Generational divides in American politics are nothing new, but they seem particularly striking now as the oldest Millennials turn 40 this year. Charlotte Alter has spent the past four years documenting these interesting political dynamics and joins The McCourtney Institute For Democracy to discuss with the team in this episode of the Democracy Works podcast.
"...it is time for these podcasts to think strategically and to embed themselves in a value chain of change and action," writes Ahmed Bouzid, co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
Our airwaves and digital spaces are saturated with the voices of podcasters and influencers who claim to challenge the status quo corporate establishment—exposing corruption, rank hypocrisy, moral scandal, and systemic injustice. These commentators portray themselves as beleaguered outsiders, independent thinkers forging paths to truth and accountability, and enemies of a corporate machine that prioritizes profiles over basic principles. But in reality, what have they become if not purveyors of passivity and the commodification of outrage? Rather than mobilizing their audiences for deliberate action and committed change, they encourage a culture of consumption—a cycle of listening, nodding, tossing a few dollars once in a while to keep the show going, and otherwise doing nothing much.
Exhibit A: the ongoing genocide they’ve failed to stop, nearly two years in—a slaughter that now reliably feeds their segments and sustains the outrage economy they depend on.
Consider the structure of this modern chattering class. Progressive-leaning podcasts like Glenn Greenwald's “System Update” and “Due Dissidence” may (and do) provide sharp and not seldom brilliant critiques with biting humor and merciless sarcasm. But what do they really achieve beyond entertainment? Their commentary, while often insightful, rarely inspires meaningful action. Instead, it pacifies listeners with the illusion of participation. Tuning in becomes an act of resistance in toto; subscribing becomes a substitute for solidarity.
These platforms pride themselves on their independence from corporate media. Fair enough. Yet, they have found a way to commodify dissent, turning resistance into a product sold through Patreon subscriptions, ad revenue, and branded merchandise. Dollars that could support grassroots movements, mutual aid networks, or direct-action campaigns are funneled into this perpetual content-churning machine. While the hosts critique inequality, environmental destruction, and political dysfunction, they do so from comfortable perches, sipping mugs of warm coffee or tea or bubbly soda, funded by their audiences’ donations.
The effect is pernicious. Potential activists—people with the skills, passion, and energy to drive change—are immobilized by the ceaseless consumption of commentary. These listeners, who might otherwise be organizing protests, attending town halls, or volunteering with local advocacy groups, are lulled into a sense of "enoughness." The catharsis of hearing their frustrations validated leaves them feeling as though they’ve done their part.
Take, for example, Greenwald’s “System Update.” Known for its scathing critiques of neoliberalism, the podcast attracts a loyal audience of listeners hungry for systemic change. But where does the energy of that audience go? It goes into likes, retweets, and subscriptions. Meanwhile, the transformative potential of these individuals remains untapped. Similarly, the “Due Dissidence” podcast excels at breaking down political complexities but stops short of pushing listeners toward grassroots engagement. Very rarely do they single out on-the-ground organizations that are focused on seeking political power or pushing for some structural change beyond protest and condemnation. These shows entertain and inform, but they demonstrably fail to point their audience to action.
This dynamic represents a misallocation of resources that movements for change can ill afford. Dollars spent on supporting podcasters often bypass grassroots organizations fighting for affordable housing, racial justice, or environmental sustainability. Imagine if even a fraction of the revenue generated by these platforms went directly and regularly to community bail funds, workers’ unions, or climate justice initiatives. The impact could be transformative.
Moreover, the chattering class—its sincere intentions to deliver the opposite notwithstanding—perpetuates a culture of cynicism and division. By fostering echo chambers, these platforms reinforce the belief that the system is too broken to fix, leaving listeners disheartened and disengaged from the action on the ground. The endless cycle of critique without solutions erodes hope and stifles collaboration, making it harder to imagine alternatives or take proactive steps toward change.
It really doesn’t have to be this way. The chattering class has the power to redirect its influence, to move from critique to construction. Podcasters and influencers can start by consistently pointing their audiences toward tangible actions. They can highlight organizations to join, mutual aid networks to support, or protests to attend. Regular segments could showcase success stories of activism, practical guides to organizing, or interviews with movement leaders who inspire action.
In other words, it is time for these podcasts to think strategically and to embed themselves in a value chain of change and action.
Redistributing resources is another critical step. Platforms should commit to channeling a portion of their income into grassroots efforts. For instance, a podcast like “The Majority Report” or “The MeidasTouch Podcast” could allocate a percentage of its Patreon earnings to local advocacy groups or disaster relief efforts. By forming partnerships with on-the-ground organizations, these platforms could amplify their impact and set an example for their audiences. And it’s important to remember: They are not engaged in a zero-sum game. Their partnerships with activist organizations will most probably grow their audiences with those who are engaged, creating a virtuous cycle where everyone wins in the service of the greater good.
My critique of the chattering class is not an exercise in cynicism. I watch these shows regularly, and I have deep respect for their energy and their intelligence. No, mine is a call to action and accountability. The progressive media landscape has the potential to be a powerful force for change, but only if it abandons its current entrenched performative resistance and embraces a commitment to strategic action. The challenge before us is to transform a culture of consumption into one of engagement, to channel the energy of frustration into the work of building a better world. Only then can the chattering class truly claim to be on the side of progress.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
A congressional resolution urges the House to designate July 13, the day that President Trump was shot in an assassination attempt, as an annual federal holiday.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.
No longer would July 13 only be known as National Beans ‘n’ Franks Day or National Barbershop Music Appreciation Day.
