Volodymyr Zelesnky became president of Ukraine in 2019.
In that time, American civic and political leadership has gone from terrible to okay to even more terrible. Meanwhile, Zelensky has led a country besieged by an overwhelming malevolent force with unyielding courage, intelligence and—it seems a strange but true characteristic to include—style. Not unlike Churchill.
Zelensky has given his people courage under the worst circumstances and has impressed other hard-to-impress world leaders. On the flip side, if people are known by the enemies they make, both Putin and Trump hate him. Because of his courage, intelligence, and in the case of Trump, definitely style.
Whether or not America and its opposition party, the Democrats, have or can find a Zelensky, it would definitely help. Unyielding courage, intelligence and style in the face of overwhelming malevolent force. That’s the ticket.
American political parties have produced some great leaders and leadership. Also some less than great, terrible or even criminal leaders and leadership.
This is the most extreme political moment in American history. It may be an extreme that some Americans support and cheer, but for others of us, it is a lawful, constitutional and democratic disaster.
At the moment, of our two political parties, only the Democratic Party is not enabling that disaster. Yet up to the moment, the party has not stood up and stepped up, and is not offering much more than “help us retake Congress in 2026. Send money.”
Democrats retaking one or both houses of Congress in 2026 would provide some slowing of this downward slide. But it won’t stop it, because even if the Supreme Court reins in some of the executive actions, some of those actions will get through and stay in effect. Besides that, even if in 2026 and 2028 Democrats retake Congress and the White House, the mass of suffering will have happened, the mass of damage will have been done and will require—this may sound hyperbole but isn’t—rebuilding the republic.
All of which says that there must be action now to try to slow the devolution and degeneration. “Try” because even under the best circumstances, with Congress and the Supreme Court mostly on his side, overwhelming power resides in a twisted presidency.
So try we must. But try what? That’s where the Democratic Party has so far fallen short. Yes, electing not-Republicans is a necessary condition. Necessary but not sufficient. Electing Democrats in 2026 is not enough.
Americans need leadership that plans and organizes action that is not about the next election and not rhetorical. We will continue to wait for the Democrats to tell us what we should be doing—now, not next and not two years from now. So far, we haven’t seen or heard that.
When Democrats brought attention to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 (officially Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise) the reaction from many was horror and revulsion. “Not this, NEVER”. Democrats used this call for rejection as a loud talking point in the unsuccessful 2024 presidential election.
One way to look at Project 2025 is to compare it to the Democratic Platform of 2024.
The Democratic Platform is 92 pages long, a comprehensive length, identifying important areas, with praise for what the Biden administration had accomplished in these areas, and a promise that the next Democratic administration would build on that. It represented what establishment Democrats could agree on, but is not particularly inspiring.
Project 2025 is 922 pages long—ten times the Democratic Platform. More than that, it is a detailed plan for an American revolution, step by step. Which is why the reaction from Democrats was so extreme. As unlikely as it seemed that Republicans would have the opportunity to actually execute the plan—Trump would very likely lose the election—just the possibility was frightening.
For those who haven’t seen or read Project 2025, here is the Table of Contents:
It is a little late for Democrats to inspire the hearts and minds of enough Americans to win the 2024 election. However, right now is the time to inspire the hearts and minds of Americans—Democrats and others—to believe in the Democrats, with a detailed plan starting now, that isn’t just “not those bad guys” or “choose more of the same”. A detailed plan that is a step-by-step exciting and even risky path to a new future that doesn’t look like the past—either of the party or of America. A detailed actionable vision that goes beyond “put us back in office in 2026 and 2028 and everything will be fine again”.
Teddy Roosevelt is one of the greatest presidents in American history. On many rankings, he appears in the top five, along with Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
It is hard to imagine, with the current version of the Republican Party, but as a Republican, TR was a committed and successful progressive leader. His most famous progressive cause was his opposition to growing American business monopolies, known then as trusts. TR was famous as the Trust Buster.
He was not opposed to big and successful businesses. As he said in a 1902 speech:
“Corporations that are handled honestly and fairly, so far from being an evil, are a natural business evolution and make for the general prosperity of our land. We do not wish to destroy corporations, but we do wish to make them subserve the public good.”
