Even in a Populist Moment, Democrats Are Split on the Problem of Corporate Power
Key topics
The debate rages on about the root causes of and potential solutions to the entrenched problems in the US, with some commenters arguing that the two-party system is the main culprit, while others counter that it's the influence of corporate money in politics that's the real issue. As one commenter put it, "Too late. Its those with money versus those without money," highlighting the stark divide. While some advocate for abolishing the two-party system, others warn that this could lead to a one-party system, but alternative solutions like ranked choice voting and approval voting are gaining traction as potential paths forward. The discussion is timely, given the ongoing concerns about corporate power and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which many feel has exacerbated the problem.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
36m
Peak period
26
0-3h
Avg / period
6
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 15, 2025 at 11:53 AM EST
22 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 15, 2025 at 12:30 PM EST
36m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
26 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 17, 2025 at 4:23 AM EST
21 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
And if you work for a living, you don't have money.
Will be a one-party system.
Because there is no legal pathway[1] towards solving the conditions that create the two party system, but there are many illegal offramps that will get rid of one of those parties.
---
[1] There are way too many obstacles, and the bar for consensus is too high to legally have these reforms. The bar is much lower for having them illegally - all you need is a single-party trifecta - lead by the kinds of people who'd start a coup rather than relinquish power.
Portland's new city council setup, with four districts and three representatives each based on ranked choice voting, is a step in that direction.
The fences on many countries are to keep people in. For the US, it is to keep people out.
The end result is of course populism. Each election cycle gets us closer to the policy positions of the Republicans being "Immigrants are bad" and Democrats being "Billionaires are bad".
We know where populism leads, and we've seen it for decades in south america. In a few decades, we will get to choose between the populist far left and the populist far right. Policy will get crazier and crazier and measurable societal outcomes will stagnate and perhaps go backwards.
This will continue as long as social media is the primary form of entertainment in the US.
Please, can you even hear yourself?
So yes, we need experts to play a substantial role in running things.
Perhaps even more importantly: it's not solely about what's best for every individual. You know what would be best for me? If the government gave me a free giant SUV that gets 4mpg fuel economy, and also let me drive as fast as I wanted while also subsidizing 90% of my fuel costs. Also it should drive itself so I can sleep while driving.
Sometimes we need to consider what's best for society and the planet, too.
You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climat...
Totally random people could draft new laws on climate (at least, they were told this). They met with lobbyists, both pro-oil and pro-climate for two weekends, experts on three other weekends, once in a conference-style where very generic stuff is said, two other in focus groups with more specific expertises, depending on the subject the focus group is on.
Experts were real experts though, with multiple publications and PhDs (or in some cases, engineering degrees, especially during the conference week), and tried to only talk on their subject matter.
In around 8 weekend, the 150 random people made ?148? law propositions, helped by lawyers, and most experts agree that they were both good and reasonable. What's interesting is that most of the 150 people said that before really learning about the subject, they would never have made this kind of propositions.
All that to say: experts don't have to run things, and imho, they should not. They should however have an advisory role to the random people drafting new laws.
Unfortunately, ignoring the public sphere and pretending that professionals are above such things is why we're now stuck with someone like Robert Kennedy Jr running HHS. This guy grew enough of a following and movement to reach a position of power and influence and he was barely challenged by experts all along the way.
RFK jr running HHS is the wave of the future. Unfortunately, we will continue to have non-experts who generate high engagement content running policy decisions more and more in the future.
I don't see why you'd assume that only non-experts will generate high engagement content.
I don't disagree but such a sweeping assumption surely needs some argumentation and elucidation. Understating the mechanics of this quite unnatural state of affairs is vastly more valuable that the mere observation of its existence.
All I've seen to date are appeals to human nature but that's a highly misleading line of reasoning that creates more confusion about both human nature and the forces driving content creation.
Experts invest time in becoming experts in their field. Youtubers invest time in generating high engagement content and attracting more viewers. Can't have both.
---
[1] I will never have enough money.
Last election cycle, the incumbent president was pushed out of the race, largely initiated by an actor that lacks a college degree.
That would actually be a major improvement over what we have. Right now public policy decisions seem to get hashed out by nutjob activists on social media, not "average people."
I think this is really the core of the article's thesis, and I'd encourage the author to take it more seriously. Does the Democratic coalition work without pro-corporate liberals on board? Or is there a risk of creating an energized, passionate, anti-corporate Democratic party which simply does not have any path to 270 electoral votes? "Chuck Schumer still imagines America as it was in 1980", which means that Chuck Schumer remembers an era where California was a Republican stronghold and a poorly constructed Democratic coalition led to three consecutive Republican landslides.
By people do you mean voters or donors?
I suspect that approximately zero voters would care.
> which are the Republican voters who would be swayed to replace (and hopefully more-than-replace) them?
This is a false dichotomy. At this point, Republicans cannot be swayed by anything. Trump just said that Rob Reiner was murdered because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome". It's impossible for him to lose his loyal followers, no matter what he does or anyone else does.
