How Civil Wars Start

Hello, I hope that you and yours are great. 

If you know me, you know that I’ve been concerned about potential conflict breaking out in the United States for several years.  You know I also like data. 

A study came out last week that documented a relationship between extremism and automation – that is, if people lose their jobs to automation they become more subject to extreme political ideologies, particularly on the right.  Millions of manufacturing jobs were lost to automation in the last 20 years, most of them in the Midwest and the South. 

Barbara Walter is a political scientist who has been studying what causes civil wars for years – “I didn’t think I’d be applying my learnings to the United States.”  Barbara wrote the new NYTimes bestseller “How Civil Wars Start: and How to Stop Them.”  It is chock full of data and international references. 

For example, there is an international scale for rating polities that ranges from -10 to +10, with +10 being a stable democracy (e.g., Canada) and -10 being an authoritarian state (e.g., North Korea).  It turns out that neither democracies nor autocracies are particularly subject to Civil Wars.  What are? 

Anocracies – that is, states that lie somewhere in-between democracy and authoritarianism. 

The United States has been a 10 on this polity scale for most of the last century.  But recently, in the wake of Trump’s questioning of the last election and declining faith in our democratic institutions, we slumped down to a 5.  The danger zone on this scale where a civil war – defined as a conflict that kills 1,000 people a year – is more common lies between a 5 and a -5. 

Another scale is factionalism – when a society breaks into groups that are fixed politically.  Factions are particularly dangerous when they overlap with an ethnic group or a region.  Barbara describes Trump as a classic “ethnic entrepreneur,” which is apparently a common phenomenon in political science. Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia is an example of an ethnic entrepreneur. 

An ethnic faction that also overlaps with the same religion, class and/or geographic location can become a superfaction, which is 12 times more likely to lead to war. 

A third ingredient that leads to conflict is if an ethnic group feels that it is losing its status relative to other groups.  A group that has held the majority of political or economic power that feels its dominance slipping away is much more likely to instigate a conflict. 

Unfortunately, there are clearly ingredients of both of these elements here in the United States.  Indeed, Barbara states that the United States is at a 3 on the factionalism scale, with 5 being the most divided.  And as America becomes a majority- minority society the changes are making some feel more aggrieved and insecure. 

Barbara believes that social media is negatively associated with democracy – both here and abroad.  “Social media is every ethnic entrepreneur’s dream  . . . It’s this business model of engagement that makes [it] so terrifying to those of us who study civil wars . . . ultimately, it’s the algorithms of social media that serve as accelerants for violence.  By promoting a sense of perpetual crisis, these algorithms give rise to a growing sense of despair.”  Barbara, in our interview, cited higher social media adoption rates with a lower propensity toward democratization and vice versa. 

In the U.S., Barbara is increasingly concerned.  There are now over 400 militia groups in the U.S.  “Where is the United States today?  We are a factionalized anocracy that is quickly approaching the open insurgency stage, which means we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.”  She cites people in other countries who register disbelief even as conflict erupts. 

What can be done?  Barbara suggests improving the country’s governance to be more responsive, reforming our democracy and outbidding extremists by providing tangible benefits, like healthcare.  She also, like Jonathan Greenblatt and many others, wants to rein in social media.    

I found Barbara and her thinking very compelling – she had spent years studying conflicts in other countries only to apply those lessons here in the United States.  We have long felt ourselves to be exceptional.  But it’s only by investing in things that many of us have taken for granted – like our democracy itself - can we remain immune from the conflicts that have overtaken so many other societies.  

Donate

It Could Happen Here

Hello, I hope that you are doing great. 

Since January 6th of last year, many Americans have been reckoning with the fact that things we didn’t imagine possible in our country are now on the table. 

Hate is on the rise. Polarization is sky high. Contempt for people different from you is the norm, leading to the dehumanization of others. 

An organization with a staff of hundreds monitors hate groups in forums and social media posts every day, trying to stay ahead of threats before they materialize.  That organization is the Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913. 

Jonathan Greenblatt became the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League in 2015, right about when Trump began to dominate the political scene.  As Trump arrived, hate incidents surged. “The data doesn’t lie, antisemitic incidents from 2015 – 2020 leapt 114% . . . our staff investigated over 9,600 incidents in 2020 . . . just the number of raw incidents is way up.”

