What if the U.S. Constitution was written to realize the American Dream. What if you could start over with government? Not fix a broken piece here or there — but actually design it from scratch, knowing everything we know about how power gets abused?

That's what I spent a few hours doing with Claude, Anthropic's AI assistant. What came out the other end surprised me.

I believe we can do better

The U.S. Constitution turns 238 this year. It's the world's oldest surviving written charter of government — and that's not a "good" thing.

A lot has changed since 1789. A system designed to protect the power of wealthy, land-owning white men isn't a blueprint for a fair, just democracy in 2026.

The ruling class knows this. They plan across decades. Project 2025 is just the latest proof.

We the people don't have a plan.

We react. We march. We protest. But we don't build. We know what we're against — we just can't agree on what we stand for.

That has to change.

We need a unified vision, people-powered momentum, and a plan — one we create, own, and act on. So here's where I'm starting: writing a new, more democratic constitution.

It started with a simple question

The U.S. Senate was designed in 1787 to protect wealthy landowners. Senators serve six-year terms specifically so they stay insulated from what regular people want. The Founders literally called popular opinion "temporary passions" that needed to be slowed down.

So I asked Claude:

if we were building government today, from scratch, with the goal of making it actually respond to regular people — what would that look like?

We spent a few hours going back and forth, adding pieces, stress-testing them, finding the holes, and fixing them. We looked at the 2009 Bolivian Constitution, which is one of the most people-centered governing documents ever actually ratified by a real country. We asked hard questions. We changed our minds several times.

Here's what we built.

Five branches instead of three

The U.S. has three branches of government: Congress makes laws, the President carries them out, and the courts decide if laws are legal. That's it.

The problem is that all three can be captured by money and power over time — and there's no independent body making sure elections themselves are fair.

Our design has five branches of government.

1: The Popular Assembly

The first is the Popular Assembly — this is like the House of Representatives, but elected differently. Instead of winner-take-all districts where one party shuts out everyone else, each area elects four representatives. Voters rank their choices. This means a Green candidate in a conservative area, or a libertarian in a progressive one, can actually win a seat. Third parties become real and engaged. To get on the ballot you need 500 signatures from neighbors — not money. Every candidate gets the same public campaign budget. Private donations are banned entirely.

2: The Citizen Senate

The second is the Citizen Senate — This one is the most unusual idea in the whole design. Instead of electing senators, you pick them the same way we pick juries. Random citizens, chosen by lottery, serve for one year. They can't be lobbied into a second term that doesn't exist. They don't have donors. They don't have a political career to protect. They just show up, learn the issues, deliberate like a jury, and vote their conscience. Due to the impacts mass media and disinformation campaigns have had in making facts hard to access, a set of minimum qualifications and a selection process need to be developed for Citizen Senate candidates.

3: The Executive Council

The third is the Executive Council — This is similar to a President and cabinet, but with one enormous difference. They have no veto. They cannot block a law they disagree with. Their only job is to carry out what the Legislature decides. If they refuse, there's an automatic escalation process that ends with citizens voting to remove them — no waiting for Congress to act.

4: The Constitutional Court

The fourth is the Constitutional Court — This is similar to the Supreme Court, but judges are appointed through a three-way lottery and supermajority system. The President appoints nobody. This closes the biggest loophole in the current U.S. system, where one president can reshape the court for a generation. Article 35 of the draft constitution specifies nine-year non-renewable terms for judges on the Constitutional Court, staggered so three expire every three years. Non-renewable is the key word: a judge serves once and is done. No angling for reappointment, no loyalty to whoever might extend their tenure.

5: The Electoral Branch

The fifth is the Electoral Branch — This is a completely independent body that runs all elections, enforces campaign finance rules, and manages the citizen lottery. Its budget is fixed by the Constitution itself, so no Congress can starve it into compliance. It answers to no one.

The floor that nobody can touch

The 2009 Bolivian Constitution teaches us something important: some rights need to be completely off the table, permanently, no matter who's in power.

We called this the constitutional floor. It includes water, food, health care, education, and housing. No law can take these away. No emergency can suspend them. No referendum can vote them out. Not even a supermajority. They exist because a person who is sick, hungry, or homeless is not truly free — and a government that can remove these things has ultimate power over the people it's supposed to serve.

The law must justify itself

This was the idea I found most interesting. Right now, laws accumulate forever. It's easy to pass a new law and nearly impossible to repeal an old one. The statute books in most countries contain thousands of laws that nobody has looked at in decades.

Our design flips this. Every law has to pass a four-part test before it can even come to a vote:

First, is there a real harm to other people — not just something someone finds annoying or morally wrong, but an actual documented harm?

Second, is a law really necessary, or could the problem be solved some other way without restricting anyone's freedom?

Third, is the law limited to exactly what the harm requires — no broader?

Fourth, does the law expire in ten years unless actively renewed?

This last part is important. Laws don't last forever by default. If a law is still needed after ten years, legislators have to make the case for it again, from scratch using current evidence. If nobody bothers, it disappears. This keeps the law books from getting buried under decades of accumulated rules nobody remembers passing.

What happens when the government won't do its job

This is something most constitutions completely ignore: what if the government just... refuses? Not breaking a law. Just doing nothing.

We designed a step-by-step escalation system. If the Executive Council hasn't started implementing a law after 30 days, a public declaration goes out naming them and the law. After 60 days, an independent commissioner takes direct control of the budget for that law. After 90 days, Executive Council members who failed to act personally lose the right to hold any public office. After 120 days, a citizen recall referendum kicks off automatically — no Congress needed, no political negotiation. The citizens decide directly.

Every step happens on a calendar. Nobody has to decide to start it. It just runs.

The Bolivia lesson

Bolivia actually ratified a constitution like this in 2009. It had many of these same ideas — direct democracy, indigenous rights, strong floor rights, popular control over natural resources.

It also showed us what can go wrong. President Evo Morales, who championed that constitution, later tried to bypass its term limits. He used courts he'd influenced to rule in his favor. He tried to run referenda through an electoral body that wasn't truly independent.

Our design tries to close each of those doors. First ALL positions in government are filled by citizens with limited terms. Judges are selected by lottery, not presidential appointment. The Electoral Branch controls its own budget with no private funding allowed. Changing the constitution requires two supermajorities plus a citizen referendum — all three at once. No single popular leader, no matter how genuinely beloved, can rewrite the rules during their own term.

What this actually is

To be clear: this is a thought experiment, not a political platform.

The goal is to spark a movement that encourages citizens to craft a new and more democratic system of government that finally fulfills the promises we know now as “The American Dream.”

Claude and I were designing such a system, the same way you might design a better school or a better hospital, asking what it would look like if our government actually worked for everyone.

