An introduction to people first politics

It's time to explore the antithesis of growth driven by perpetual greed; it's time to introduce a third way.

Economic ADHD drives the current system; the oligarchs have the attention span of a quick buck. They and their lawyers, Grabit Snatch it & Bankit, have a singular focus. For them, human investment has long been too expensive. The only investment in people they have ever been interested in is buying politicians, because if they control the government, it becomes a proxy for setting the rules they live by, preferably NONE. This works, however, only if they control both political parties.

We’ve already established in this series that corporate donations are pretty evenly split between the two parties, which helps explain why, regardless of who is in power, corporations can buy favourable legislation. Pay-for-play has been part of the fabric of politics since time began; however, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that political spending constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment and that the government may not prohibit corporations or unions from spending money. As summarised by the FEC

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications.

I think we can safely say that, almost 16 years after that ruling was handed down, elections have changed beyond measure to allow special interests to buy them, as was so ably demonstrated in 2024, when Elon Musk purchased the White House for a convicted felon. Again, we can debate the merits of allowing the wealthy to buy elections, but that’s where we are, and it carries with it the risk of dismantling democracy, as we are seeing today.

If we accept this is where we are, then how can we, in good faith, expect a Party that is in the same corporate pockets as Republicans to fix a thing? The Parties have become political estate agents bargaining with the voting public over incentives from their corporate client in return for votes. It’s the same corporate vendor being represented by two agents. It’s worse than betting in a casino. At least then, if you bet on blue and blue wins, you win, and the bank loses. In US elections, if you bet on blue, red still wins, and they retain enough power to obstruct everything you do.

Unless Democrats can win at least a 10-seat majority in the Senate and hold a veto-proof majority in Congress, they can’t be assured of delivering real transformational change aligned with their agenda. In any event, that kind of majority would be almost undemocratic by default, because in my view, sound governance is born from bipartisan cooperation. We can go on to debate the issue of representation and the Electoral College, and jump down another rabbit hole. No one disputes the Constitution's good intentions; it simply failed to account for human nature and its propensity toward malign intent. It certainly was never planned for a criminal narcissistic pathological liar.

Socioeconomic reframing from a rampant free-market deregulated capitalist system that has long exerted huge control over 99% of the population might seem like an impossible task, but that’s because the 99% comply in advance. The problem the top 1% have (and be assured, they are very aware of it) is that history teaches us that there comes a tipping point at which the have-nots decide to kill the have-yachts and split the spoils between them.

Their strategy of the ultra wealthy consistently pushes the envelope, which is much easier to do when you have the president in your back pocket, along with the Supreme Court. This is especially true when the president is constructing a state surveillance system along with a private army under the guise of immigration enforcement. Tragically, we need to stop seeing this problem as one for which a political solution exists. It’s a problem that has historically been addressed by rebellion or civil war, and that’s how serious it is. To be clear, I am NOT advocating for such action as it won’t be necessary in this case.

In any event, the strength of the US military and Trump’s careful strategy to keep the military onside, internal armed rebellion is off the table anyway, as is clearly demonstrated in the clip below:

I think I have long established that no US ally will be riding in on a white charger to save the American people, so things on the surface look pretty bleak. There seems to be no question that Trump will roll out the army if large-scale protests take place on the streets that he feels threaten his presidency. The real acid test is whether there are commanders in the field who would be prepared to use lethal force on protesting US citizens on US soil. It troubles me to say, I fear it is not beyond the realms of possibility. Be in no doubt, he will attempt to disrupt the midterms

For all of the reasons noted above, it’s hardly surprising that few people are writing about solutions to this tyranny. The administration believes that Trump has plenary authority, which allows him to act with impunity to protect his presidency. I’m afraid that’s where we are. He is more than aware, as are figures such as Peter Thiel, Russell Vought, and Steve Bannon, that the midterm elections represent an existential threat to their liberty. If they lose the House, there is no question that impeachment will follow, and this time, given Trump’s toxicity when it comes to Republicans being re-elected in 2028, he won’t find it as easy to avoid being found guilty as legislators shift into self-preservation mode.

So where does that leave us? Sadly, with no time to even consider creating a third-party option, and the Democratic Party is held hostage by corporate interests. It should be noted that a not insignificant portion of Democratic PAC funding comes from social advocacy groups and unions, so, to some extent, it is unfair to compare their funding with Republican PAC funding. Having said that, many members do benefit from big money from the usual suspects like fossil fuels, big pharma and the gun lobby, etc.

The problem both parties face regarding public perception is that a majority of voters trusts neither party. From the Democrats’ perspective, I believe they must embark on a highly public rehabilitation campaign. They need to open the hood on the selection and funding process and bring the public along on the change agenda. Every incumbent or Democratic candidate should sign a contract with voters not to trade stocks while in office, and that should extend to family members who have access to privileged information that may provide an unfair advantage. Insider trading rules should be rigorously enforced, and a zero-tolerance policy adopted. This should be done regardless of whether Republicans agree to do the same. This should be about leading by example.

There should be a banned list of funding sources, and a signed agreement not to accept any funds that can’t be traced back to the donor and the amount provided. AIPAC money should be banned along with their many hidden entities, which dress up bribery in things like education and public awareness. This is about going back to basics and saying to the voting public, help us frame a people-first Democratic Party. This has to be about public engagement and re-establishing trust.

For clarity, the image above is for illustrative purposes only and in no way represents whom I would necessarily choose. However, there are one or two attractive picks here. The image is taken from a Politico article from May 2025, which is worth a read as it outlines the reasoning behind my idea of a shadow cabinet.

Democrats need to hold internal elections to form a shadow cabinet that mirrors the administration and has spokespeople for each policy brief. This cabinet should operate exactly as a cabinet would, not merely to challenge the government but also to test potential candidates for the next Democratic government; it should reshuffle as demand arises. Those wishing to run as federal Democratic candidates should be invited to serve as researchers for members of the shadow cabinet, once again to demonstrate their grasp of government policy.

This way, you can build a database of political talent to call upon to run downstream. I’ll outline my thinking on this whole rebrand in more detail in the next episode. I would also add that the shadow cabinet idea reflects the UK Parliamentary system, and I can attest that it can be highly effective at holding the government to account.

Before any of the above frameworks can be implemented, the Party must decide where to position itself, as it currently offers little change from the status quo. The old-fashioned focus groups are no longer fit for purpose. They still have a place, but must be paired with Social media political scoring. This is the only reliable way to assess political positioning and obtain a more accurate picture. Love it or hate it, this is what AI was made for: data analysis. I work with it, so I am very aware of its capabilities beyond its new ‘slop’ reputation.

Because Dems have sat around for over a year doing very little other than protect ass and be terrified to rock the boat, time is now limited in relation to action that can be taken before the midterms. However, certainly some things can be done, as we’ll discuss. I also want to focus on the power of the people and the required weaponisation of economic disengagement, which, if implemented correctly, could halt this tyranny months before the midterms. Thanks for staying with me on this. I realise it’s quite out-of-the-box thinking for some.

In the penultimate episode, I’ll bring some of the threads together so we can conclude things in the next 48 hours, after which I have an essential piece on Gaza.

On Monday, I will outline some significant developments occurring this month, as promised late last year. Never has your support been more important than it will be in the months ahead, so thank you as ever.