The Dictatorship

It’s time for Democratic leaders to fight — or step aside for those who will

Published

10 months ago

September 3, 2025

It’s time for Democratic leaders to fight — or step aside for those who will

This is an adapted excerpt from the Aug. 30 episode of “Velshi.”

Today, we speak with some reverence about the United States Constitution — a document remarkable for its time, which established our democracy and guides and informs our rights and freedoms to this day.

However, when the U.S. Constitution was presented to the Founding Fathers for signature, they weren’t universally enthusiastic about it. In 1787, ever the optimist, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin delivered his final speech of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Many in the room harbored hesitations; in fact, Franklin had a few himself.

The national Democratic leadership, whether they are unwilling or simply unable, is largely not rising to this moment.

Despite its faults, Franklin believed this Constitution was better than the alternative: living under monarchical rule without representative democracy. In the end, he was able to persuade the holdouts, the Constitution was signed, and the United States of America was born.

It is said that, on the way out of the convention, Franklin was asked what sort of government the delegates had just created. He responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

True democracy requires the competition of ideas. When even one of our two major parties ceases to function, democracy itself is put at risk.

We all know by now that the Republican Party is no longer a functioning political party. It is fully captured, a vessel of authoritarianism. That makes it even more vital that the Democratic Party rise to this moment in defense of our democracy. However, the national Democratic leadership — whether they are unwilling or simply unable — is largely not rising to this moment.

Let’s be clear: My job is journalism. I do not work for the Democratic Party. I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, and I certainly don’t do PR for the Democratic Party. My job — the job of journalism — is to bear witness on your behalf and to hold power to account on your behalf.

Avoiding hard truths is not how we save democracy. Right now, one of those hard truths is that America has been badly let down by the leadership of the Democratic Party. It’s time for some of those leaders to step aside and let people who are prepared to fight, fight.

I see the fight, the energy and the will out there. I see it in voters in Iowa who last week flipped a Republican state Senate seat and, in one fell swoop, ended the Republican supermajority chokehold on that state.

I see it in Texans who fought tooth and nail against gerrymandering. You might say they lost the battle, but in my opinion, their actions will prove, one day soon, to have won the war.

I see it in Govs. Gavin Newsom and JB Pritzkerwho are taking on Donald Trump and the Republican Party in ways Democratic leadership in Congress seems unwilling to do.

I see it in Sen. Bernie Sanderswho is drawing crowds of tens of thousands in his full-throated fight against oligarchy. I see it in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezwho, from the moment she was elected to the House in 2018, has never shied away from loudly speaking her mind and shaking things up.

I see it in Tennessee state Reps. Justin Pearson and Justin Joneswho were expelled from the state legislature for participating in a gun violence protest after a deadly mass shooting.

I see it in the grassroots organization Indivisible and in the millions who’ve turned out under banners like “No Kings.”

I see it here in New York in mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. He is one of the closest things the Democratic Party has to a young, relevant phenomenon who draws new voters into the coalition. And he still has not been endorsed by New York’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochulwho claims to have a lot of fire in her belly about the whole redistricting thing.

Or by New York senior Sen. Chuck Schumerthe Democratic leader in the Senate, who seems regularly and validly outraged — but that’s about it. Or by New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffriesthe House minority leader, who sure can deliver a hell of a speech. Or by New York’s other senator, Kirsten Gillibrandwho actually runs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mamdani captured the imagination of the voters in a super crowded field. He’s outpolling all of his opponents combined. And yet his own party’s leaders won’t embrace him, let alone try to hitch a ride on his populist coattails.

Mamdani is emblematic because he’s actually a fighter who learns what his voters care about and meets them where they are. If he has to break some china to become the next mayor of America’s biggest city, he will.

I am looking for every fighter I can find. I could not care less if he’s a democratic socialist, just like I could not care less that former Rep. Liz Cheney is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I’d vote for Mamdani and Cheney and any one of those people who are prepared to risk something for the benefit of their fellow citizens and for democracy.

But I’d be hard-pressed to vote for Hochul or Schumer or Jeffries or Gillibrand, or the people who lead the mess that the Democratic National Committee is these days. The people who control the levers of power in the Democratic Party appear, to me, to be standing on the sidelines.

We are in the “boiling frog” moment of authoritarianism: Tanks are on our streets. Speech is being extinguished. Elected politicians arrested and charged. Judges ignored.

But with each norm eroded, each law bent, each lie normalized, each threat brushed aside, we get further and further away from that republic Franklin warned us we could lose.

American history has given us leaders who met the existential threats of their time head-on.

A ranting, would-be strongman, who brags about dictatorship and talks about taking over other countriescoddles authoritarianism and seeks revenge against perceived opponents, is president. His unqualified henchmen surround him. Yet the leadership of the Democratic Party cannot seem to find the front of the battle line.

Political leaders who think their job is to cut deals and make strongly worded statements are missing the moment entirely. Americans are begging for more — begging them to get off the mat and get back into the fight.

So if you are a political leader in this country and you are not prepared to fight with both hands, and you are not prepared to make “good trouble,” then perhaps you should step aside and make space for those who will — for those who will show us that they can fight a bit dirty, if that’s what the defense of democracy demands.

Because right now, that is what the defense of democracy demands. American history has given us leaders who met the existential threats of their time head-on. Abraham Lincoln did not preserve the Union by “managing the crisis.” Franklin D. Roosevelt did not confront fascism abroad or at home by splitting the difference. They fought. They broke the china.

This is not a left vs. right fight inside the Democratic Party. It’s not about whether Democrats should tack to the center or lean progressive. The choice before us is simply democracy vs. authoritarianism.

“Where is the party?” is not a rhetorical question. It is the most urgent question in America today. If the answer is silence, then we risk Franklin’s 1787 warning becoming a prophecy.

So I’ll ask it again: Where is the party? Is it in the smoke-filled rooms of Washington, waiting for polls to turn? Or is it with the people who are already in the streets, already raising their voices, already demanding the fight?

If the party won’t show up for democracy, the people will.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

14 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

14 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

14 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.