The full document we produced is 57 articles across eight sections. It draws on notable political philosophy, real constitutional law from Bolivia and other countries, and a lot of back-and-forth about what fails and why.

Is it perfect? No. We found weaknesses in almost every piece we designed and documented them honestly. The citizen lottery Senate has real vulnerabilities around competence and legitimacy that need to be addressed. The necessity test could be gamed by a determined majority. The communal governance provisions need ongoing real-world deliberation with indigenous communities to be meaningful.

But here's what the exercise showed me: the problems with modern democracy are not mysteries. We know why money dominates our politics – to maintain the status quo. We know why representatives stop listening between elections. We know why courts get captured and executives overstay their welcome. The solutions aren't mysteries either — they've been thought through by political philosophers, constitutional scholars, and ordinary citizens for centuries.

What’s new is the realization in this moment we can do something different. Together we can change the system. The question is... will we?

We are deeply conditioned to surrender our personal power to all kinds of “authorities” including: laws, governments, officials, executives, experts, gurus, and even social media influencers.

And we are used to always asking “How?” whenever we are faced with doing something new and challenging.

Protesting against something won't cut it. Whatever you are protesting against is already happening.

We must create our own plans and take action in support of things that we want – not against things we don’t want.

I hope this new U.S. Constitution is a seed for the change we want.

Download and read the full constitutional draft below.

Want to see the full AI conversation that built it? Read the complete Claude chat here.

Drop a comment below with your thoughts.

You have to tell AI to use plain direct language by default. Otherwise AI will soften statements automatically — using "could," "might," "often," and "sometimes" out of caution. When AI makes more measured responses, the response can obscure the truth rather than serve it.

I asked AI about a historical topic I am familiar with. Here’s what happened...

AI is a tool that is immature, and requires careful use and an ability to be able to question and train its responses.

Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of Claude.ai responses.

Did you find this helpful?

Edward Snowden provides an insightful overview of the CIA today and its history.

Read it here: https://open.substack.com/pub/edwardsnowden/p/americas-open-wound?r=46899x&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

By Edward Snowden
September 20, 2022

“Better that right counsels be known to enemies than that the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.”

― Baruch Spinoza

It hasn’t been a month since President Biden mounted the steps of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, declaring it his duty to ensure each of us understands the central faction of his political opposition are extremists that “threaten the very foundations of our Republic.” Flanked by the uniformed icons of his military and standing atop a Leni Riefenstahl stage, the leader clenched his fists to illustrate seizing the future from the forces of “fear, division, and darkness.” The words falling from the teleprompter ran rich with the language of violence, a “dagger at the throat” emerging from the “shadow of lies.”

“What’s happening in our country,” the President said, “is not normal.”

Is he wrong to think that? The question the speech intended to raise—the one lost in the unintentionally villainous pageantry—is whether and how we are to continue as a democracy and a nation of laws. For all the Twitter arguments over Biden’s propositions, there has been little consideration of his premises.

Democracy and the rule of law have been so frequently invoked as a part of the American political brand that we simply take it for granted that we enjoy both.

Are we right to think that?

Our glittering nation of laws observes this year two birthdays: the 70th anniversary of the National Security Agency, on which my thoughts have been recorded, and the 75th anniversary of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA was founded in the wake of the 1947 National Security Act. The Act foresaw no need for the Courts and Congress to oversee a simple information-aggregation facility, and therefore subordinated it exclusively to the President, through the National Security Council he controls.

Within a year, the young agency had already slipped the leash of its intended role of intelligence collection and analysis to establish a covert operations division. Within a decade, the CIA was directing the coverage of American news organizations, overthrowing democratically elected governments (at times merely to benefit a favored corporation), establishing propaganda outfits to manipulate public sentiment, launching a long-running series of mind-control experiments on unwitting human subjects (purportedly contributing to the creation of the Unabomber), and—gasp—interfering with foreign elections. From there, it was a short hop to wiretapping journalists and compiling files on Americans who opposed its wars.

In 1963, no less than former President Harry Truman confessed that the very agency he personally signed into law had transformed into something altogether different than he intended, writing:

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble…”

Many today comfort themselves by imagining that the Agency has been reformed, and that such abuses are relics of the distant past, but what few reforms our democracy has won have been watered-down or compromised. The limited “Intelligence Oversight” role that was eventually conceded to Congress in order to placate the public has never been taken seriously by either the committee’s majority—which prefers cheerleading over investigating—or by the Agency itself, which continues to conceal politically-sensitive operations from the very group most likely to defend them.

"Congress should have been told," said [Senator] Dianne Feinstein. "We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind of sensitive program. Director Panetta... was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to Congress."

How can we judge the ultimate effectiveness of oversight and reforms? Well, the CIA plotted to assassinate my friend, American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, in 1972, yet nearly fifty years of “reforms” did little to inhibit them from recently sketching out another political murder targeting Julian Assange. Putting that in perspective, you probably own shoes older than the CIA’s most recent plot to murder a dissident... or rather the most recent plot that we know of.

If you believe the Assange case to be a historical anomaly, some aberration unique to Trump White House, recall that the CIA’s killings have continued in series across administrations. Obama ordered the killing of an American far from any battlefield, and killed his 16 year-old American son a few weeks later, but the man’s American daughter was still alive by the time Obama left.

Within a month of entering the White House, Trump killed her.

She was 8 years old.

It goes beyond assassinations. Within recent memory, the CIA captured Gul Rahman, who we know was not Al-Qaeda, but it seems did save the life of Afghanistan’s future (pro-US) President. Rahman was placed in what the Agency described as a “dungeon” and tortured until he died.

They stripped him naked, save a diaper he couldn’t change, in a cold so wicked that his guards, in their warm clothes, ran heaters for themselves. In absolute darkness, they bolted his hands and feet to a single point on the floor with a very short chain so that it was impossible to stand or lie down – a practice called “short shackling” – and after he died, claimed that it was for his own safety. They admit to beating him, even describing the “forceful punches.” They describe the blood that ran from his nose and mouth as he died.

Pages later, in their formal conclusion, the Agency declares that there was no evidence of beating. There was no of evidence torture. The CIA ascribes responsibility for his death to hypothermia, which they blamed on him for the crime of refusing, on his final night, a meal from the men that killed him.

In the aftermath, the Agency concealed the death of Gul Rahman from his family. To this day, they refuse to reveal what happened to his remains, denying those who survive him a burial, or even some locus of mourning.

Ten years after the torture program investigated, exposed, and ended, no one was charged for their role in these crimes. The man responsible for Rahman’s death was recommended for a $2,500 cash award — for “consistently superior work”.

A different torturer was elevated to the Director’s seat.