Context
On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump was shot at a Butler, Pennsylvania, campaign rally in an assassination attempt.
Though a bullet hit Trump’s ear, his life was saved by his coincidental split-second turn of the head a moment prior. Bloodied, he got up off the ground a minute later, pumping his fist and yelling “fight, fight, fight!” in an instantly iconic moment.
A photo by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press, depicting a bloodied Trump raising his fist in front of an American flag, became one of the most famous images of all time. Another photo by Doug Mills of the New York Times, which captured the bullet whizzing by Trump’s head, won the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography.
In the immediate aftermath, Trump’s betting market odds of winning November’s presidential election surged to their highest levels during his entire campaign. (He still remained the favorite by Election Day itself, but with less than half his mid-July betting odds.)
The attempted assassin, a 20-year-old with no known motive who fired from a nearby rooftop, was instantly killed by a Secret Service countersniper.
What the bill does
A congressional resolution urges the House to designate July 13 as an annual federal holiday called “Faith and Defiance Day”. (No congressional bill to actually designate such a holiday appears to have been introduced yet.)
Among federal holidays, it would fall nine days after Independence Day on July 4 and approximately 50 days before Labor Day in early September.
The resolution was introduced on July 10 by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH6).
This continues a recent pattern of Republican congressional legislation honoring Trump in unprecedented ways, several of which The Fulcrum has covered—including bills letting him run for a third term, engraving his face on Mount Rushmore, and adding his face to a new $250 bill.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that such a momentous day deserves perpetual official acknowledgment.
“You see one or two events in your life that inspire you to be more than you are, that strike you to your core. This was one of them,” Rep. Rulli said in a press release. “God saved the president that day, and that’s something worth recognizing for the rest of time.”
“To know a man’s character is to see how he acts in the face of death,” Rep. Rulli wrote in an opinion column for Ohio’s Canton Repository newspaper. “A moment like July 13 hits you on a deeper, more spiritual level. I think that’s what is worth remembering: the main character of our time, staring death in the face and standing tall.”
What opponents say
Besides the obvious Democratic opponents, another counter could come from a more nonpartisan perspective, or even from the Republican side: that it’s wrong to celebrate the day of an attempted assassination.
The U.S. already has two federal holidays honoring assassinated Americans, but both of them mark the person’s birthday instead: Martin Luther King Day in January, plus Abraham Lincoln on Presidents Day in February.
Indeed, in April, The Fulcrum covered a Republican congressional bill to make Trump’s June 14 birthday a national holiday, alongside Flag Day, which has long been more “unofficially” celebrated that same day.
What Trump says
Another (possible) opponent: Trump himself?
While Trump does not appear to have publicly commented on this legislation specifically, he recently mused against the rising tide of holidays in general on Juneteenth (June 19), the most recent federal holiday added in 2021.
“Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The workers don’t want it either! Soon we’ll end up having a holiday for every [one] working day of the year.”
Odds of passage
The legislation has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Republicans.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Requiring Public Schools Start the Day With the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed
It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.
People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.
In fact, resource leverage captured the essence of the age-old concept of leverage first identified by the ancient Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes, who said that if he had a pole that was long enough, a place to stand, and a fulcrum of some kind, then he could move the earth.
Hamel and Prahalad were focused on resource leverage in business when engineers and managers leveraged a product or a service in such a way that it created massive positive results. Uniting the tape recorder and the headphone, for example, led to the Walkman. They discuss many kinds of resource leverage and especially companies that are great at leveraging scarce resources.
Resource leverage and bargaining leverage both involve the broad concept of using a force, an input, to create a much larger force, the output. They are different, but they both fit under the concept of leverage. The same holds for financial leverage, which involves borrowing funds to make an investment (e.g., a house) that will, in time, yield large results.
I wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution in 2010, called "The Age of Leverage," which later became a book. The immodest thesis of this article was that our entire Age (a 25-50 year time period) revolved around the age-old concept of leverage. The idea was that leveraging was as old as Western Civilization—and probably Eastern Civilization, too. But it had grown in its use and influence as a result of the IT revolution, the end of the Cold War, the dismantling of the nuclear family, and the deregulation of the financial services industry.
In short, new inventions like the internet, as well as changes in the structure of authority, unleashed massive leveraging opportunities—even necessities in order to survive.
We should be teaching the concept of leveraging in middle school and high school. Students need to learn about this fundamental method—or tool—to achieve results. Leveraging would help students with career readiness, family life, and political and civic knowledge and action, which would strengthen our democracy.
Leveraging would help in career readiness because students need to learn how to network in order to get interviews and get jobs. Leveraging would also help in jobs because employees need to learn how to leverage relationships to produce better products and services. Leveraging would help in political and civic activities because young people need to learn how to work with others to promote social causes, regardless of their political commitments. Leveraging would help with family life because middle school and high school students need to learn good negotiating and good investment strategies. Learning how to network, work with others, get interviews, and collaborate with others to advance social causes, negotiate, and invest are obviously good things to know how to do. Leveraging provides an excellent umbrella to group together these tasks.
Leveraging, like technology, is morally neutral. Yet its capacity to promote democratic values is limitless. Good citizens need to be well-informed, fair, kind, respectful of each other's privacy, engaged in civic and political affairs, and they need to be skilled in resource, bargaining, and financial leverage. If my thesis that we live in the Age of Leverage is even half right, then the time is right to start using leveraging as the umbrella concept it is designed to be.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.
A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.
The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.
Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.
"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."
The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.
Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.
"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.
Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.
"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."
Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.
