led every other time to invasion.   Although it is unlikely that Russia will attack and open another front in an already struggling war effort, it is not beyond imagination for Russia to begin lobbing shells at its diminutive neighbor, especially considering its history of interfering militarily in Moldova.  

What the Moldovan conflict speaks to is the power that the Kremlin still has to sow chaos the world over and force people to live in fear.  Even here in the West where we have somewhat of a buffer from the effects of the war, those of us who are less economically advantaged (and some of those of us who aren’t) are already feeling the pain. The world over, poor and middle-income peoples face hunger, sky-rocketinger energy prices and the inability to fertilize their fields.  The people of Moldova may prove to be the canary in the mine shaft.

The West is making a critical miscalculation in believing that the rest of the world will support its Ukraine policies indefinitely.  It isn’t highly likely that the West will support the policies of the West indefinitely.  Even here in America, there are stirrings of discontent against the amount of aid being given to Ukraine.  

What is called for is a drastic upscaling of the effort to not only defend Ukraine, but defeat the Russians.  A move away from a defensive posture to a war plan of decisive victory.  The world worries about escalation–as it should.  But, in reality, the greatest risk for escalation is that as Putin looses his gound war he will take to indescriminate bombing of civilinas beyound the borders of Ukraine.  Short of nuclear war, this is a worse case scenario for the widening of the war.

America and the West face a difficult conundrum–how to win the war in Ukraine without starting a broad war that could turn into a world war.  But the solution cannot be to not win the war and allow the conflict to grind to a stalemate.  Soon, something will have to give. Either Ukraine will win, or Russia will wear the world down.  Militarily, the world community has an opportunity–we should take it.  Russia is running low on the things that make a war work–money, supplies, and most importantly, morale.  If we act decisively for Ukraine at this moment, we will resolve this crisis.  When we do not, it is Russia who is winning.

Progressives are all breathing a sigh of relief that the red wave appears to not be washing up on shore.  I am glad it wasn’t worse, but jubilant I am not.  When it comes to preserving democracy, half is simply not enough.   Democrats have promised to protect democracy, but in order to protect democracy you first have to make it function.  Over the long term, running on a platform of protecting democracy will mean needing to find ways to make substantive changes, or at least finding ways to make sure people know that you are the one trying to find ways to make substantive changes.

 The Democrats need a vision, something their constituents can sink their teeth into–something that shows they care.  Part of the Democrats’ making it clear that they support democracy is them finding ways to make themselves the party of real change; and the ability to show that the Republicans are the ones who are slowing real advancement on real issues.  If the Republicans distract themselves with pointless and perhaps even bizarre investigations into President Biden or his family, they may give the Democrats the upper hand.  But Democrats will have to be aware and be smart in the way they handle the situation, not allowing the Republicans to continue to paint them as the party that doesn’t care about the everyday lives of ordinary Americans.

Progressives really need to think deeply about how Republicans got the upper hand on this kind of messaging.  It isn’t logical that Republicans should be the party of caring about kitchen table issues.  In reality, as Republicans have become increasingly a party of the increasingly extreme, they have become distracted from real issues by the Big Lie and conspiratorial thinking about the people on the other side of the aisle. Thus, they have failed to focus on real issues, and made compromise impossible.  These midterm results are voters’ way of saying that they want people in charge who are connected to the real world and there to engage in real governance.  But Democrats have failed miserably to capitalize on the public’s shift away from the divisive politics of election denialism.  

Having only half of the American public motivated and behind you is not going to be enough to halt the expansion of the threat posed by the alt-right.  Somehow, a broader coalition will have to be put together if there is going to be real progress on making American democracy function again and keeping it safe in the future.  If half the American people are not on board, there won’t be enough voices to drown out what promises to be a continual drumbeat of lies and misinformation.

This is an inflection point.  These are some of the most consequential elections in American history.  It is a critical political moment, one that absolutely has to be addressed and addressed immediately.  And it has to be addressed by more than half of us. 

Progressives are (as we should be) stunned, frightened and angry to hear the Republicans running on making cuts to Medicare and Social Security during these midterms.  Democrats should be hitting back a lot harder against efforts to cut benefits and privitize programs that need to be expanded until all Americans are assured access to healthcare, retirement with dignity, and a safety net in case of disability. Overhauling Medicare and Social Security is urgent and has been neglected for way too long.  It needs to happen now, and it needs to be done by progressives.  But Democrats aren’t solving the problem either.  Nobody is.  No one in leadership is stepping up to the plate.  

Sometimes the most important things to do are those that are not the most immediately politically salient.  But political courage pays off over the long term. When there is a problem, leaders know they need to step up and confront their voters with it, showing  them what they are going to do about it.  That is what leadership is really all about.  Leaving a badly needed overhaul of Social Security and Medicare unaddressed only gives Republicans an opportunity to say they are at least doing something about the problem.  Some plan will look better than no plan at all.  Granted there are no easy answers.  Social Security is set to become bankrupt as baby boomers retire.  Meanwhile there is a need to expand healthcare coverage and strengthen the disability safety net that so many people with disabilities rely on to pay for their care.  But solving hard problems is what governance and leadership is about.