This summer, in a speech marking the occasion of the CIA's 75th birthday, President Biden struck a quite different note than he did in Philadelphia, reciting what the CIA instructs all presidents: that the soul of the institution really lies in speaking truth to power.

“We turn to you with the big questions,” Biden said, “the hardest questions. And we count on you to give your best, unvarnished assessment of where we are.  And I emphasize ‘unvarnished.’”

But this itself is a variety of varnishing — a whitewash.

For what reason do we aspire to maintain — or achieve — a nation of laws, if not to establish justice?

Let us say we have a democracy, shining and pure. The people, or in our case some subset of people, institute reasonable laws to which government and citizen alike must answer. The sense of justice that arises within such a society is not produced as a result of the mere presence of law, which can be tyrannical and capricious, or even elections, which face their own troubles, but is rather derived from the reason and fairness of the system that results.

What would happen if we were to insert into this beautiful nation of laws an extralegal entity that is not directed by the people, but a person: the President? Have we protected the nation’s security, or have we placed it at risk?

This is the unvarnished truth: the establishment of an institution charged with breaking the law within a nation of laws has mortally wounded its founding precept. 

From the year it was established, Presidents and their cadres have regularly directed the CIA to go beyond the law for reasons that cannot be justified, and therefore must be concealed — classified. The primary result of the classification system is not an increase in national security, but a decrease in transparency. Without meaningful transparency, there is no accountability, and without accountability, there is no learning.

The consequences have been deadly, for both Americans and our victims. When the CIA armed the Mujaheddin to wage war on Soviet Afghanistan, we created al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. Ten years later, the CIA is arming, according to then-Vice President Joe Biden, "al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world." After the CIA runs a disinformation operation to make life hard for the Soviet Union by fueling a little proxy war, the war rages for twenty-six years — far beyond the Union’s collapse.

Do you believe that the CIA today — a CIA free from all consequence and accountability — is uninvolved in similar activities? Can you find no presence of their fingerprints in the events of the world, as described in the headlines, that provide cause for concern? Yet it is those who question the wisdom of placing a paramilitary organization beyond the reach of our courts that are dismissed as “naive.”

For 75 years, the American people have been unable to bend the CIA to fit the law, and so the law has been bent to fit the CIA. As Biden stood on the crimson stage, at the site where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were debated and adopted, his words rang out like the cry of a cracked-to-hell Liberty Bell: “What's happening in our country is not normal.”

If only that were true. 

Eye-On-The-Ball

All immigration officers on the ground in Minneapolis will be equipped with body cameras, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said on Monday, February 2, 2026. The New York Times reported that After federal agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, Department of Homeland Security officials said there was body camera footage from multiple angles, which investigators would review.

Police Body Cameras Can’t Be Trusted

Police and official body cameras can’t be trusted. The three main reasons are:

1. The police and officials control the footage. (Think the fox guarding the hen house.)
2. There is no public oversight or control over how body camera recordings are managed.
3. There are dozens of examples of the administration and leading officials lying and promoting false narratives (despite the presence of clear evidence to the contrary).

It is reasonable to expect that future body camera videos that officials release (via secret and non-transparent handling processes) will support official accounts of incidents.

Witness Videos Matter

Witness cellphone videos have exposed blatant lies in federal officials accounts of recent fatal shootings involving federal agents in Chicago and Minneapolis.

Witness cellphone videos serve as important public records of events. And they are essential tools in establishing the facts surrounding events.

What Needs To Be Done

The current system where an agency accused of a crime is in charge of investigating the crime it is accused committing must end.

Here are a few priority initiatives to focus on:

1. A public managed system for collecting and managing Witness videos must be setup.
2. The public must have full control and oversight of investigations.
3. A system of full transparency must be setup.

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787. That’s a long time ago.

The U.S. Constitution does not reflect the current values and needs of a majority of Americans.

It’s time to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not Democratic

The U.S. Constitution was not written democratically by and for a majority of Americans.

It was written by 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The 55 delegates were chosen by individual state governments, not by a national popular vote.

At the time, state legislatures were elected by a very limited group of electorates who were mostly white, property-owning men. The Delegates were overwhelmingly:

• White
• Male
• Property-Owning
• Economically Elite
• Owners of Land, Businesses, and/or Enslaved People
• Most were trained as lawyers or deeply involved in commerce.

No one from the following groups participated in writing the U.S. Constitution:

• Women
• Enslaved People
• Free Black Americans
• Indigenous Peoples
• Poor White Men
• Non-Property Owners

We Can Do Better

We the people can write a better Constitution. A new U.S. Constitution that is truly “democratic.”

Who Initiates the Process

Old Constitution (1787)

• Initiated by state political elites
• Purpose: revise the Articles of Confederation
• Convention exceeded its mandate and wrote an entirely new constitution
• Authority flows top-down from state legislatures

New Constitution (2026)

• Initiated by mass political mobilization
• Central demand of social movements and people 1st organizations
• A mandate to refound the state
• Authority flows bottom-up through elections and popular referendums

Who Selects the Constitution Writers

Old Constitution (1787)

• State legislatures appointed delegates
• No popular vote for delegates
• Legislatures themselves elected by wealthy, land owning elites
• Result: a narrow, elite-filtered group

New Constitution (2026)

• Delegates elected by popular vote
• Hold national elections to choose Constituent Assembly members
• Encourage indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, workers, rural communities, and women participate directly
• Reserved mechanisms to ensure popular representation

Who Actually Writes The Text

Old Constitution (1787)

• 55 Privately Selected Delegates
• Overwhelmingly:
  • White
  • Male
  • Wealthy
  • Property Owners
• Slaveholders, Merchants, Lawyers, and/or Financiers
• No representation from the majority of the population.

New Constitution (2026)

• Constituent Assembly of 255 members
• Included:
  • Indigenous Leaders
  • Minority Leaders
  • Labor Representatives
  • Women (in significant numbers)
• Representation of a majority of the population, not just elites.

Participation During Drafting

Old Constitution (1787)

• Proceedings held in secret
• No public debates or consultation during drafting.
• Text released only after completion.
• Public influence limited to ratification phase.

New Constitution (2026)

• Public process that’s contested and participatory.
• Includes:
  • Public Hearings
  • Social Movement Pressure
  • Popular Street Mobilizations
• Drafting occurs via open political process & debate.

Ratification

Old Constitution (1787)

• Ratified by state conventions
• Voters for conventions restricted to property owners and white men.
• Ratification threshold was lowered from unanimous consent to just 9 of 13 states.
• Legitimacy determined by elites.

New Constitution (2026)

• Ratified by a national referendum.
• One Person, One Vote (Corporations are not people.)
• Public Campaign Financing (No corporate or private contributions.)
• Constitution approved by a clear popular majority.
• Legitimacy explicitly popular and electoral.

