Adam, This could well be a good platform for a sane and centrist presidential candidate in the future. Hey, maybe that could be you, whenever the time is right for you and the family (with the issues and solution options updated appropriately for that time)!
Democrats have momentum. GOP has money. Policy agenda matters. All true if we’re operating in a functioning democracy where elections proceed on schedule and votes get counted.
But Trump just demonstrated he launches wars without congressional authorization, operates with gutted institutions, and faces zero accountability. Barbara Walter documented the playbook: provoke retaliation to justify emergency powers, potentially delay elections.
Should we proceed to analyze 2026 as if that threat is theoretical rather than operational doctrine proven through Venezuela and Iran?
The gap: All this careful strategy about vision, leadership, and policy assumes the mechanisms that enable electoral accountability still function. Congress didn’t stop the Iran war. Courts didn’t constrain executive overreach. International law didn’t matter.
If those constraints failed there, why assume electoral constraints hold here?
I hope Kinzinger’s right that vision and momentum overcome money. But planning for midterms as normal democratic competition while Trump operates under authoritarian rules is strategic malpractice.
The real question isn’t “what’s the Democratic agenda”, it’s “will there be a functioning election for that agenda to matter in?”
International isolation (allied condemnation, sanctions)
Refusal to cooperate with illegitimate directives
Build outside the captured system
Support brain drain to functional democracies
Strengthen state-level resistance infrastructure
Create economic/social networks that don’t depend on federal cooperation
Europe’s already doing this—strategic autonomy, defense independence, parallel systems
Demand accountability mechanisms that actually bite
Congress won’t constrain Trump? Build political cost so severe defection becomes rational
Courts won’t enforce law? Make institutional capture visible, costly, unsustainable
Media normalizes this? Build alternative information infrastructure—Substack is pretty good
What I’m NOT proposing:
Violence (feeds the authoritarian playbook)
Sitting out elections (they’re not meaningless yet, just vulnerable)
Naive institutional faith (“surely Congress will…”)
The cold reality: Systems behave according to incentive structures.
Right now, the incentives reward authoritarian consolidation because defecting (stopping Trump) is costlier than cooperating (staying quiet, keeping your seat).
Change the incentives:
Make cooperation with authoritarianism politically suicidal
Make institutional capture economically devastating
Make international isolation unavoidable
Make suppression attempts impossible to execute quietly
Or accept that appealing to mechanisms that already proved they won’t function is just performance while the collapse continues.
I’m not optimistic this happens. Most people are System 1 bystanders who’ll accept whatever comes. But the proposal is: act like the system you’re in, not the system you wish existed.
Accepting reality first matters;
read Timothy Snyder and others that have documented authoritarian capture. How have other societies dealt with this? …Argentina, Chile, Hungary, Turkey, many more
An excellent and well thought out piece. I wish we could swap you out for Schumer and Jeffries and get the party on a path forward that could take the party in not only the right direction, but winnable direction. The party is in desperate need of strong leadership.
In discussions with friends, the political topic is always the same: when will the Democrats have a plan? As you point out, AOC is dynamic but doesn’t have broad appeal outside the Progressive wing of the party. Mark Kelly would be a great candidate but I worry his taking on Hegseth, while correct and legitimate, alienated him from some voters. Here in AZ he is vilified for standing up for what is right. There are good candidates. Gretchen Whitmer comes to mind. A woman? We know how that has worked out. If the Democrats create a strong coalition, the money will flow. Right now Democratic donors want to see something concrete.
If the Dem's vision is "we are not Trump or MAGA," then they won't win.
The vision and plan should be something that can be explained to a sixth grader (new level proposed for Army Training Manuals, by the way). That means simple and clear, right?
My suggestion is to balance "here's what he said he would do for you...here's where the country is right now...and here is what we will deliver for you." Some history is also good regarding stocks, housing and prices.