Kicking the can down the road may seem to have an immediate political benefit in elections where just a few voters in a deeply polarized society are making determinations about who wins.   But American voters don’t want to be talked down to. If you want to bring people together, the best way to do so is to unite them around the solution to a common problem–something that affects everyone. Social Security reform could be such a uniting cause.  

People on both sides of the aisle agree that there is a problem and that there needs to be a solution.  Differences about how to fix the problem present an opportunity for compromise.  Most importantly, the extremists in the Republican party will show the American people just how fanatical they really are when they inevitably oppose a compromise for no good reason.

Social Security reform is an example of the need for people in power to take on the really tough issues instead of avoiding addressing crucial problems that need to be addressed.  People will turn out to vote when they know that they are getting out to vote for people who don’t shy from difficult issues but tell people they will take important problems on and make a real difference in people’s lives.  It is this aggressive spirit that is most needed in the progressive movement now.

That is what the Democrats’ inability to address the crisis of inflation has been called.  Republicans are responsible for not standing up to and being manipulated by people willing to jeopardize democracy.  Democrats are part of the problem as well.  There should be absolutely no reason that Democrats can’t win on the economy.  A constant pattern of mistakes could have been avoided.  Candidates aren’t thinking through their message or speaking to people where they are.   

Even if Biden cannot do anything about inflation, his administration must step up, acknowledge that it is a crisis; and, then,  better explain to the American people why this crisis is happening.  Democrats have not done enough to call out the real culprits in this economic crisis–the large corporations that have figured out the American consumers have become adapted to paying higher prices and are using a war as an excuse to price gouge. 

Biden and progressives could offer ways to help people pay rising bills without worsening inflation.  Of course, getting anything through congress is next to impossible, but legislation matters even when you are able to get them to pass.  Biden’s mistake is giving up on his agenda.  When it didn’t pass, Biden walked away.  He should have stuck to his guns.  Then, today, progressives would be able to say that their program could help if it were passed.

There are forms of government investment which are always sound fiscal policy, no matter the nature of a financial crisis.  The most obvious area for improvement is public transportation.  As gas prices rise, expanding the number of people who could rely on public transportation for at least some of their transportation needs would help people deal with the everyday struggle to make ends meet, and show that Biden cares and that he is willing to act decisively come out with policies that l make a real difference in the monthly budget.  

The idea that things like affordable child care and access to quality food somehow contribute to a financial crisis is inherently flawed, and the American people could be convinced of this.  Despite fears of inflation, they would welcome help with heating, food, and housing.  Inflation or no inflation, this help would allow people to ride out what is a global crisis, one that will hopefully resolve itself over time.  Progressives shouldn’t shy from reaching out to people, helping financially.  The message should be that the Biden administration and prgressive care and are acting.  It doesn’t have to happen immediately.  It needs to give people hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  If we can’t help in the immediate future, we need a long term plan, something people can hope for.   

Trying to put a positive spin on this economy is political malpractice. People should vote on threats to democracy, but history teaches us they won’t.  People who care about democracy must acknowledge and show strong leadership in a crisis.  This is the most important way to protect democracy.

Change is one of the hardest things that humans have to face.  It isn’t easy.  But an unwillingness to face it can be downright dangerous.  Underneath it all, Donald Trump’s rhetoric addresses the reality of changes in American demographics that some people cannot handle.  There is a group of people in America that are afraid to let go of an image of what it means to be an American as white, male, and Christian.

People forget just how un-American that giving in to that fear really is.   Being an American isn’t easy.  It requires a willingness to live in an incredibly diverse and dynamic environment–to love a place that is always changing.  If you want to say that you love America, wave the flag, and claim that you put “America first” who have a moral responsibility to deal with change and diversity.  Actually, putting “America First” means being open to immigrants.  It means being willing to live alongside people who are different from you, who may challenge your beliefs or values, who confront you with diversity in ways that make you uncomfortable.  You don’t get it both ways.  You don’t get to be an American and like living in a homogeneous environment that doesn’t challenge you to step outside your cultural comfort zone.  Maybe it’s OK to have strong feelings about illegal immigration, but, in reality, conspiracy theories about immigration are some of the most un-American ideas ever created.  

What separates America and its story from the stories of other nations is the very thing that Trump’s supporters have turned against. The rual white male rustic may be an image we associate with America, but history teaches us that what makes America America is the rural Black woman immigrant escaping poverty and violence to make it in America, who lives down the road from him.  If you think about it, how did what is probably the most diverse nation in history, the nation most welcoming of people who are different, come to see itself in such starkly racial terms?  Or perhaps better asked, how did people within what is possibly the most diverse nation in history, one that welcomes difference more than any other, come to see their nation in starkly white and Chrstian terms?  