Role of Conflict

Old Constitution (1787)

• Elite fear of:
  • Popular Uprisings (e.g., Shays’ Rebellion)
  • Debt Relief Movements
  • Excess Democracy
• Constitution designed to protect governance from mass popular pressure.

New Constitution (2026)

• Constitution born from conflict:
  • Indigenous Exclusion
  • Concentration of Land Ownership
  • Mass Privatization
• A process that embraces conflict as democratic negotiation, not a threat.

View of “The People”

Old Constitution (1787)

• “The People” are defined narrowly in practice.
• Popular sovereignty gets filtered and diluted through institutions.
• Democracy is intentionally slowed and constrained.

New Constitution (2026)

• “The People” are defined collectively and pluralistically.
• Recognize and promote Indigenous nations as political actors.
• Recognize and promote Minority groups as political actors.
• Recognize and promote Workers as political actors.
• Recognize and promote Women as political actors.
• Expand Democracy to include collective and communal participation.

One-Sentence Contrast

• The U.S. Constitution was written by elites for “the people” who were defined as elites.
• The New American Constitution will be written by “the people” who are defined collectively as ALL individual citizens of the land—which does not include corporations or other entities, to restructure the state and enact new priorities.

Where Do We Start?

Back in 2009, with the election of Evo Morales as President—the first indigenous Bolivian to be elected to that office, Bolivia wrote a new constitution. We can draw from their example.

Here’s how a New American Constitution might start:

We, the American people, of plural composition and in all our diversity, drawing strength from the depths of our history; inspired by the struggles of Indigenous peoples; by resistance to colonial domination; by slave uprisings and the long fight against racial injustice; by the Civil Rights movement; by the courage and perseverance of immigrants; by the struggles of workers for fair wages and dignity; by social and labor movements; and by the defense of land, community, and territory; in memory of our martyrs, and with a firm commitment to justice, equality, shared well-being, and democracy, we refound the State.

A State based on respect and equality for all, on principles of sovereignty, dignity, interdependence, solidarity, harmony, and equity in the distribution and redistribution of the social wealth, where the search for a good life predominates; based on respect for the economic, social, juridical, political and cultural pluralism of the inhabitants of this land; and on collective coexistence with access to land, water, work, education, health and housing for all.

Better already, right!?

We need a new constitution. And by "we” I mean anyone who sees they would be better served living in a country governed by a constitution that starts like the one I sketched out above. And while that “we” may not be all of us, I bet it includes a large majority of us. And that’s democracy.

A New Day. A New Constitution.

In this moment, we must focus our attention on core features of our society that we can change, and which will deliver the greatest impact.

It’s time to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

That is something we can all stand for... and benefit from.

Effective branding instantly connects with a target audiences aspirations and the outcome(s) they want to achieve.

Recently I saw a TikTok post with the banner title “Democratic Socialist Is Just A Term For Communist.”

The label “Socialist” literally has decades of negative positioning behind it. It is a term that immediately alienates many voters. The same is true of the label “Progressive.”

“Effective branding connects what you have to offer with people who want it.” - Edward Phelps

Definitions

Let’s look at the definition of four key political terms: 1) Socialist, 2) Progressive, 3) Liberal, 4) Conservative 5) Democrat, 5) Republican.

Socialist: A “Socialist” is defined as a person who promotes or practices socialism.

Socialism: Socialism is defined as a political and economic society which believes that the means of production, distribution, and exchange must be either owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Progressive: A “Progressive” is defined as: a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

A “Liberal” is defined as: a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

A “Conservative” is defined as: a person who is averse to change; holds traditional values; and favors free enterprise, private ownership, and traditional societal ideas.

What is Branding?

Effective Branding:

• Uses a Problem/Solution approach.
• Tells a target audience you know about their problem—you understand their pain.
• Addresses niché problems to stand-out and differentiate the brands message.
• Tells a target audience you have a Solution to their problem.

Branding presents a clear message that connects what you have to offer with what a target audiences needs, and the outcomes they want to achieve.

Branding makes it easy for a target audience to connect their pain with what you have to offer, and to see you as having a solution.

What People Want

People today want:

• A more equitable share of the wealth.
• They want their work to provide a comfortable lifestyle.
• They don’t want to lose their home and their livelihood when a company decides to downsize them, or the economy crashes due to no fault of theirs.
• They want the security of having access to their essential needs... housing, food, and medical care.

Bad Branding

Based upon the above definition, the labels “Socialism” and “Progressive” are “bad” branding because:

• These labels are vague.
• These labels do not relate directly to, or refer to, any political or societal goals.
• These labels do not refer to any specific issue.

The labels “Socialism” and “Progressive” are not effective for attracting people to participate in a movement that promises to transform the priorities of our society to address their essential needs.

These labels do not speak to their aspirations. In fact, they refer to political ideas that have been severely criticized and demonized for decades.

A Rebrand Solution

Here are two rebrand Wordmarks that connect with audience aspirations and expand the message reach:

People 1st

People1

Here are two examples of creative applications using the “People 1st” brand:

On January 10, 2026 I asked ChatGPT the following:

Since 2014, is it accurate to describe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela as:

Punishing Venezuela officials who took actions to stop American backed opposition actors.

Harming the Venezuelan economy by imposing targeted sanctions to make life miserable for Venezuelans and undermine the Venezuelan government.

I started in 2014 because that was the year the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Venezuela. The subsequent Bush and Trump

View the full Chat.

ChatGPT responded:

Your two descriptions capture some perceptions about U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, but they are not fully accurate or complete representations of U.S. policy since 2014 when analyzed against credible sources. Here’s a more accurate, nuanced summary based on documented policy and widely reported effects:

ChatGPT went on to provide a detailed biased summary. I responded by asking ChatGPT:

You cite “when analyzed against credible sources” is this not a biased assessment? Cite research by Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, and Columbia and use their analysis.

After thinking for almost a minute, ChatGPT responded:

You’re right to challenge the phrase “credible sources” if it’s being used as a label to dismiss certain viewpoints. “Credible” can be a biased framing if it just means “sources that agree with the U.S.” A less biased approach is: name your source-set upfront (e.g., U.S./EU/UN/LatAm governments/academics), then compare claims across them.

It then summarized how Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, and Colombia (and institutions hosted on their official channels) commonly frame U.S. sanctions on Venezuela. Here are the highlights:

Brazil

Brazilian official foreign-policy discourse (especially under Lula-era diplomacy) has repeatedly argued that unilateral sanctions are contrary to international law and worsen conditions for the population, and that lifting them supports “normalization” and dialogue.