You should be a paid consultant for the DNC. They sure do not have clear messaging on any of these topics. It's not enough to say what can be done, but how it will be done - give constituents a plan. This is something that the GOP NEVER does. Maybe you would not want to be a consultant for the Democratic Party - but they sure could use you.
Adam makes critical points about Democrats today. Outrage isn't enough -- money and messaging matter. Methinks this is why Talarico succeeded in Texas. The messaging was powerful enough to attract a slew of Independents, homeless Republicans and Latinos who bizarrely voted for Trump in 2024. We should be replicating something like that nationwide.
Absolutely agree the democrats can’t just win in November and assume our problems are solved. If they are going to scream about tRUmP and his cabinet being fascist, they need to educate on this and explain the ways we can fight our movement towards this kind of rule. The far right has spent decades fabricating and cultivating what and who are the problems to fear. We will find ourselves grappling with the threat of fascism again in the future. All those who now believe immigration is at the route of all their problems are not going to go away just because there is a democrat running the show. So Adam if you can’t run at this time what about an advisory position? Start by connecting with Mark Kelly or Cori Booker.
Montana, what legacy media wants to call "ruby red" is the first state to promote the Transparent Election Initiative and get it on the November ballot. I'm volunteering to gather signatures.. It's something I feel I can do to help make a difference.
What a great summation of what is going on int the country and what Democrats need to do to turn this currently misguided ship of fool around. We have been lied too enough. It's time to have people in office that are committed to representing their constituents and not catering to a handful of people with mega-funds who basically buy elections. When 50%+ find our current war unacceptable why did the Senate refuse to pass the War Powers resolution? Just another example of not representing the people who put them in office. I am afraid the House will do the same today. A war started on a "hunch/Feeling" of Donald Trump is not a reason to go to war. Verified, actionable intelligence is what is required.
Dang Adam, you're beginning to sound like a Democrat! Seriously, we all wish the Democratic leadership would be changed and they would pay attention to your recommendations for the party because they're spot on.
Okay, I feel compelled to address the elephant in the room: Universal Healthcare. The lawmakers leaning left are always talking about saving the ACA, beefing up Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry, not enough. It seems the propaganda machine funded by insurance companies and big pharma has been enormously successful, buying up lawmakers and flooding the media with bs designed to teach the masses high dollar low coverage insurance is good, Universal Healthcare BAD. Well, I’m 66 years old and my husband is 69. My husband is retired from the Navy so we both were once covered by Tricare (which was not free). We were both forced into Medicare upon reaching 65. Medicare is not cheap or even really affordable and covers a fraction of necessary healthcare, especially as we age. My husband needs around 15K worth of dental work. We do have a supplemental dental plan. So out of pocket he will be spending about 12 - 13 thousand. We simply don’t have it. We are both starting to get cataracts. Medicare will cover the lens and procedure for my husband but sadly, not me. I require a special lens which neither supplemental insurance nor Medicare will cover. I’m looking at 6 to 8 thousand out of pocket. My point isn’t to whine but to illustrate we need more than settling for high priced minimal healthcare coverage. Period. We are the only developed country without a universal health coverage system. C’mon, we can and must do better.
Good point about the ACA. It is a private insurance plan and was to be, if I recall correctly, a starting point for establishing a more comprehensive healthcare system. We shouldn't just settle for the ACA.
I’m not disagreeing, I just wanted to point out that my brother lives in Wales, and the U.K. does not offer dental or vision in its universal healthcare. The dental and vision plan options really are necessary. I feel for you. And you should be able to enjoy your retirement, not spend exorbitant fees for what are essentially basic services. 💙🌸
Glad to hear someone is thinking ahead and offering possible solutions, or at the very least, many excellent suggestions for how the Democrats must plan for the future. They'd better get cracking on it because time's a-wasting. So, Adam, are you ready to take a spot in the Democratic machine? It sounds like you are on board. Or at the very least, an Independent? You have experience in Congress and the military, studied political science, and are smart and forward thinking. We need you. How about a place in our (hopefully) newly elected Congress or administration?