Jonathan and I first met about 10 years ago when he was the Director of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the Obama White House and I was the CEO of Venture for America.  His new book, “It Could Happen Here: Why America is Tipping from Hate to the Unthinkable – And How We Can Stop It” details some of his experiences the past 6 years as the head of the ADL and his concerns for the future.  I interviewed Jonathan this week on the podcast.

One thing I appreciate about both Jonathan’s approach and his book is that he humanizes the stories.  He talks about ‘counsel culture’ – engaging with people who have said or done something troubling – rather than cancel culture, which he sees as counterproductive.  One of the most compelling stories from his book was about a former white supremacist named Damien Patton.  Damien was a boy with a difficult home life who fell in with a white supremacist group as a teen.  Damien became a leader of the group, even participating in acts of violence and organizing. 

Unbeknownst to his peers, Damien was also Jewish. That’s right, Damien was a Jewish white supremacist, whose background would have made him an immediate target for those around him.  

Damien’s story demonstrated how a sense of belonging can entrap people in a hateful ideology in ways you would never expect.   

Damien later left the group, joined the U.S. Navy and became a successful entrepreneur, leaving his past what he believed to be far behind.  But when a story came out that he was previously an active white supremacist, outrage followed and he stepped down from his company. 

Is there a path to redemption for people like Damien?  Jonathan believes that there is.  I do too, or else what hope is there? 

Jonathan and I also discussed the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign that he organized to get Facebook to more diligently screen hate groups and speech on its social media platforms.  Led by Jonathan, hundreds of major companies and celebrities boycotted Facebook for months in 2020.  Jonathan described how Mark Zuckerberg was proud that Facebook’s AI catches 88% of hate speech; Jonathan’s response – “What about the other 12%?”  It’s clear that social media is facilitating the rise of hate groups and misinformation in America today.  Jonathan is passionate when discussing the need to rein in Facebook in particular to give us a better chance to come together. 

Much of Jonathan’s book is about what we can do as individuals to combat hate and misinformation.  Speak up.  Share Facts.  Talk to Our Kids.  But it’s also about what organizations, businesses and governments can do to shore up our society. 

Combating hate 24/7 is a tall task; I joked with Jonathan that he might have the toughest job in America.  It also might be one of the most important jobs in the country.  Could the unthinkable happen here?  The truth is that it could, unless an army of well-intended people works their hearts out to diminish the conditions that breed hate in America and show people a better way. 

Our Braver Angels

One of the joys of building the Forward Party these past months has been meeting and making common cause with other Americans who have realized just how divided our country is and are working to help change it.

How do you actually reduce polarization in real life?

“Listen to each other” or “Reach across the aisle” or “talk to different types of people” are some of the common prescriptions we hear, but the reality is it’s very difficult for any of us to take these actions in a lasting way, particularly in the face of market incentives and a fragmented media landscape. Organizations and resources are required to consciously bridge gaps, bring disparate groups together, and equip people with the tools to be able to forge genuine empathy.

One of those organizations is Braver Angels.

Braver Angels started with a workshop of 10 Trump supporters and 11 Clinton supporters in South Lebanon, Ohio in December, 2016. This was immediately after Trump’s election and emotions were running high. The workshop was structured by co-founder Bill Doherty, who had decades of experience as a family therapist.

That’s right, America needed family therapy.

This first workshop was enormously successful and gave rise to surprising relationships. Greg Smith, a former sheriff and evangelical Christian and Kouhyar Mostashfi, a Muslim Democratic official promised to visit with each other and work together. Word got out and more communities wanted the same kind of experience. A bus tour followed and Better Angels – since renamed Braver Angels – was formed.

This week on the podcast I sat down with John Wood Jr., the national ambassador for Braver Angels. John embodies many of the goals of the org and is an ideal bridge builder as a bi-racial former Obama volunteer who was also Vice Chair of the Republican Party in his hometown of Los Angeles.

John has been bringing people together for years. Said John about the recasting of Better Angels to Braver Angels, “In order to really develop a deep relationship of trust with you, especially if we are tribal opposites, it’s going to be important for me to demonstrate that I can put myself in your shoes, see things as you see them, and that I have some understanding of who you are and care . . . but it had long been evident to me that to really pursue this work into the heat of America’s tribal and political conflicts which is where it needs to go, it takes more than being empathetic; you really do need courage and bravery.”