Brazil’s government domains also describes U.S. sanctions as escalating from 2015 onward and as producing harms that “fall not only on the government but on the Venezuelan population.”

Bolivia

Bolivia’s foreign ministry has published multiple statements (e.g., via UNASUR/CELAC/G77+China channels) rejecting “unilateral coercive measures” and urging the U.S. to refrain from sanctions, arguing they do not contribute to stability and violate sovereignty/non-intervention principles.

Cuba

Cuba’s foreign ministry has consistently characterized U.S. sanctions on Venezuela as “medidas coercitivas unilaterales” (unilateral coercive measures), portraying them as part of a broader campaign of pressure/regime-change and as producing humanitarian/economic harm.

Cuban official messaging often links sanctions to economic warfare and explicitly argues they are imposed to force political outcomes.

Colombia

Colombia’s government position:

• Echo’s the regional principle of rejecting unilateral coercive measures (notably through CELAC declarations hosted on Colombia’s foreign-ministry site)
• Engages the UN framework around the human-rights impacts of unilateral sanctions (e.g., referencing the UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and human rights).

ChatGPT Revised Its Framing

After questioning ChatGPT’s original results, it changed its results, framing these nations (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, and Columbia) as generally describing U.S. actions in Venzuela as:

• Interventionist/coercive, aimed at political outcomes (often “regime change”), and/or
• Illegitimate interference in sovereignty, rather than narrowly “punishing officials for stopping U.S.-backed opposition.”

A closer-to-their-framing rewrite would be:

“Brazil, Bolivia, Cuban, and Columbian governments characterize targeting Venezuelan officials and institutions as part of U.S. political pressure as interventionist and contrary to international law.”

Regarding my charge that U.S. sanctions against Venezuela are designed to “Harm the Venezuelan economy… make life miserable… and undermine the government.” ChatGPT concluded:

Under Cuba/Bolivia/Brazil messaging, it’s accurate that they argue sanctions harm the economy and population and are used as coercion.

Next, I asked ChatGPT:

Is it true that U.S. sanctions generally are “imposed to force political outcomes”?

To which ChatGPT responded:

Short answer: Yes — in practice, many U.S. sanctions are designed to exert political pressure to change behavior, policy, or strategic outcomes, but the extent, goals, and effectiveness vary by case. It’s not always solely about “forcing political outcomes,” but political objectives are frequently central to U.S. sanctions policy according to academic research and policy analyses.

At the end of that thread, ChatGPT asked:

If you want, I can summarize how this general pattern plays out in U.S. sanctions on Venezuela specifically, comparing official U.S. stated goals with independent academic and international analyses.

I replied Please do.

ChatGPT provided this Bottom Line overview:

U.S. sanctions on Venezuela are officially framed as targeted measures to punish corruption, human-rights abuses, and antidemocratic actions and to incentivize democratic reforms. Many independent analysts, however, describe them as part of a strategy to exert political pressure on the Venezuelan government, influencing its behavior and political outcomes — though there is debate about effectiveness and humanitarian impact.

Finally, I challenged ChatGPT with this query:

This contradicts your original statement: Your two descriptions capture some perceptions about U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, but they are not fully accurate or complete representations of U.S. policy since 2014 when analyzed against credible sources

Here’s ChatGPT’s response:

You’re right to point out that my earlier wording (“analyzed against credible sources”) could be interpreted as dismissing other perspectives. What’s most important in a factual explanation is to clearly distinguish between:

1. What the U.S. government officially states as its goals, and
2. How independent analysts, critics, and international observers interpret those goals and effects.

Below is a clearer, evidence-based comparison that reconciles those perspectives without implying bias.

At the end of this comparison, ChatGPT provided a “Clear, Neutral Statement You Can Use.”

“U.S. sanctions on Venezuela since 2014 were officially framed by the U.S. government as targeted measures to sanction individuals and entities for corruption, human-rights abuses, and antidemocratic actions and to incentivize democratic reforms. Independent analysts and critics argue these sanctions have also acted as political pressure tools and have contributed to significant economic hardship in Venezuela, although there is debate about the extent to which sanctions versus pre-existing economic problems are responsible.”

ChatGPT Is Biased

Next, I asked ChatGPT:

Why did you use your earlier wording (“analyzed against credible sources”) and not include other perspectives to begin with?

ChatGPT responded:

That’s a fair question — and I’ll answer it directly.

Short answer

I defaulted to U.S.- and Western-policy framing first, used the shorthand “credible sources,” and should not have done that without explicitly naming the perspective limits. That choice narrowed the frame in a way that implicitly privileged one set of actors and set up the contradiction you later pointed out.

That’s on me.

Private Control

AI is powered by code. Specifically algorithms. And whoever controls the code controls AI.

It is vital to understand that AI code is controlled by billionaires and private corporations with political agendas.

Bottom line... AI is biased.

In fact, in that regard AI is not unlike corporate controlled mass media, government propaganda, and human communications in general. They are all biased.

In response to the recent U.S. invasion of Venezuela, French President Emmanuel Macron made a speech in which he stressed the importance of safeguarding academic independence and “a controlled information space, where opinions can be exchanged completely freely, but where choices are not made by the algorithms of a few”.

He also said the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which covers competition, and the Digital Services Act (DSA) on content moderation – which the US has denounced as an attempt to “coerce” its tech companies into censorship – “must be defended”.

Legal Frameworks

We need to decide that technologies that are used by a majority of people must be owned and overseen by the people. We must see that it simply is not in the publics interest to have privately owned technology that controls key areas of our lives. This is why the EU has privacy laws like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act.

Here are a few key legal concepts we would benefit by supporting:

• An individuals personal data must belong to the individual.
• Peoples personal data must be owned, stored, and managed by governments on behalf of the people (paid for by the peoples tax dollars).
• Private companies must pay subscription fees to access and use peoples personal data.

Conclusions

We must not use AI casually. Every query feeds the algorithm with information about your preferences, questions, feelings, and more. Every query contains some of your most private information. And every query gives away valuable personal information that can be used in any way the codes owner sees fit.

This may sound serious and dramatic to you. It is.

AI results are biased.

AI apps are programmed to favor some sources over others. They consider some sources to be “credible” and ignore others by default.

This is not about whether you agree those sources are credible. It is about the fact that you are not getting balanced and unbiased results from which you can draw your own conclusion.

I believe the sentiments expressed in this speech reflect ideals we can all benefit from as we shape a new political landscape for America.

I present this invocation speech as an example of the heart and character of one of New York City's Islamic community leaders, and his hopes for the administration of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Transcript:

Let us pray. Yā Allāh, yā Raḥmān, yā Raḥīm, yā Arḥam al-Rāḥimīn. (Translation: O God, O Most Merciful, O Most Compassionate, O Most Merciful of those who show mercy.)