The only point I disagree with is that I advocate for universal health care. Call it whatever you will, but we need to put in place a program that covers everyone without the need to struggle with health insurance companies. If other free and successful countries can do it, so can we.
First of all, I want to say that I greatly appreciate these Going Deeper articles. You provide enough details that we readers can truly feel we have a better understanding of the issues. I think that Ro Khanna should be considered as a replacement for Hakeem Jeffries, who seems like a nice guy but simply isn't a leader -- certainly not an inspirational leader. Khanna has gone all over the country and held town halls in Republican districts, and is trying his utmost to spread truth and generate some excitement in those who have all but given up. Millions of Americans are tired of voting against whichever candidate seems worse rather than for someone who actually has a vision we can subscribe to. You describe the situation perfectly. Thank you. One thing I have mixed feelings on is support for various social programs. I believe very strongly that wealthy corporations should be forced to pay a living wage, which would lessen the need for any kind of assistance. It's criminal that people working 40 hours a week still need food assistance. Of course there are those who cannot work, whether for health reasons, or because they're full-time caregivers, or maybe students, and such people should be entitled to whatever assistance they need. I agree that there will always be a very small percentage of people who try to scam the system, but this is earth and not heaven, and no system is perfect. Why should the 99% of honest and decent people be made to suffer for the very few who are guilty? It seems the Republicans are making a big deal out of fraud that simply does not exist except in tiny numbers.
Thanks for this very detailed and well though-out analysis. And your characterization of the people in the "Leadership" section is spot-on!
thank you!
Adam, This could well be a good platform for a sane and centrist presidential candidate in the future. Hey, maybe that could be you, whenever the time is right for you and the family (with the issues and solution options updated appropriately for that time)!
Democrats have momentum. GOP has money. Policy agenda matters. All true if we’re operating in a functioning democracy where elections proceed on schedule and votes get counted.
But Trump just demonstrated he launches wars without congressional authorization, operates with gutted institutions, and faces zero accountability. Barbara Walter documented the playbook: provoke retaliation to justify emergency powers, potentially delay elections.
Should we proceed to analyze 2026 as if that threat is theoretical rather than operational doctrine proven through Venezuela and Iran?
The gap: All this careful strategy about vision, leadership, and policy assumes the mechanisms that enable electoral accountability still function. Congress didn’t stop the Iran war. Courts didn’t constrain executive overreach. International law didn’t matter.
If those constraints failed there, why assume electoral constraints hold here?
I hope Kinzinger’s right that vision and momentum overcome money. But planning for midterms as normal democratic competition while Trump operates under authoritarian rules is strategic malpractice.
The real question isn’t “what’s the Democratic agenda”, it’s “will there be a functioning election for that agenda to matter in?”
Great post thank you
Thank you for great posts and engaging.
Thank you Johan, you should have your own Substack.
And, yes I do…just click my name and take a look. Subscribe if you like.
What is your proposal Johan?
Well, here it goes…
Stop pretending institutions that already failed will suddenly function when tested again.
What that means operationally:
Assume elections happen but prepare for disruption
Plan for “emergency” declarations, polling place closures, certification challenges
Build parallel verification systems, exit polling, international observers
Document everything—make suppression attempts impossible to hide
Focus on what actually constrains power when institutions don’t
Mass coordination (general strikes, sustained protests)
Economic pressure (capital flight, investor uncertainty)
International isolation (allied condemnation, sanctions)
Refusal to cooperate with illegitimate directives
Build outside the captured system
Support brain drain to functional democracies
Strengthen state-level resistance infrastructure
Create economic/social networks that don’t depend on federal cooperation
Europe’s already doing this—strategic autonomy, defense independence, parallel systems
Demand accountability mechanisms that actually bite
Congress won’t constrain Trump? Build political cost so severe defection becomes rational
Courts won’t enforce law? Make institutional capture visible, costly, unsustainable
Media normalizes this? Build alternative information infrastructure—Substack is pretty good
What I’m NOT proposing:
Violence (feeds the authoritarian playbook)
Sitting out elections (they’re not meaningless yet, just vulnerable)
Naive institutional faith (“surely Congress will…”)
The cold reality: Systems behave according to incentive structures.