Remarks at the Music Hall in Cincinnati, Ohio September 20, 1902
In her recent economic policy proposals, Kamala mentioned the fight against monopolistic practices, along with other initiatives. But making that fight a big centerpiece of her campaign, if explained in the most basic and understandable terms, could have huge popular appeal—among voters of all ideologies. She needs to be seen as a contemporary Trust Buster and, if successful, gets to be, like TR, seen as one of the great presidents.
There is a problem. I note not out of cynicism but realism that politicians of both parties are careful about coming down too hard on monopolies and oligopolies. Winning elections takes money, and by their nature, monopolies and their beneficiaries have a lot of it. A more level playing field might keep them rich, but maybe not as rich as before. They often expect the politicians to understand that situation, if the money is to keep flowing to campaigns.
The question is whether politicians can win enough elections, without monopoly donors, by convincing voters that restricting or breaking up the trusts will lead to better outcomes such as lower prices for those voters.
TR made the case. So can Kamala and Democrats, if they are confident in their own abilities to make that case, even if it means depending on voters and losing some corporate and billionaire support.
So Kamala and Democrats: Shout out about how you are planning to bust those trusts.
Ordinary Democratic voters are the only constituency consistently saying that Biden should drop out. But their voices are easily ignored.
Three other constituencies with loud and influential voices—Democratic leaders, Democratic donors, Democratic-leaning media—are currently more timid and quiet, with just occasional outbursts so far.
The unspoken mantra among them is “You tell him. I don’t want to tell him.” They hope and pray that the other one will make the case so insistently and persuasively that Biden will relent.
They need to break that standoff and end their public equivocation. They all have to join in a chorus of respectful reality. Otherwise, while each is waiting for the other to be the “bad guy”, Biden will remain defiant and deluded—and likely the losing Democratic candidate.
Please, Democratic leaders, donors and media, shout out. Now, because time is wasting. You have nothing to lose and a historic, existential election to win.
Young people generally supporting Democrats have a problem. The president is supporting a war that they vehemently oppose, and nothing they say is being heard. Republicans see an opportunity. They don’t need those young people and are happy for the opposition. If those young people stay home and those who support the war vote Republican, they will win.
In 1968.
The analogy is imperfect but still helpful. Young people oppose U.S. unconditional support for Israel’s Gaza strategy, not because they are antisemitic, but because then and now, they have a sense that something is very wrong and that an American president—not for the first time—is doing little or nothing about it.
Republicans are giddy. Let the Democrats try to have an earnest and open discussion about the values implicated in the war. It will devolve into political chaos. We Republicans won’t waver. When asked about the limits of Israel’s war, we can say there is no limit to Palestinian civilians killed (Senator Lindsey Graham) or asked about how many Palestinians should be killed, we can say “all of them” (Florida legislator Michelle Salzman).
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago in August 2024. The Gaza war and its horrific aftermath will still be ongoing. Some, maybe many, young people will be moved to show up to protest. Instead of being labelled radicals and communists, they will be labelled antisemitic. Maybe they won’t show up at the convention, and instead just won’t vote in November, or will vote for a third-party presidential candidate.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. That rhyme is loud and clear.
Back in 2008, Hillary Clinton presumed that she would be the front runner for the Democratic nomination and would be the eventual winner. Then along came the phenomenon of Barack Obama, who wrestled the nomination from her because…well, because Hillary is no Obama.
In 2016, it was planned that Hillary Clinton would have little opposition for the Democratic presidential nomination. Maybe a token opponent to make it look competitive and democratic, but little more than that. Somehow, the most un-Obamaish candidate imaginable came along to almost spoil the party for her again. Bernie Sanders didn’t make it, Hillary became the nominee. Being less than the perfect candidate, Hillary was unable to close the deal in the general election, even against the most reprehensible Republican candidate—one who went on to be the most reprehensible president.
What if we retroject all the current Democratic candidates for the nomination back to 2016—including Joe Biden (who didn’t run against her) and Bernie Sanders (who did)? Do you think she would have still won the nomination?