Most merciful of those who show mercy, we turn to you on this day from our city with hopeful hearts.

Thank you for this moment. Thank you for the amazing individuals you have gathered here, diverse in color, language, journey, and name, but united in purpose, stitched together by shared hopes, all yearning to build something meaningful, lasting, and rooted in love, dignity, respect, and justice. No longer for the few, but for all.

We come before you, mindful that moments like this do not arrive on their own. They are carried forward by sacrifice, by organizing, by courage, by people who refuse to accept that the way things were was the way they had to remain.

So we come knowing that this day stands on the shoulders of so many who were told to wait their turn, to quiet their demands, to lower their expectations, but instead chose to believe that another New York was possible.

We recognize that belief is not abstract. It was practiced by tenants organizing against displacement, by workers demanding fair wages, by parents advocating for their children’s futures, by communities who kept showing up even when the odds said they should not.

We gather today with hearts shaped by this city, by its noise and its neighborhoods, by its subways and sanctuaries, by the dreams carried in many languages and the prayers whispered on crowded blocks.

We thank you for New York City, for a place that has taught the world how difference can become strength, how survival can become solidarity, how strangers can become neighbors. And for being a place that taught us that a young immigrant, democratic socialist, Muslim can be bold enough to run and brave enough to win.

Not by abandoning conviction, but by standing firmly within it. Not by shrinking who he is, but by trusting that authenticity can move a city toward justice.

We thank you for the beautiful diversity of this city, for a people formed across continents and generations, across race and religion, culture and class.

Teach us to never see that diversity as something to manage or fear, but as a sacred trust, a collective inheritance that expands our moral imagination and strengthens our shared future.

On this day of transition and responsibility, we ask you to bless this moment of leadership and all who are entrusted with the weight of public service.

Grant wisdom to Mayor Zohran Mamdani and remind him that leadership is not about power, but about proximity—to the people who struggle, to the voices too often ignored, to the lives behind the statistics.

Keep him close to the realities of this city:
to the family doubling up in a one-bedroom apartment because rent has outpaced wages,
to the home health aide commuting hours each day to care for others while struggling to afford care for themselves,
to the public school student navigating overcrowded classrooms,
to the small business owner choosing between closing their doors or passing rising costs onto neighbors who already have too little.

Bless him with the courage to remain grounded, the humility to keep learning, and the strength to lead with principle, even when the pressure to compromise is loud.

Let his leadership reflect the movements and communities that made this moment possible, and never let him forget that this office exists to serve the people, not to rise above them.

We lift up all those who came together to make what many said could never happen, happen. Organizers and volunteers. Neighbors who spoke to neighbors. Young people who believe their voices matter. Elders who remembered past struggles and recognized this moment as part of a longer arc.

Bless those who knocked on doors in the cold, who stood on street corners with clipboards in hope, who had difficult conversations rooted in love, and who chose participation over despair.

Let the spirit that carried this moment forward not fade after today, but deepen and endure.

Make this city affordable for the families who built it and the workers who sustain it. Let no one have to choose between rent and dignity, between medicine and meals, between staying and surviving.

We lift before you those living paycheck to paycheck in the shadow of unimaginable wealth, those working multiple jobs yet still one emergency away from crisis, those whose labor keeps the city moving but whose lives feel increasingly pushed to the margins.

Let justice not be a slogan, but a structure.
Let equity not be a promise, but a practice.
Let policy be shaped by compassion and budgets reflective of our values.

Protect the most vulnerable among us—our children and elders, our immigrants and asylum seekers, our unhoused neighbors, our workers, our artists, our caregivers, and the students who keep the city alive.

Heal what has been broken by neglect and greed. Soften hearts hardened by fear.

Replace cynicism with courage and despair with collective hope.

And let that hope be something we practice daily, not something we push back. Let it live in our policies, our streets, our schools, and our systems.

Teach us that hope is not passive. It is built through accountability, through care, and through a refusal to abandon one another.

Remind all New Yorkers, those born here and those who arrived yesterday, that the city belongs to all of us and that our liberation is bound together.

Help us show up for one another, not just in moments of crisis, but in the long, patient work of care.

Teach us that the city we pray for is the city we must also build, and make this administration—and all of us who call this place home—a means of mercy, a force for fairness, and a reflection of your justice in this world.

Let this moment be not an ending, but a beginning.

Let what was once thought impossible become the standard by which we measure our future.

And let New York City continue to show the world what is possible when people believe in one another—and continue to show that respect, dignity, and compassion are no longer for the few, but for all.

Amen.

By Ralph Nader

Read the original post here.

Jimmy Carter was my last president. I believe that is true for progressive civic groups, too. He actively opened up the federal government to engagement and participation from long politically excluded American activists.

When he was campaigning in 1976, he would say that he wanted to be more of a consumer advocate than I am, that he would take seriously my recommendations for his nominations to head federal regulatory agencies. Pleasing rhetoric, I thought.

Then, in August 1976, after his nomination, he invited me to Plains, Georgia, for talks and an overnight stay at his modest home. Together with his wife Rosalynn, we talked over a simple supper of black eye peas. The next day, I spent several hours with Carter in his study, going over what policies the civic community wanted him to pursue, what he was likely to confront in Washington and responding to his searching questions. He was taking copious notes — a good sign, I mused.

He punctuated the importance of the visit by introducing me to the attending members of the national press corps and promptly had me umpire part of the daily softball game between Carter’s campaign aides and the reporters. I left Plains with his phone number and a matter-of-fact assurance of more receptivity to come.

After his election victory over President Gerald Ford, I invited him to address a special gathering of citizen advocates in a large hotel ballroom near the White House. To my surprise, he accepted. There must have been nearly 1,000 people in the room with a dozen civic leaders on the dais. I introduced them to president-elect Carter, who then delivered remarks we all were pleased to hear.

This signal gathering, never again repeated by any president elect, did not get much media for the simple reason that reporters saw it as public relations around popular policies.

Not so. Once in office, he chose numerous civic leaders and other solid progressives to head regulatory agencies such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, among other important positions in the White House and other departments.

Furthermore, Carter took a stand behind probably the most widely opposed legislation ever by corporate lobbyists: the creation of a consumer protection agency with the authority to intervene before federal agencies and departments to champion consumer interests and, if their arguments were arbitrarily rejected, to take these agencies to court. That agency would upset the cushy, often secret relationship between federal agencies and the companies they were supposed to regulate.

The corporatists went into a frenzy of lobbying, meeting regularly in the Madison Hotel to plan each week’s anti-consumer tactics. We had the votes to create the consumer agency in the Senate, but, unfortunately, the House voted first on Feb. 7, 1978, and narrowly defeated the bill despite our efforts and those of Carter’s formidable Esther Peterson, the special White House assistant for consumer protection.

