I lean far closer to democratic socialists than establishment, status-quo Democrats when it comes to vision and policy goals. But one thing I can't get behind is how they hyper-fixate on process. Like, any positive political change can only come from grassroots movements. If a billionaire touches it, we can't trust it.

Right now, there’s heavy pushback from the DSA and left-leaning commentators against the supply-side "abundance" movement. The critique usually centers on two things:

1. The movement is heavily backed by tech elites and Silicon Valley donors.
2. Fast-tracking development bypasses local community review and empowers private developers.

While the funding criticism is fair, the procedural criticism misses the big picture. The 1970s-era environmental reviews, zoning boards, and hyper-local veto points were originally meant to protect vulnerable communities from harmful infrastructure. But today, those exact same mechanisms have been weaponized by wealthy, suburban NIMBYs to freeze housing and green energy projects we so desperately need.

We can't pretend like top-down change doesn't work. Rich assholes gave us gay marriage, public libraries, and the US Forest Service to name a few.

Grassroots organizing is crucial for setting moral priorities. But for the dry, technical levers—like updating zoning codes, streamlining transmission line permitting, or building public transit—waiting for 100% hyper-local consensus means nothing gets built at all.

If we want cheap housing, clean energy grids, and strong public services, we have to be willing to embrace top-down execution and strip away procedural vetocracy.

Full article here: https://samholmes285.substack.com/p/the-abundance-movement-is-funded

Would love to hear how folks here balance the need for democratic participation against the urgent need for rapid, material progress.

Submission statement:

This video features a conversation between Krystal Ball and Representative Adam Smith (the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee) regarding the state of the Democratic Party, U.S.-Israel relations, and policy disagreements with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Key discussion points:

• U.S.-Israel Relations & Military Aid: Adam Smithdiscusses his evolving views on military aid to Israel. While he maintains that Israel has a right to defend itself against threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, he explains his recent vote for the Thomas Massie amendment (which sought to block aid) as a necessary message to the Netanyahu government (10:33 - 11:15). He also outlines his opposition to specific NDAAprovisions that would further integrate U.S. and Israelimilitary co-development programs given the current political climate (0:31 - 2:44).
• Divisions within the Democratic Party: The discussion delves into the tensions between the Democratic establishment and the DSA. Smith expresses frustration with what he characterizes as "illiberal" tactics used by some activists, such as shouting down speakers at town halls or protests (39:18 - 40:10). He also critiques the DSA platform on issues like defense spending and immigration policy, while clarifying that he remains open to some economic populist ideas (22:35 - 25:10, 27:36 - 28:58).
• Economic Populism and Governance: Smith highlights his agreement with some socialist-aligned governance, pointing to Zoran Mandani in New York City as an example of effective, practical problem-solving that focuses on tangible results like infrastructure and child care rather than strictly ideological exercises (33:24 - 36:30).
• Campaign Finance: The conversation concludes with a debate on the influence of outside money in Democratic primaries, specifically mentioning the role of AIPAC. Smithadvocates for reforms to limit independent expenditure groups (42:22 - 44:10).

paywall: https://archive.ph/dnkfV

Imagine if her diet had any sugars?

Everyone has the right to their own political beliefs. It's okay to disagree, but bashing, insulting, or harassing people because of their opinions doesn't help anyone. We should criticize ideas and actions, not attack people.😉

Submission statement: Senator Bernie Sanders’ endorsements in Democratic primaries have sparked a debate within the party. While Sanders argues his support for progressive candidates energizes the base, some senior Democrats worry his endorsements divert resources from crucial midterm races and risk alienating swing voters. The tension is particularly evident in Michigan, where Sanders is backing Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and House candidate William Lawrence, who has faced criticism for his comments about Black political leaders.

paywall: https://archive.ph/v9LNa

Holy s**tskis. Please stop referring to this person as “the leader of the free world”. If even remotely accurate, we are so f**ked.