Right now, the incentives reward authoritarian consolidation because defecting (stopping Trump) is costlier than cooperating (staying quiet, keeping your seat).
Change the incentives:
Make cooperation with authoritarianism politically suicidal
Make institutional capture economically devastating
Make international isolation unavoidable
Make suppression attempts impossible to execute quietly
Or accept that appealing to mechanisms that already proved they won’t function is just performance while the collapse continues.
I’m not optimistic this happens. Most people are System 1 bystanders who’ll accept whatever comes. But the proposal is: act like the system you’re in, not the system you wish existed.
Accepting reality first matters;
read Timothy Snyder and others that have documented authoritarian capture. How have other societies dealt with this? …Argentina, Chile, Hungary, Turkey, many more
An excellent and well thought out piece. I wish we could swap you out for Schumer and Jeffries and get the party on a path forward that could take the party in not only the right direction, but winnable direction. The party is in desperate need of strong leadership.
In discussions with friends, the political topic is always the same: when will the Democrats have a plan? As you point out, AOC is dynamic but doesn’t have broad appeal outside the Progressive wing of the party. Mark Kelly would be a great candidate but I worry his taking on Hegseth, while correct and legitimate, alienated him from some voters. Here in AZ he is vilified for standing up for what is right. There are good candidates. Gretchen Whitmer comes to mind. A woman? We know how that has worked out. If the Democrats create a strong coalition, the money will flow. Right now Democratic donors want to see something concrete.
If the Dem's vision is "we are not Trump or MAGA," then they won't win.
The vision and plan should be something that can be explained to a sixth grader (new level proposed for Army Training Manuals, by the way). That means simple and clear, right?
My suggestion is to balance "here's what he said he would do for you...here's where the country is right now...and here is what we will deliver for you." Some history is also good regarding stocks, housing and prices.
You should be a paid consultant for the DNC. They sure do not have clear messaging on any of these topics. It's not enough to say what can be done, but how it will be done - give constituents a plan. This is something that the GOP NEVER does. Maybe you would not want to be a consultant for the Democratic Party - but they sure could use you.
I agree completely. This is why they lost in 24. Schumer needs to go along with Jeffries.
Adam makes critical points about Democrats today. Outrage isn't enough -- money and messaging matter. Methinks this is why Talarico succeeded in Texas. The messaging was powerful enough to attract a slew of Independents, homeless Republicans and Latinos who bizarrely voted for Trump in 2024. We should be replicating something like that nationwide.
Absolutely agree the democrats can’t just win in November and assume our problems are solved. If they are going to scream about tRUmP and his cabinet being fascist, they need to educate on this and explain the ways we can fight our movement towards this kind of rule. The far right has spent decades fabricating and cultivating what and who are the problems to fear. We will find ourselves grappling with the threat of fascism again in the future. All those who now believe immigration is at the route of all their problems are not going to go away just because there is a democrat running the show. So Adam if you can’t run at this time what about an advisory position? Start by connecting with Mark Kelly or Cori Booker.
Montana, what legacy media wants to call "ruby red" is the first state to promote the Transparent Election Initiative and get it on the November ballot. I'm volunteering to gather signatures.. It's something I feel I can do to help make a difference.
Here's a good informational video on the effort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxTbaQ6JVI
What a great summation of what is going on int the country and what Democrats need to do to turn this currently misguided ship of fool around. We have been lied too enough. It's time to have people in office that are committed to representing their constituents and not catering to a handful of people with mega-funds who basically buy elections. When 50%+ find our current war unacceptable why did the Senate refuse to pass the War Powers resolution? Just another example of not representing the people who put them in office. I am afraid the House will do the same today. A war started on a "hunch/Feeling" of Donald Trump is not a reason to go to war. Verified, actionable intelligence is what is required.