No president since has made any mention of resurrecting this vital objective of the consumer movement to institutionalize consumers’ well-being and set an example for the states to do the same. Needless to say, President Ronald Reagan shut down Carter’s consumer presence, replacing his appointments, deregulating the health, safety and economic justice agencies, and inviting a rapacious “wish list” from commercial and industrial interests. He even took down Carter’s 32 solar panels from the White House roof, reflecting his support for the fossil fuel companies.

Unfortunately, the last 18 months of Carter’s presidency witnessed punishing inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s sky-high interest rates to stop spiraling prices and increasing conservative rebellions from his own Democrats in Congress. The pressure from all these quarters and the preoccupation with the lengthy Iranian hostage crisis drained his energy from consumer protection issues.

Still, no other president since has taken our calls, met with us for serious discussions in the White House and provided more government action and information stressing that the economy, after all, must be heavily judged by its defense and advance of consumer welfare.

The expectations of the current generation of consumer advocates has never come close to expecting a president like Jimmy Carter. He gave the leadership of the Federal Trade Commission to Michael Pertschuk — the very successful staff architect for Sen. Warren Magnuson’s championing of consumer protection legislation. He placed Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook in charge of the auto safety agency, made Eula Bingham the head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Donald Kennedy head of the Food and Drug Administration, Douglas Costle the director of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Gus Speth to head the new Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President.

Today, consumer leaders rarely get their calls returned by the White House or the agencies, whether under Democratic or Republican control.

In all the obituaries and articles, written about the death of Jimmy Carter, there was almost no mention of his pioneering work in consumer protection. His performance needs to be front and center for both his legacy and to provide standards for both presidential campaigns that ignore consumer issues and, for sitting presidents. Presidents need to realize, as did Jimmy Carter, that “consumers” are just another name for all the American people.

Get Ralph Nader’s book: Out of Darkness: Essays on Corporate Power and Civic Resistance, 2012-2022.

What happened was part of a planned takedown of the Federal government, aided by a complicit corporate media machine, and a hyper-politicized Supreme Court majority.

Read Project 2025

The evidence of this can be found and read here in the Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project document.

What’s happening is the Trump administration is executing the recommendations in Project 2025.

Project 2025’s stated goal is to:

“go to work on Day One to deconstruct the administrative state.”

That’s precisely what is happening. The administrative state of the United States of America is being deconstructed.

Project 2025 Attacks Workers

Project 2025 suggests Congress ban public sector unions entirely. It sees them as being incompatible with constitutional government. The plan also suggests Congress waive state and local governments from complying with federal labor laws like the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Project 2025 also threatens Private sector unions by seeking to end Private sector labor agreements and repealing Davis-Bacon wage requirements.

Project 2025 Attacks Healthcare

Project 2025 calls for ending the federal government’s ability to negotiate drug prices, repealing the $35 per month cap on insulin costs for seniors on Medicare, and ending Medicare’s $2,000 per year cap on out-of-pocket drug costs that begins in 2025. We’re seeing this happen as the administration distracts from this happening by announcing lower costs on highly profitable weight loss medications.

Project 2025 advocates setting a lifetime cap on Medicaid coverage. Suggestions include imposing a 36 month limit. This would harm millions of Medicaid beneficiaries as well as health care facilities and Medicaid providers serving patients including nurses, home care providers, emergency medical personnel and physicians.

Project 2025 also encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to encourage states to adopt work incentives for able-bodied individuals receiving Medicaid.

The plan also recommends eliminating merit staffing requirements for the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service and unemployment insurance workers, which would allow merit staffers to more easily be replaced by lower paid private contractors with no worker benefits.

Project 2025 Attacks “Head Start”

Project 2025 calls for the complete elimination of the Head Start program,
which serves more than 833,000 children living in poverty. Eliminating Head Start would drive up child care costs for all, since it would take away child care services when the demand already far exceeds availability.

On the other hand, Progressive policies like the Free Childcare initiative promised by Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York City, would lower childcare costs, improve child health outcomes, and reduce child poverty.

Project 2025 Attacks Education

Project 2025 calls for dismantling the Department of Education to facilitate what it calls school choice and increased parental control over schools. Much of this has been done, and we are waiting to see the impact across the nation.

Project 2025 Attacks Student Debt Relief

Project 2025 seeks to eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
enacted during the George W. Bush administration, phase out the income driven repayment program in favor of unregulated private collection practices, and end the Biden-Harris SAVE initiative. Essentially making student debt an inescapable financial prison for millions of Americans.

Project 2025 Attacks Immigration Reform

Project 2025 calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland
Security, consolidating other immigration agencies, increasing fees for immigrants and allowing a fast-track option for higher fees (which favors the wealthy & privileged). The project seeks to end laws against apprehending migrants in sensitive places like schools, playgrounds and churches, and suggests using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard in arrest operations on the border. The project also calls for building a wall on the Mexican border.

The Trump administration has expanded upon these proposals by launching arrest operations in Democratic cities.

Project 2025 Attacks The Economy

Project 2025 proposes massive cuts to both corporate and personal income
taxes. Eliminating taxes effectively defunds government. Which means no available funding to address public needs at scale.

The plan also suggests the next administration should consider abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold-backed currency standard.

Project 2025 Attacks Climate Protections

Project 2025 calls for cutting federal money for renewable energy and increasing
energy production and security. The plan also suggests the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, a part of the Department of Commerce, be downsized due to stop their efforts to raise alarms and promote actions to address climate change.

Project 2025 Attacks Reproductive Rights

The word “abortion” appears 199 times in the report, reflecting its extreme focus on this issue.

Project 2025 proposes that the abortion drug Mifepristone be removed from the market entirely or limited to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. It calls on the Department of Justice to enforce the Comstock Act, which, some argue, bans the mailing of abortion drugs.

It also calls for the federal government to penalize states that require abortion coverage in private insurance by reducing their Medicaid funding by up to 10%. They also call on CMS to disqualify any provider of elective abortions from Medicaid.

And, the plan recommends that the next president replace the Biden administration’s Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force with a “Pro-Life Task Force.”

Project 2025 Attacks Gender Identity

Project 2025 calls on the Department of Health and Human Services to
declare that “men and women are biological realities and married men and women are the ideal, natural family.”

Project 2025 Promotes Authoritarian Rule

Project 2025 calls for Trump to place the entire federal bureaucracy under the direct control of the president, including agencies that historically acted with
considerable independence such as the Department of Justice.

The blueprint proposes the elimination of civil service protections for thousands of government employees who could then be replaced by political appointees who are beholden to the executive. Project 2025 claims this policy, known as the unitary executive theory, would streamline decision-making, ensuring a more efficient government. It would. But that’s not democracy!