Sitting down with John was uplifting. He noted how Braver Angels was originally named after Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural speech in 1861, which you might find familiar:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Will the better angels of our nature yet prevail? Lincoln’s words were spoken mere weeks before the Civil War broke out. That doesn’t make them any less important today. Perhaps the opposite.

We have our work cut out for us, and patriots like John are working as hard as they can to guide our country in a better direction. I hope the Forward Party can work with and fortify organizations like Braver Angels – it’s a time when both courage and real empathy are needed more than ever.

Donate to Forward with Andrew Yang

Big Tech, Russia and Democracy

As Western companies from every walk of life exit Russia as part of the sanctions against the country for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the biggest tech companies in the US are grappling with whether to do the same.

So far, Apple is the only major tech company to significantly exit its Russia operations, halting all sales in the region and removing Russian media outlets from its app store. On the other hand, Meta said that it intends to keep Instagram and WhatsApp active, as “people in Russia are using FB and IG to protest and organize against the war.” Amazon said that it would donate $5 million to organizations but announced no plan to shift operations. Google announced a bar of Russian news apps from its app store but is not modifying access to YouTube, which is used by 80 – 85% of Russians.

What would be the impact of big tech pulling out of Russia? Not that long ago, there was a widespread sense of optimism that social media was going to be a force for increased adoption of democratic institutions. The idea was free expression on social media and authoritarian governments would be incompatible.

Of course, we have seen that’s not the case. In the wake of the Arab Spring of 2010, any optimism was quashed as outcomes included both the continuation of repressive regimes and even societal disarray in countries like Syria and Libya. And authoritarian countries like China have implemented their own carefully monitored tech platforms while enjoying commerce with most of the world.

Here in the US, social media is contributing to the polarization we are seeing as well as widespread misinformation. You could make the case that the advent of social media has been disastrous for our own democracy here at home.

This week on the podcast I interviewed one of the foremost experts on technology’s impact on both society and democracy, Professor Ramesh Srinivasan of UCLA. Said Ramesh on the Arab Spring: “I called bullshit on that from the start. . .. There was a narrative that our tools liberate you. . . . we knew at the time that various types of personalization algorithms [were] sending us into echo chambers.”

Ramesh argues that the mining of our data and interactions is splintering people into different versions of reality and rewarding inflammatory content. “When they started doing this personalization, we became Googled, not based on some neutral notion of relevance but based on what would grab our attention. It’s all based on correlation . . . we have all this data on your engagement with these pages, .. . .it doesn’t really know what content is inflammatory or sensational because we haven’t done good AI work on this just yet . . . but it can figure out what will maximize [your] engagement and attention, what maximizes that dopamine release is outrageous content.” This is true both here in the US and everywhere.

Instead of imagining that big tech is a force for democracy, it’s more appropriate to regard them as having their own distinct interests. The tech journalist Farhad Manjoo observed that the biggest tech companies are themselves more powerful than many or most governments. Facebook’s user base is now 2.91 billion, over a third of the world’s population and about 9 times the population of the US.

Watching these tech companies wrestle with their response to Russia’s aggression highlights just how independent they are as well as their vast reach. If Meta/Facebook were an American company committed to the preservation of democracy, then it seems like an exit from Russia would be a natural step. But if Meta is more a quasi-state with its own set of interests, it simply wants to be in front of as many people as possible. Just as we’re seeing the truth of Putin and Ukraine, we’re also seeing the truth of our tech companies that have become more global and dominant than any other firms in human history.

Institutions in Retreat

The world is still grappling with Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine last week.  It shook many people to the core, well beyond those directly affected.

What kind of world is it where a hostile country can simply attack one’s neighbor?  The United Nations – and American enforcement of the world order – exists to keep us from such a world.

We are living in an era of institutional retrenchment and retreat.  Countries are just as likely to be preoccupied with internal issues and political division as to be projecting their values abroad.  This describes America but it also describes a number of other western democracies that have struggled with everything from shifting demographics to migrant crises to climate change.

