Meet the Future of the Democratic Party

By Robert Reich

Last Thursday, populist Democratic candidate Graham Platner shook up the Democratic establishment when his primary competitor, Maine Governor Janet Mills, suspended her Senate campaign amid polls showing her badly trailing Platner, an oyster farmer who had come out of nowhere to win a national following.

Platner is the latest example of the rise of anti-establishment outsiders in the Democratic Party — a trend that also includes self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who last year defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor.

Yet the Democratic establishment — corporate Democrats, wealthy Democratic donors, entrenched Washington “centrists,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer — still don’t get it.

Hell, the Democratic establishment didn’t get it a decade ago when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee (and, not incidentally, Jeb Bush was considered a shoe-in for the Republican nomination).

I remember interviewing voters about their political preferences in the late spring of 2015, in the Rust Belt, Midwest, and South, for a book I was then writing. When I asked them whom they wanted for president, they kept telling me Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Often the same individuals offered both names. They explained they wanted an “outsider,” someone who would “shake up” the system, ideally a person who wasn’t even a Democrat or a Republican.

The people I met were furious with their employers, with the federal government, and with Wall Street. They were irate that they hadn’t been able to save for their retirements, indignant that their children weren’t doing any better than they had at their children’s age, and enraged at those at the top. Several had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the financial crisis or the Great Recession that followed it.

They kept reiterating that the system was “rigged” in favor of the powerful and against themselves. They didn’t oppose government per se; most favored additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and roads and bridges. But they hated “crony capitalism” — large corporations using their political clout to gain special favors and changes in laws that often hurt average people.

The following year, Sanders — then a 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t even a Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries — came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention from primaries and caucuses. Had the DNC not tipped the scales against him by deriding his campaign and rigging its financing in favor of Clinton, Sanders would probably have been the Democratic nominee in 2016.

Trump, then a 69-year-old egomaniacal billionaire reality TV star who had never held elected office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about almost everything, of course won the Republican primaries and went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America. Granted, he didn’t win the popular vote, and he had some help from Vladimir Putin, but he won.

Something very big was happening in America: a full-scale rebellion against the political establishment.

That rebellion continues to this day. Yet much of Washington’s Democratic elite is still in denial. They prefer to attribute the rise of Trump and, more broadly, Trumpism — its political paranoia, xenophobia, white Christian nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, and cultural populism — solely to racism. Well, racism is certainly a part of it. But hardly all.

In 2024, Democrats didn’t even get to choose their nominee from the primary process, since Biden dropped out after a dreadful debate performance and was replaced by Kamala Harris — leaving some Democrats feeling like higher powers were picking their nominee.

The anti-establishment groundswell has by now spread to independent voters — who are now a whopping 45 percent of the electorate and have moved sharply against Trump. It’s one of the most dramatic shifts in recent political history.

Trump’s approval rating among independents now stands at 25 percent, while 68 percent of independents disapprove of him. In 2024, independents were evenly divided, with 48 percent voting for Harris and 48 percent for Trump. In 2020, independents favored Biden by 9 percentage points.

The Democratic establishment still doesn’t see the groundswell — or is actively fighting it.

In Iowa, whose primary is June 2, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is quietly backing state Rep. Josh Turek against state Sen. Zach Wahls. That’s probably a mistake. Turek is a good candidate, but Wahls is a young, dynamic progressive — similar to Platner in his ability to inspire and rally. (In Iowa, independents who want to vote in the Democratic primary need only declare themselves Democrats by June 2.)

In California, whose primary is also June 2, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just rejected Randy Villegas as its preferred nominee for the 22nd Congressional District and instead endorsed doctor and assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains. Villegas, known as a strong progressive, has been endorsed by the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional Hispanic caucus’s campaign arm. “This is about party leadership and D.C. elites putting their thumb on the scale for who they know will bend the knee to party leadership and corporate interests,” Villegas says.

In Arizona, whose primary is July 21, the DCCC has endorsed Marlene Galán-Woods in a Democratic primary to replace Representative David Schweikert, the Republican who is leaving Congress to run for governor. The DCCC rejected Amish Shah, a doctor and former state legislator who won the primary in 2024 and came within a few points of defeating Schweikert. (That year, Ms. Galán-Woods finished third in the primary.) Shah has been leading Galán-Woods by a 3-to-1 margin in the only public poll of the race. Shah says Democrats should stop backing the party apparatus if they want to win the House majority.