This is happening.

And the 4 real and most important questions are:

1. What’s been broken?
2. What did it do and who was affected?
3. What do we want to do now, and for who?
4. What will we do and in what order?

It’s important in this moment not to simply seek to undo what’s been done, but to examine what we want to do now. So that we may move forward based upon a new and current vision for our future. And so that we craft rules that bind us towards our vision.

It's important in this moment that we only:

• Elect representatives who openly seek to represent us.
• Elect representatives who ask us what we need, and listen.
• Elect representatives who are committed to focus on and promote our common needs (and avoid catering to niche wants and desires.)
• Elect representatives who openly share their agenda and a platform.
• Elect representatives who openly share their party affiliations.
• Elect representatives who only take our money, so we know they work for us.

This is a pivotal moment in the history of our entire world.

And stop calling it a “Shutdown.” It’s not.

“Us vs Them” Won’t Work!

That’s my message to the newly elected Democratic Socialist Mayor of New York City Zohran Mamdani.

Mayor Mamdani (...I like the sound of that) won a highly contested election.

He explicitly ran against the “establishment.”

He ran on a People First agenda.

And he united half of the city to stand together for a more affordable and fair New York that everyone can enjoy living in.

And while he has the support of a majority of New Yorkers, he also has to govern amidst the fears of nearly half of the city’s people and the entrenched interests of the business community and their political arms.

So I want to remind Mayor Mamdani to stick to the spirit of his campaign.

A spirit rooted in Nonviolent principles.

A spirit rooted in focusing on and addressing needs rather than wants.

For we can all agree on our needs.

But we will forever have different wants and desires.

It will be easy to diverge from this spirit while confronting the virulent voices of your opponents and their actions.

It will be easy to feel your ideas are superior and just at times.
And the opposite at other times.

But, know that what is required to navigate this moment is to humbly bring all along on the journey of change with a steely resolve.

Know that “winning” IS NOT the goal.

Change is.

CONGRATULATIONS Mayor Mamdani!

In the U.S., and around the world, both the Democratic and Republican party establishments are (and have been for some time) committed to a “neoliberal agenda.”

So, maybe it’s important to understand precisely what is a neoliberal agenda?

The Neoliberal Agenda

Here is the definition given by Google AI:

The neoliberal agenda is a policy model that promotes the expansion of free-market capitalism through reduced government intervention, privatization, deregulation, free trade, and fiscal austerity. It emphasizes shifting economic control from the public to the private sector, believing that this leads to greater efficiency, individual freedom, and overall prosperity. This agenda advocates for minimizing government spending on social programs and limiting the state's role to protecting private property and facilitating global commerce.

Here’s a breakdown:

Free-market capitalism: The belief that free markets, guided by supply and demand, are the most efficient way to allocate resources and drive economic growth.

Deregulation: Removing government rules and regulations on industries, particularly in the financial and telecommunications sectors, to foster competition.

Privatization: Transferring ownership and control of public services and state-owned enterprises, such as utilities and schools, to the private sector.

Fiscal austerity: Reducing government spending, especially on public services and social welfare programs.

Free trade: Eliminating barriers to international trade and commerce.

Limited government: Reducing the size and scope of the state, with its role limited to protecting private property, enforcing contracts, and maintaining national security.

Examples of Neoliberal Policies

Policies implemented in the US and UK during the 1980s, by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, are frequently cited examples of the neoliberal agenda in practice.

The deregulation of the airline industry under President Jimmy Carter is an early example.

The signing of “Free Trade Agreements” like NAFTA under President Bill Clinton, which supported policies aimed at reducing trade barriers which benefit global corporations with globalized supply chains and labor pools.

A failure to raise minimum wages for workers.

Effects Of Neoliberalism

The effects of Neoliberalism include:

Increased Inequality: Wealth and income tend to concentrate among the top earners, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

Reduced Social Safety Nets: Cuts to public services and social welfare programs disproportionately affect a majority of the population.

Economic Instability: Deregulation of the financial sector has been linked to increased risk and the collapse of the financial system, such as the Great Recession of 2008.

Environmental Degradation: The emphasis on unchecked corporate freedom and profit taking has driven increased pollution and emissions.

Erosion of Democracy: Prioritizing business interests over public needs leads to increased economic power for business elites that circumvents democratic processes and reduces the ability of citizens to effect change through voting.

What A “People First Agenda” Looks Like

Increased Equality and Wealth Redistribution: Instead of concentrating wealth among a small group of top earners, promote and enact policies aimed at eliminating poverty by closing the gap between the rich and the poor. Support progressive taxation systems, strong labor protections, fair wages, and regulations that ensure wealth is more evenly distributed across the population. The goal is to ensure shared prosperity.

Expanded Social Safety Nets: Promote robust funding and expansion of public services and social welfare programs. This ensures the establishment of a comprehensive safety net which includes: universal healthcare, tuition-free public education, social security, and unemployment benefits—that protects all members of society, particularly the working class, from economic hardship.

Economic Stability and Regulation: Require strong government oversight via local and regional Citizen Councils. Focus on proactive regulation of the financial, healthcare, real estate, and education sectors. The goal is to prevent excessive risk-taking and protect workers, social services programs, and the overall economy from collapse, to ensure that market activity aligns with and serves public well-being rather than generating profits for shareholders.

Environmental Protection and Sustainability: Prioritize environmental stewardship over corporate profits. This involves strict environmental regulations, setting requirements for investments in sustainable practices and renewable energy, and enacting policies that hold corporations accountable for their environmental impact and require them to actively reduce pollution and overall emissions.

Strengthened Democracy and Public Accountability: Prioritize public needs and citizen engagement over the interests of business elites. Reposition the role of a business as being “to deliver measurable value to the community that aligns with community priorities.” Severely limit the influence of money in politics, ensure transparency in governance, and use technology to greatly expand the ability of citizens to effect change through voting and direct democratic participation, thereby ensuring that economic decisions are accountable to the majority.

The Current State Of Affairs

Capitalism is inherently undemocratic because it moves wealth, power, and decision-making authority into the hands of a wealthy minority (owners and managers), rather than distributing it equally among the people.

Capitalism concentrates wealth and political power among Wealthy individuals and corporations who use their financial resources for campaign finance, lobbying, and media control to effectively buy policy decisions in their favor. Capitalism effectively "drowns out the voices of the People".

The Future

People First Power combined with scientific knowledge and democratic values has the potential to reinvent global society in ways we have not yet seen.

Everyone benefits from well-managed People First Power. Everyone gets a high-quality baseline standard of living, more stable and secure communities, and improved quality of life.