People who when asked what an American is, conjure up an image of a white male farmer in the Midwest making a living off the land are confused.  Not the making a living of the land part, but the white male part.  There is no country where it is less likely that the iconic be a majority.  This white male’s neighbor is more likely than not to be a person of difference. In many ways, it has always been that way.  Before, we had to humor the American white male.  Now, increasingly, people are unwilling to.  It is time to remind everyone that being an American means embracing change. Diversity made America great in the past, and will again.

For generations, Americans have neglected to recognize the importance of government at the state and local level.  Suddenly, state legislatures all over the country have become extremely important.  Their role in elections and important legislation is no longer minimal. Therefore , it is time for progressives to refocus.  It does little good to win at the federal level if state legislatures are able to gut historic civil rights legislation and roll back the clock on a woman’s right to choose.  This means taking a new approach to addressing people’s needs.  It is an approach well overdue in the first place.  

People want, need and deserve a government that works to solve the problems they face in their everyday lives.  Large pieces of legislation are good, but people need to feel that politicians are  sincerely worried about more than just beating their opponent, that they care about making people’s lives better. Politics must be more than party.  Otherwise. any political group, no how ideologically in the right, cannot remain relevant and cannot remain in power.  Small things matter–whether or not the streets get fixed, whether or not the bus runs on time.  Things like this matter a lot.  Progressives have an opportunity as well as a crisis.  They can make themselves into the political force that cares about everyday concrete things, and show that extremists within the Republican party are so focused on culture wars they don’t care about things that really matter in everyday life.  

It will become a question of whether or not progressives can make themselves relevant in the face of a population where many are consumed with just getting by and putting food on the table.  This search for relevance hasn’t happened enough.  Part of the blame lies with the Republican party, who have shut down any attempt to make real positive changes in the lives of people through fear mongering.  

In some ways progressives have only themselves to blame.  Much of what it has come to mean to be a progressives to be against a MAGA Republican.  This is not enough.  And, when we approach conflict from such a negative perspective we actually play into the hands of extremists.  We become the party of ideology and they become the party of answers.  It doesn’t have to be this way.

In its own way the new focus on state legislatures is a mixed blessing in that it will force progressives, particularly progressives in the Democratic Party, to stay grounded.  This may finally be the moment that progressives have to stand up and become the party of answers and possibilities, and not simply the party that is anti-Trump.  State legislators have the power to bring progressives back to where our roots began and to force us to move forward with real plans that meet real world problems.  Taking back democracy will happen one small election at a time, just as it was lost one small election at a time.

The decision of OPEC+ to cut oil production underscores just how much sanctions aren’t working.  They have created an energy crisis in the West, alienated developing nations, and done little to slow the pace of Putin’s war machine.  That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist, it just means they are not going to be a reliable military tool.  They will not end the slaughter in Ukraine.  It is time that the West face up to the fact that sanctions are going to have limited effectiveness and painful side effects.  The idea that was posited at the beginning of this war that sanctions would bring down the Russian economy and with it their military might is proving to be just false.   

The West should not have imposed sanctions without first thinking through how Putin would retaliate.  Then, the West did not consider how Russian propaganda might shape attitudes towards the war in other countries and how important those attitudes would be–how they would translate in economic actions.  They assumed, wrongly, that the rest of the world would automatically support what they saw as an obvious injustice.  But why would they?  At the same moment that the West assumed they would have the support of the developing world, it failed to step up to the plate to ensure the World Food Program was adequately funded.  This meant that starving people all over the world held the West responsible for famine exacerbated by the run-away inflation of staple foods.  Instead of making Putin a pariah, over reliance on sanctions is fueling another Cold War.

Sanctions are making a positive difference.  It is just that they have limitations.  The West must be realistic about what they will and will not accomplish.  They won’t bring down Puntin’s war machine.  They won’t solve the problem of his nuclear threat, or the problem of his ability to use his vast oil wealth to build an army, at least not for the near term.  They are a short term solution to what will prove to be a long term problem.  And, rather than getting worse for Russia over time, it may be that over time Russia finds more and more ways of getting around sanctions, while Europe and the West have energy crisses that only worsen. 

Rather than rely on sanctions the West needs to develop alternative strategies for dealing with Putin, and even more importantly, come to terms with the problems the current sanctions are going to create.  Ultimately, the war in Ukraine will be won when Putin is no longer able to shield his people from its effects.  It is the Russian people who will end the war in Ukraine, not Putin.  Sanctions do have a positive role to play here.  They can hasten the day that Putin will no longer have the ability to lie to his own people about a costly, pointless, and morally bankrupt war.  They can help to do the thing that will really end the slaughter–undermine his propaganda.