Of course, our own problems are real. Whether it’s the media (16-21%) or Congress (12%) or tech companies (29%) or our public schools (32%), institutional trust is down to record lows.  65% of Republicans – about 35% of the overall population - don’t believe that Biden’s 2020 electoral victory was legitimate.  Our population is more polarized than ever and political stress is at Civil War levels.  Our democracy is hanging on by a thread.  The most trusted institutions in America right now – and the only ones above 51% - are small businesses (70%) and the military (69%).

This week on the podcast I interviewed Yuval Levin, a political thinker and the director of Social, Cultural and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank in D.C. that is generally thought of as conservative.  Yuval defines his brand of conservatism as strengthening and modernizing institutions.  For example, Yuval is for innovations like ranked choice voting, enlarging Congress and even experimenting with multi-member districts in order to make democracy more functional.  He dislikes Trump because he sees Trump as corrosive to institutions.

I appreciate Yuval’s approach – it’s true that our institutions badly need modernization, sometimes reinvention.

He recently wrote an article noting that Americans are not dating, getting married, moving or taking risks as much as in the past. He describes it as “a disordered passivity – a failure to launch, which leaves too many Americans on the sidelines of life, unwilling or unable to jump in . . .  excessive risk aversion now often deforms parenting, education, work, leadership, and fellowship in our society. It is intertwined with a more general tendency toward inhibition and constriction—with Americans walking on eggshells around each other in many of our major institutions, and with codes of speech and conduct becoming increasingly prevalent . . . [telling] us how not to behave without showing us how to thrive.”

Yuval believes that big tech is part of this phenomenon.  “We have been using our technologies to accentuate all of these tendencies. Social media have turned large swaths of our personal lives into platforms for pseudo-celebrity performance, where we display ourselves and observe others without really connecting. And they have elevated expression over action in ways that have mangled our civic and political cultures.”

To the extent that Yuval is focused on one particular institution, it’s one that is central to all of us – the family. “Both blue-collar and white-collar work have become less friendly to family formation in some respects in recent decades . . . Many younger Americans now think it was much easier than it really was for their parents to live on one income or have that additional child . . . The waning desire for family formation is both a cause and an effect of the waning of support for families in our economy and politics.”

I greatly enjoyed speaking to Yuval – he’s a very deep thinker in terms of both what our problems are and how they can be addressed.  In an era of institutional decay it seems to me that we have two real choices: rebuild and improve them or start new ones.

Russia Invades Ukraine

Last night, what many had feared for weeks came to pass – Russia invaded Ukraine.

The images of plumes of smoke and fleeing citizens are jarring and heartbreaking. A peaceful Democratic country is under assault from a hostile neighbor with designs of empire and millions of people are in fear for their lives.

The senseless destruction and loss of life – essentially because of one man, Vladimir Putin – is beyond comprehension. It feels like a return to an earlier era of history, reminiscent of the mid-20th century.

My friend Ian Bremmer calls the invasion ‘a turning point in the global order’ of a GZero world – that is a world without a dominant power or an international community that can enforce norms and behaviors. Nature abhors a vacuum, and rogue actors will fill it in different ways.

I remember back in 1990 – 32 years ago – when Iraq invaded Kuwait. There was an international response that culminated in the first Gulf War, when a coalition led by the United States expelled Iraq and liberated Kuwait.

Of course, there is a massive difference between Russia and Iraq, with Russia a nuclear power in command of one of the world’s largest military forces. Ukraine is itself a sizable country with a population of over 40 million.

What will the American response be? It feels, unfortunately, like Putin is taking advantage of a weakened and divided United States to advance his expansionist vision. There is little appetite for war, just months after a failed withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And yet, it seems clear that if Putin is allowed to invade and conquer Ukraine with impunity that his ambitions won’t stop there. Every other country with similar goals will also be emboldened to further its own plans, leading to more instability and conflict.

Putin has to pay a massive price. Will sanctions be enough?

This week on the podcast with Zach, I mentioned that Putin has been interfering with and subverting American democracy for years with little accountability. I suggested that most Americans could regard these as acts of hostility and aggression. Indeed, Russia could likely take credit for some of the division within America over the past decade.

In a just world, Putin’s aggression leads to massive consequences for him and his regime. Do we live in a just world? We have been groomed to believe so, but that belief is withering before our eyes with the dying dreams of the Ukrainian people.