Both major political parties are extremely unpopular among nonpartisans. They plug their noses and vote, if they vote at all. In the 2024 Presidential election, 37% of eligible voters voted for neither, mostly for nothing, whereas only 32% of eligible voters voted for Trump. And nonvoters are not necessary "moderate". That's a myth. They're nonpartisan, which is not to say that they're "between" the two parties. Many of them hardly even pay attention to politics. There's a lot of room to appeal to people who are disaffected with the system.
I doubt anyone's polled this specific question, but I would encourage you to calibrate against voter support for, say, capitalism. Guess how many Americans support capitalism, look up the polled number, and see if it surprises you. Perhaps no voters would care about a personal vendetta against one or two specific people, but a lot of voters would care if Democrats took the position that capitalism is bad and we've got to fight it.
> This is a false dichotomy. At this point, Republicans cannot be swayed by anything. Trump just said that Rob Reiner was murdered because of "Trump Derangement Syndrome". It's impossible for him to lose his loyal followers, no matter what he does or anyone else does.
This is, again, an analysis that doesn't make much sense when you recognize that coalitions are not static. A number of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2008, felt for some reason or another that they had to "plug their noses and vote" for Trump, and will end up voting for whoever the next Democratic president is. It sounds like we're both fans of Bernie Sanders, so I'd encourage you to read what he says about Trump supporters, because he's quite confident that they are in fact reachable.
Guess how many Americans support Medicare For All, look up the polled number, and see if it surprises you.
None of the populist Democrats that I'm aware of have run on abolishing capitalism, not even self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. Not Mamdani either. It's just a question of how much of a role we allow the government in the capitalist system, how much regulation, and how many public services. Nobody thinks that the US is a socialist or communist country because we have the US Postal Service, for example, or a public military. Socialized medicine would not make the US non-capitalist either, any more than it does it Canada or Europe.
> A number of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2008
Yes, but they're obviously not Republicans! They're swing voters. Thus, what I said in your quotation of me does not apply to them. In 2020, Biden won swing voters, whereas in 2024, Trump won swing voters. They swing from one side to the other. They're not partisan, not loyal to a party or a person. This was my point: you can't move Republicans, but you can move independents, and there are actually a lot of independents.
Yes, and I don't think I'd be surprised about how many Americans support capitalism. I generally support capitalism.
> healthcare reform shouldn't affect which doctors they can see
> no Medicare For All proposal could even approach
Of course you couldn't keep your plan but why couldn't you keep your doctor when all doctors would be under the single government plan? It's not like the public loves health insurance companies.
> the American Medical Association opposes Medicare For All, and people generally trust doctors more than politicians about healthcare.
This seems like an equivocation. People don't necessarily trust doctors about politics. Moreover, trusting your doctor is not the same as trusting the AMA.
> Again, this is something where I'd encourage people to put themselves in Chuck Schumer's shoes.
Never.
> there aren't enough swing voters
Why in the world would you conclude that in the 1980s?
> If you're behind right now and want to start winning elections, you simply can't start from the premise that anyone who identifies with the other side is unreachable.
I would submit that 2020s Republicans are not 1980s Republicans. After decades of right-wing media indoctrination, Republicans are now detached from reality and believe all kinds of crazy things. Approving of Trump after everything Trump has said and done is not even remotely the same as approving of Reagan.
Maybe not, but, then again, it might not work with them on board, either. The problem is that the Hastings-Klein branch of the Democratic party is incompatible with the populist/anti-corporate branch. Either one could form the basis of a viable electoral strategy, but not both at the same time. At bare minimum, they need to adopt the Republican strategy of picking one and not saying the quiet part out loud about the other.
We are probably overdue for a realignment of the two parties on the major issues, like the Grainger Movement, New Deal or Southern Strategy.
> How many people would jump ship if you excommunicated Reed Hastings and Ezra Klein, and which are the Republican voters who would be swayed to replace (and hopefully more-than-replace) them? Without good answers to these questions, there's a very real risk of creating an energized, passionate, anti-corporate Democratic party which simply does not have any path to 270 electoral votes.
Some large fraction (enough to tip the election) voted mainly on "are prices higher today than 4 years ago?" and "are jobs harder to find than they were 4 years ago?". The current administration's campaign largely got the diagnosis right, even if its prescription is the political equivalent of bloodletting and leeches.
Those are easy pickings for an anti-corporate Democratic party with the right message. By contrast, voters economically aligned with Hastings-Klein make up probably only 10% (the most wealthy 10%) of the population. That seems like an obvious trade. The two problems are: the money spigot turns off if you make that trade; and to really pull off this strategy probably requires a tricky (without seeming heartless) policy realignment on certain parts of immigration policy.
OTOH, they could fully align with Hasting-Klein economically. But that requires a different set of policy realignment tradeoffs to remain viable: A significant rightward shift on most social issues (like LGBTQ rights, guns, religion in schools and police) to peel off some of those voters from the Republican party. Probably also pot legalization and assistance for drug-addicted rural voters.