Dang Adam, you're beginning to sound like a Democrat! Seriously, we all wish the Democratic leadership would be changed and they would pay attention to your recommendations for the party because they're spot on.
Okay, I feel compelled to address the elephant in the room: Universal Healthcare. The lawmakers leaning left are always talking about saving the ACA, beefing up Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry, not enough. It seems the propaganda machine funded by insurance companies and big pharma has been enormously successful, buying up lawmakers and flooding the media with bs designed to teach the masses high dollar low coverage insurance is good, Universal Healthcare BAD. Well, I’m 66 years old and my husband is 69. My husband is retired from the Navy so we both were once covered by Tricare (which was not free). We were both forced into Medicare upon reaching 65. Medicare is not cheap or even really affordable and covers a fraction of necessary healthcare, especially as we age. My husband needs around 15K worth of dental work. We do have a supplemental dental plan. So out of pocket he will be spending about 12 - 13 thousand. We simply don’t have it. We are both starting to get cataracts. Medicare will cover the lens and procedure for my husband but sadly, not me. I require a special lens which neither supplemental insurance nor Medicare will cover. I’m looking at 6 to 8 thousand out of pocket. My point isn’t to whine but to illustrate we need more than settling for high priced minimal healthcare coverage. Period. We are the only developed country without a universal health coverage system. C’mon, we can and must do better.
Good point about the ACA. It is a private insurance plan and was to be, if I recall correctly, a starting point for establishing a more comprehensive healthcare system. We shouldn't just settle for the ACA.
I’m not disagreeing, I just wanted to point out that my brother lives in Wales, and the U.K. does not offer dental or vision in its universal healthcare. The dental and vision plan options really are necessary. I feel for you. And you should be able to enjoy your retirement, not spend exorbitant fees for what are essentially basic services. 💙🌸
Glad to hear someone is thinking ahead and offering possible solutions, or at the very least, many excellent suggestions for how the Democrats must plan for the future. They'd better get cracking on it because time's a-wasting. So, Adam, are you ready to take a spot in the Democratic machine? It sounds like you are on board. Or at the very least, an Independent? You have experience in Congress and the military, studied political science, and are smart and forward thinking. We need you. How about a place in our (hopefully) newly elected Congress or administration?
The only point I disagree with is that I advocate for universal health care. Call it whatever you will, but we need to put in place a program that covers everyone without the need to struggle with health insurance companies. If other free and successful countries can do it, so can we.
Some great insight here, Adam! Thank you so much for posting this.
First of all, I want to say that I greatly appreciate these Going Deeper articles. You provide enough details that we readers can truly feel we have a better understanding of the issues. I think that Ro Khanna should be considered as a replacement for Hakeem Jeffries, who seems like a nice guy but simply isn't a leader -- certainly not an inspirational leader. Khanna has gone all over the country and held town halls in Republican districts, and is trying his utmost to spread truth and generate some excitement in those who have all but given up. Millions of Americans are tired of voting against whichever candidate seems worse rather than for someone who actually has a vision we can subscribe to. You describe the situation perfectly. Thank you. One thing I have mixed feelings on is support for various social programs. I believe very strongly that wealthy corporations should be forced to pay a living wage, which would lessen the need for any kind of assistance. It's criminal that people working 40 hours a week still need food assistance. Of course there are those who cannot work, whether for health reasons, or because they're full-time caregivers, or maybe students, and such people should be entitled to whatever assistance they need. I agree that there will always be a very small percentage of people who try to scam the system, but this is earth and not heaven, and no system is perfect. Why should the 99% of honest and decent people be made to suffer for the very few who are guilty? It seems the Republicans are making a big deal out of fraud that simply does not exist except in tiny numbers.