In Michigan, whose primary is August 4, the DSCC is backing Rep. Haley Stevens, who’s in a tight race against rival Abdul El-Sayed. Also probably a mistake. El-Sayed is another young progressive who’s showing a remarkable ability to galvanize Democrats and independents. (Michigan has open primaries in which any voter can participate.)

I could go on, but you get the point.

If Democrats fail to connect with the frustrations of average hardworking Americans and decide instead to side with big corporations and Wall Street, they’ll have given up the most crucial opportunity in a generation both to take back control of Congress and to lead the way on a new progressive agenda.

What does this anti-establishment surge — including the remarkable growth of independents and their sharp rejection of Trump — mean for the presidential race in 2028?

For one thing, it suggests that the current presumed Democratic frontrunners — Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom — are frontrunners only because of their name recognition. As voters find out more about the alternatives, it’s unlikely that either of them will make the cut.

For another, it suggests that anti-establishment candidates are the ones to watch.

Obama chief of staff and former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel told a packed crowd at the Milken Institute Global Conference this week that the biggest challenge both parties have faced over the last quarter-century has been the battle between establishment forces and anti-establishment forces.

Emanuel was correct. But he then went on to suggest, absurdly, that he’s anti-establishment. Emanuel’s cozy ties to corporate America, his closeness to Citadel founder Ken Griffin (who praised Emanuel from Milken’s main stage), and even Emanuel’s presence at the Milken conference, belie his claim.

But the mere fact that Emanuel thinks it important to claim anti-establishment creds underscores that the biggest force in American politics today — and in the Democratic Party — is anti-establishment rage at political insiders.

Despite the Democratic establishment, a younger and more charismatic generation of populist and progressive Democrats is on the way to winning primaries and general election races across America. If Graham Platner beats Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine, which seems likely, he’s the kind of candidate who (in my humble opinion) will be the future of the Democratic Party.

Source: Meet the Future of the Democratic Party – Robert Reich

The popularity of the ‘Mar-a-Lago face’ soars in Trump’s inner circle

Trump Face
Mar-a-Lago Face

Botox, visible facial fillers and exaggerated tans comprise the aesthetic popular among Donald Trump’s entourage. What’s behind this new fad?

By Marita Alonso

During his first term in office, Donald Trump’s world was characterized by a uniform aesthetic; the women around him all had voluminous hair — the result of the so-called Texan blowout — eyelash extensions, slender silhouettes, a permanent tan and dresses from Chiara Boni La Petite Robe. This clone aesthetic has now gone further for both the men and women in Donald Trump’s orbit to include the so-called ‘Mar-a-Lago face.’

Mar-a-Lago is Trump’s Florida refuge in Palm Beach, a complex he acquired in 1985 and which, according to Joan López Alegre, a communications professor at the Universitat Abat Oliba CEU in Barcelona, is ideal for the U.S. president’s aesthetic. “Donald Trump left New York because there he was seen as a tacky millionaire, while in Florida, his aesthetic makes more sense,” he says. “Yet the decision is not aesthetic, but political. When he moved his residence from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago, he abandoned a state with a fixed Democratic majority for one that was then a swing state. Mar-a-Lago is a kind of a summer White House where he has created an alternative with a certain aesthetic.”

The so-called Mar-a-Lago face has undergone exaggerated Botox, visible facial fillers and extreme tanning. Social networks were responsible for this trend going viral by showing the before and after of several women in Donald Trump’s inner circle. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump’s pick for ambassador to Greece, conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem all featured in this line-up highlighting the striking differences in their faces over time. “Their faces had all, over an unspecified period, morphed from conventionally human to makeup-caked, angular cheekboned, full-lipped, Fellini-esque exaggerations of the dolled-up Fox News anchorwoman look,” according to Hollywood Reporter journalist Julian Sancton. “And it’s not just the women: Few of us can remember the content of former Florida Rep. (and former prospective attorney general) Matt Gaetz’s RNC speech last summer, so fixated were we on the new elfin arc of his eyebrows. (And the less said about George Santos and his Botox habit the better.)”