There are reasons to think she might not. One thought is that her unique status as the only woman candidate would be immediately gone; six women are currently running, two of them high in the polls. Another thought is that while Hillary was severely tested by Obama in 2008, she faced less testing in 2016 before she faced Trump as the candidate. Would she have withstood the attacks that are natural from such a huge field? Would the Democratic Party establishment have been able to “protect” her and still seem fair-minded and even-handed?
Hey Democrats! What’s the big idea? No, really. What’s the big idea?
A dozen possible Democratic presidential candidates assembled at a downtown Washington hotel Tuesday for one of the first cattle calls of the 2020 campaign. The good news: There were, on that stage, all of the personal qualities and policy ideas needed to defeat President Trump. The bad news: These qualities and ideas were not in any one person….
For November’s midterm elections, it may be enough for Democrats to say they are against Trump. Congressional Democratic leaders took a stab at a unified agenda for 2018 — “A Better Deal” — and were roundly mocked by progressives.
But to beat Trump, they’ll need more. Trump convinced tens of millions of Americans that they are losing ground because of immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and foreigners. What will Democrats advance to counter that grim message?
Given how lost the Democrats are (and how that might lead to further losing), I suggest that they consider the Bible. Not the weaponized, sectarian and exclusionary interpretation of the Bible that is so popular with selfish and heartless ideologues. But the Bible that demands humane conduct—something that we see slipping away election by election, day by day (and that means you too, Democrats).
The prophet Micah is a great touchstone. The revealed solution for an aggrieved people does not involve greater piety, more sacrifices, or brutal nationalism. All that is required is justice, goodness and humility:
With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
“He has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the Lord requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then will your name achieve wisdom.”
Micah 6:6-9 (NJPS)
Micah is not available to run in an election. But justice, goodness and humility are always available as a platform.
Did you ever watch a TV show that was only just okay, but you kept watching week after week because you really liked the star—someone so special that he made even the worst episodes watchable and enjoyable?
Then that superstar left the show. Contract differences. Elections. Whatever. And then the show was over. Canceled.
Barack Obama has left the Democratic show. In the month since the election, we have gotten a preview of what it will be like without him. The Democrats thought, as producers do, that they were really the show, and not some guy that they had helped turn into the superstar he became.
Producers quickly learn that you can’t force people to watch your show. You can’t expect people to watch your show just because you tell them how great and important it is, and how terrible the other networks and shows are. While it’s an advantage to have a superstar, it’s better still to write good scripts, employ creative directors, and cast good people in interesting roles. Better to give people what they want and what they need. As viewers or as citizens and voters.
Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the elder Democratic leadership in Congress were able to fend off an insurgency and keep their jobs. It was explained that they deserved to maintain their roles, even if they are beholden to the old ways, because they are all veteran insiders who know how the game is played.
Knowing how the game is played has value, but not nearly as much value electorally as being bold. Being passionate. Convincing people that you believe in something so wholeheartedly that nothing, not even keeping your job, is more important. The evidence mounts that Democrats have ignored this, don’t believe it or can’t do it.
When Barry Goldwater was nominated for President by the Republicans in 1964, the party establishment rent its garments in despair at his supposed extremism, and felt vindicated by his colossal loss in the election. But within 20 years he was the intellectual soul of the party, and within 50 years—right now—even though Republicans speak with reverence about Ronald Reagan, the one they really owe their dominance to is Goldwater. They are the political heirs to his boldness.
In an alternate universe, the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders, who proceeded to lose, maybe not as badly as Goldwater did, but possibly badly. Yet immediately after the election, an entire generation of young Democrats gets genuinely fired up, remaking the party as a vehicle of sweeping progress, of resistance to the worst and change for the best. Within a few years, Republicans have a fight on their hands, and within a few more years the tide turns—not just in Congress, not just in the presidency, but in the governorships and state legislatures, where the Democrats are also currently a minority. This happens not because President Trump or the Republicans are so bad, but because the Democrats are so bold, charismatic, appealing and inspiring.
Genius, power and magic. That’s the Democratic ticket.
Bob Schwartz 