The Boy Crisis

Hello, I hope that your weekend was great! On Friday night we had a viewing party of the Forward event in NYC – it was a blast and a joy to share with hundreds of people and relive the night. If you want you can access the recording for only a $10 donation to the Forward Party. I guarantee you will learn something and even laugh at the situation we find ourselves in.

This weekend I spoke at a tech conference, ETHDenver. I met some amazing entrepreneurs building fascinating offerings and communities as well as a lot of energetic young people. Big things are ahead for Web3.

A couple weeks ago I published an OpEd in the Washington Post about the struggles of boys and men. It received a lot of attention, including discussions in the national media.

But I’m far from the first person to sound the alarm regarding male struggles to develop and flourish. Warren Farrell, PhD and John Gray, PhD published ‘The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It’ several years ago and made a very powerful, data-driven case.

Warren and John write about a Path-to-Purpose Generation Gap for boys that leads to massive challenges. They hold that boys are told to value themselves for external attributes – strength and self-sacrifice, embodied in a heroic ideal – that end up running afoul of long-term Emotional Intelligence. This can be encapsulated in a pretty simple phrase: “I’m fine, leave me alone.” They also write about the high incidence of ADHD accompanied by medication.

The book explores why Dads are so important for boys; indeed the data shows that having a Dad is an enormous boost for outcomes from education to health to earnings to avoiding legal problems and incarceration. Dad-deprivation is, unfortunately, correlated to 70 negative data points for boys. Dads have a tendency to enforce boundaries in families in ways that aid development. They also tend to roughhouse and tease in manners that spur both empathy and resilience.

I interviewed Warren for the podcast this week – as you can imagine it was an absorbing conversation. Warren served on the board of directors of the National Organization of Women in New York for quite some time, so he’s something of a feminist. But during this time, he was exposed to many men and became equally passionate about their struggles.

Warren actually interviewed me along with other Democratic presidential candidates back in 2019. He noted that a couple candidates expressed interest in men’s issues, but didn’t want to say or do anything official because they feared it would turn off certain voters.

This is something that makes me very sad – it seems plainly obvious that boys and men succeeding is both a condition for a thriving society and would help everyone. I hope that the Forward Party becomes a voice and a force for both helping to recognize the depths and seriousness of the Boy Crisis and also pushes for real investment, commitment and solutions.

Lobby3

Hello, I hope that you’re having a great week!

Today on the podcast Zach and I announced Lobby3, a new effort to represent the Web3 community in DC.

As you know, I want to get rid of poverty. It was why I launched my presidential campaign and why, when I realized that our political parties were not designed to be effective, I launched a third party to advocate for democracy reform. Web3 technologies based on the blockchain have already created immense value for millions. I believe that this new iteration of the Internet could be an enormous tool to combat poverty at scale, and could give rise to a whole new generation of financial services that broaden opportunities in dramatic new ways.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to Web3 reaching this potential lies in regulators in DC deciding to opt more for managing risks than fueling innovation and growth. As it happens, I started an advocacy organization some time ago in D.C. to combat poverty. So I’ve decided to provide a platform and voice for members of the Web3 community to make the case to our leaders in D.C. that decentralized offerings could benefit everyone. If this is something you’d like to join us for, go to lobby3.io and let’s work on it!

Also on the podcast this week, Zach and I discuss the trucker convoy in Canada. Who would have imagined that our neighbors to the north would be dealing with this kind of protest before us? Those of you who have been keeping up with me for a while know that I’ve been writing and talking about a possible trucker convoy since 2018 in my book ‘The War on Normal People.’ I suggested that it would be in response to the automation of jobs, not vaccination requirements. Still, it’s a tough sign that some of the scenarios I’d imagined are now coming true.

My OpEd in the Washington Post about the struggles of men and boys continues to make waves. Morning Joe discussed it on Tuesday and press requests are rolling in. Next week on the podcast, we’ll talk to Warren Farrell, the author of “The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys are Struggling and What We Can Do About It.” I’m sure it will be a fascinating convo.

The problems are clear, but so are at least some of the solutions. Let’s do all we can to maximize and build on the good things that are happening out there.

- Andrew

Friday is the livestream premiere of my Forward Tour event in New York City! You can watch and chat with me live. Click here to join us, it will be a really fun event. I have very fond memories of that night and will be glad to relive it with you.