Sancton notes that the look is indicative of Trump’s brash departure from the well-established norms of Washington DC and wonders if his return to the White House could be a challenge to the aesthetic discretion that reigned in 2024. “The Trump bubble is a counter-revolutionary movement that bucks the trends of the moment to become the new mainstream. It is a movement based on denying reality,” fashion and celebrity journalist Joan Callarissa tells EL PAÍS. “If they have a face they don’t like, they change it without caring if it looks natural or not, because reality does not matter to Trumpism. Traditionally, the right as a more central force tried not to be so flagrant, but given the current polarization of American society, it was impossible that the change would not also affect aesthetics. Polarization leads us to live in bubbles in which there is a marked tribal factor that means if the leaders have an artificial look, then so will those around them, because [the tribal bubble means] they only see people like themselves.”

Kristi Noem
Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota.Tom Williams (CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag)

It is precisely this need to belong that Amanda Till, a Palm Beach-based tech entrepreneur, speaks of. She told The New York Post she had recently spent between $50,000 and $60,000 on Botox, facial fillers, thread lifts, different laser treatments and the Hydrafacial rejuvenation treatment offered by Dr. Norman Rowe, a plastic surgeon who has opened a new clinic in Florida, close to Mar-a-Lago, which he claims is booming thanks to Donald Trump’s electoral triumph.

“A lot of us who support the president want to look our best,” said Till, who is an increasingly regular visitor to Mar-a-Lago. “It makes you feel like you’re part of something. Everyone here is someone.” And it’s here, too, where everyone has to have a certain aesthetic that sets them apart from the rest of the world.

Trumpist eugenics?

Eugenics is the study and application of the biological laws of heredity aimed at perfecting the human species, and in one of his speeches, Donald Trump accused migrants of “poisoning the blood” of his country, using language reminiscent of Nazi eugenics. What if the Mar-a-Lago face was a kind of Trumpist eugenics in which the aesthetics went far beyond the surface?

Santiago Martinez Magdalena, a professor at the Public University of Navarra, explained in an essay that cosmetic procedures generate a specific, surgical kind of beauty linked to an aesthetic eugenics with “the Caucasian model as a hygienic and normative horizon, the choice of working models and the exposure of the body as the focal point.” He explains to EL PAÍS that its power lies in its ability to show itself, exerting visual influence over what is desirable to see and what is necessary to conceal. “That is, power removes things from the scene and replaces them with others (more worth seeing). Simply because power offers a stage. In this vein, racialization is an indelible stain, or an insolvent wound, that marks you forever and cannot be got rid of. At the same time, old age is a sign of decadence, of a lack of vigor, of illness and of loss of faculties, and therefore a loss of power,” he says.

The paradox lies in the fact that although mass access to cosmetics and cosmetic surgery would allow for a democratic homogenous look leading to a single body type, race, sexuality, and beauty, social class still persists. “They are the ones who write the social grammar, therefore they appear in the script as “the best,” the legitimate ones, the chosen ones, etc. Coupled with a distinguished lifestyle, I don’t find it strange that a Mar-a-Lago face is presented as royalty, with its histrionic court. That is to say, Trump and his kind need to brand themselves, flaunting a class wound. This is provided by surgery,” explains Santiago Martinez Magdalena.

The message of excess

It is striking that precisely when the natural look is triumphing, offered by a series of treatments that are paradoxically highly visible yet hard to pinpoint, the Mar-a-Lago face advocates excess. “The fact that artificial beauty continues to challenge this growing natural trend surely depends on many variables, but let’s not rule out the fact that it is about identity and not only at an individual level, but also at a collective level: a label, like an aesthetic tattoo, that indicates what group you belong to. And let’s not forget the pressure to which we are socially subjected, especially women, due to the passage of time,” says Dr. Natalia Ribé, founder and medical director of the Dr. Natalia Ribé Institute.

Read more

Women speak out over trad music scene ‘misogyny’

Women in the Scottish traditional and folk music scene say it is time for “inappropriate behaviour” by men to stop.

Women working in the Scottish trad and folk music scene are calling for an end to “inappropriate behaviour” and sexism by men.

Glasgow musician and lecturer in traditional music Jenn Butterworth says young women have been sharing harrowing stories online about sexual abuse, harassment and misogyny within trad and folk music in Scotland.

“Everyone is fully aware these things are going on,” she told BBC Scotland’s The Nine, and women are speaking out in the hope it can finally change.

Fiddle player and academic Rona Wilkie says more “hair-raising” stories are coming out every week about what young women especially are subjected to from men in the industry.

Rona, from Oban, won the young traditional musician of the year award in 2012 at the age of 22 but she has been performing since she was very young.

Read more