Darius Baxter and GoodProjects

Hello, hope all is great and that you had a wonderful Superbowl Sunday!  That game went down to the wire.  The Bengals had a storybook feel, but the Rams’ talent won out in the end. 
 
This week on the podcast I interviewed an outstanding young social entrepreneur, Darius Baxter.  Darius is the co-founder and CEO of GoodProjects, an anti-poverty organization in his native Washington D.C. 

Some of you know that I started a non-profit in 2011, Venture for America, that I ran for 6 years.  Darius and I have a lot in common, though his trajectory is a lot more impressive than mine. 
 
Darius grew up in tough circumstances with a single Mom in Washington D.C.  He credits playing football with developing his grit and getting him a scholarship to Georgetown.  His time at Georgetown led him to working on the Bernie campaign and to social entrepreneurship.  GoodProjects is now a multi-million dollar organization and Darius has received awards and accolades for his work. 
 
GoodProjects has a very clearly defined mission – to elevate the income of 500 families in D.C.’s largest public housing project to $80,000 a year; the average in the community is only $14,000 per year, significantly below the poverty line.  GoodProjects does this in part by pairing families with Family Success Coaches, who help partners access opportunities and sustain a positive mindset. 
 
According to Darius, having someone knock on your door and tell you that you can achieve a goal leads to more confidence and better actions.  Darius compares it to having a personal trainer; you push harder, sometimes harder than you thought possible.  The growth mindset is a huge part of staying optimistic and breaking through.    
 
Said Darius, “There are two types of people out there: energy-givers and energy-takers.  You want to be an energy-giver.”   
 
Darius is a big believer in the potential of Web3 technologies to fight poverty.  “Poverty is a social construct that doesn’t need to exist . . . financial technologies that have been created recently, [like] cryptocurrencies and the utilization of Web3 is . . . how we can do it, it obviously allows us to do it at a much quicker and more efficient pace.”  I love Darius’s vision and want to help make it a reality not just for his community but for millions. 
 
It was phenomenal sitting down with Darius – I hope that you listen to the convo.  And if GoodProjects is the kind of cause that you’d like to see succeed, you can support them here. 
 
I like to think big while keeping my eye on the steps in front of me. Let’s move the world forward, one family – or one neighborhood – at a time.  
 
- Andrew
 
Friday is the livestream premiere of my Forward Tour event in New York City!  You can watch and chat with me live.  Click here to join us, it will be a really fun event.  Have a great week!    

The Lesson From California

Hello, I hope your week has been going great! First a few pieces of news:

The Washington Post published my Op-Ed on the struggles of men and boys. We’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback for calling attention to such a widespread issue.

The Forward Party in Minnesota just launched! Our first official state party is up and running. Let your friends in Minnesota know, and more states are coming soon.

Also, for those of you who wanted to attend the Forward Tour but didn’t, the video from our New York event is being premiered next Friday via livestream! It should be a really fun group watching occasion.

This week on the podcast Zach and I talked about a few things, including the lesson out of California last week.

For a bit of background, progressives in California have been running on single-payer healthcare for years, and Gavin Newsom ran for Governor on it as well. Democrats enjoy a supermajority (75%) of state legislators. So if there’s anyplace it would have a strong chance to pass, it would be in the Golden State.

Unfortunately, it never even came to a vote. It was derailed by a furious effort on the part of health insurance lobbyists in tandem with moderate Democrats. This was considered a major blow.

I’ve been for some version of single-payer healthcare for years. I met literally thousands of Americans struggling with a lack of access over the last several years.

Seeing it fail in California in this way sent a powerful message – even when Democrats are exclusively in control, they can’t pass a plan because of corporate influence and money preventing it.

I’ve concluded something similar about Universal Basic Income; the duopoly won’t pass a robust version of it because they don’t have to deliver results to stay in power. Actually, quite the opposite, as a lot of corporate interests don’t want anything to change.

That’s what drove me to start the Forward Party – we have to reform the system itself in order for anything real and fundamental to change that will improve people’s lives.

Often, people from one party will say, “If we had a majority we would deliver!” and blame the other side for any inability to get things done. But in California, there’s no one to blame but the party in power. If our politics don’t change, nothing will.