SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Genocide is the worst crime human beings can commit. In the case, it’s also the one nobody’s talking about—even though it cost Democrats the 2024 election.
“Original Sin” was an odd title choice for the recent book, co-authored by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and subtitled “President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and his Disastrous Decision to Run Again.” The book confirms long-standing suspicions about former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, its handling by Biden’s inner circle, and the Democratic Party leadership’s attempts to conceal it.
These may be sins, but they’re hardly “original.” The earliest confirmed cover-up of presidential incapacity goes back over a century, to President Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 stroke. Ronald Reagan’s aides were so concerned about his inattentiveness, competence, and mood that they proposed invoking the 25th Amendment.[1] Questions about Biden’s cognition were already circulating in Washington by the mid-2010s and were openly discussed during the 2020 election.
In the long arc of history, political cover-ups and lies are relatively venal sins. But genocide is a mortal sin—the worst imaginable.
Meanwhile, the conversation around this book is distracting us from the worst sin of all: genocide.
American complicity in Palestinian slaughter isn’t “original,” of course; it has a long history. The Biden team’s originality lay in its open disregard for international law and global institutions. They defied the world court system well before Trump did.
Genocide is the worst crime human beings can commit. In the case, it’s also the one nobody’s talking about—even though it cost Democrats the 2024 election.
Other factors affected the outcome, too, of course, but many people predicted that the Gaza genocide would hurt the Democrats[2], perhaps fatally—and all indicators are that it did.
It will continue to hurt them for the foreseeable future. Pew Research reports that, as of March 2025, 53% of Americans held “a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel.” That includes more than two-thirds of all Democrats—at a time when the party’s approval rating has plummeted[3] and it desperately needs renewed enthusiasm among its base voters.
Except for a brief cease-fire, President Donald Trump has continued his predecessor’s assault on Palestine. That’s something we’re all morally obligated to resist. But Democrats, and the equally complicit media, must be held responsible for their actions—actions that made the Trump presidency possible.
When’s the last time anyone believed that the Democratic Party could be persuaded to change just because it was the right thing to do?
No wonder they want to keep talking about Joe Biden. But Biden is gone. If they were serious about changing, Democrats would ask themselves why they let the charade to go on for so long. A few initial answers: big-donor money, disregard for popular opinion[4], a pronounced detachment from the experience of working people, and a party culture of self-advancement and sucking up to power.
What they wouldn’t do is fixate on superficial questions of messaging or image. The problem isn’t their choice of language; it’s not even their “gerontocracy,” as pronounced as that is. The problem is the forces behind their use of language, their perpetuation of incumbent power, and their ossification of thought. These forces stem from the party’s dependence on big money in its various corrupting forms.
I thought I past being shocked by the behavior of liberal politicians after they’ve been embraced and seduced by the tentacular flow of big money—that never-ending flow of cash which remolds their perceptions as they sit through think-tank conferences, fawning interviews, desserts and conversation at fundraising dinners, or drinks with lobbyists in cigar-scented wood-paneled rooms.
Horrors like the Gaza genocide are transcendental evils, but they’re born in mundane places like these.
And yet, Democrats seem reluctant to sacrifice these pleasures for anything as banal as winning elections. I’m sure that Tapper’s book makes lively conversations at their gatherings. And those conversations mean they don’t have to talk about genocide.
In the long arc of history, political cover-ups and lies are relatively venal sins. But genocide is a mortal sin—the worst imaginable. This one cost the Democrats the presidency in 2024. Unless they change, it will continue to cost them for years and decades to come.
A lot of left-leaning columns, including this one, make a habit of citing poll numbers. I think we do it because we hope (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) that we may yet persuade Democrats to govern more humanely—if only out of self-interest.
But since we’re talking about sin, here’s a question: When’s the last time anyone believed that the Democratic Party could be persuaded to change just because it was the right thing to do?
[1] There’s no conclusive proof that Reagan was mentally impaired while in office, although it’s still widely suspected. A clinical analysis of Reagan’s press conferences later concluded that he used a progressively smaller vocabulary as time passed, a pattern that is “associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.” Reagan announced that he had dementia in 1994, six years after leaving office.
[2] I called Gaza “Biden’s Vietnam” in November 2023 and warned it could hurt his presidency in much the say way as Vietnam hurt Lyndon Johnson’s in 1968. The Arab American Institute’s September 2024 poll showed a catastrophic drop in Arab-American voter support. I used AAI’s data on swing states, cross-referenced it with other voter groups in those states who felt strongly about Israel-Palestine (non-Arab Muslims, Black people, and college students), and concluded in October that the election could be lost on the Gaza issue alone. Many others reached the same conclusion.
[3] As of late May 2025, only 36% of those surveyed in an Economist/YouGov poll viewed the Democratic Party favorably while 57% viewed it unfavorably. Republicans fared better, with 41% favorable versus 52% unfavorable. (Still, these results suggest that Americans aren’t very happy with their choices.)
[4] By the end of his first year in office, a Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that voter confidence in Biden’s fitness had plunged, with only 40% agreeing that Biden was “in good health” and 50% disagreeing. Only 46% agreed he was mentally fit for office. At roughly the same time, nearly 60% of voters surveyed told Harvard-Harris pollsters that Biden was too old to be president. By July 2022, two-thirds of Democrats polled said they wanted someone else to lead their party’s ticket in 2024. Roots Action began a “Don’t Run Joe” campaign in 2022.
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. But individuals lusting for power does not typically end well for the masses—especially the working class.
There is a fable that when Kissinger and Nixon met with Mao Zedong, Mao wondered out loud why the physically unattractive Kissinger was so successful with women. Kissinger quipped, supposedly, that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Anyone who has spent time in political campaigns, political office, or corporate hierarchies, knows there is more than a little truth to Kissinger’s claim. If you hold power or have access to it you are attractive, or at least more attractive than you would be without it. You can feel it and you can use it, and you may do foolish things for fear of losing it. The hunger for it is strong enough to suck away your courage.
Kissinger’s insight gives us, perhaps, a better understanding about how Biden got away with running again when he was so obviously impaired. (You want to kill an aphrodisiac? Talk about your prostate cancer.)
The wound has been reopened with the publication of Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. It is the supposedly shocking story of how Biden’s mental and physical maladies were covered up. (What’s really shocking is how Tapper is hawking his own book on his own CNN show and then also covering it as major news, just a bit like Trump selling meme coins from the White House. Yes, in behalf of all authors, I’m jealous!)
And now the revelation that Biden has Stage 4 prostate cancer is leading to further recriminations that he was hiding his declining health both from the public and from his fellow Democrats.
The basic argument is that those in the know knew that Biden was growing more and more feeble during his presidency and covered up the growing problems by keeping him out of the public eye. As a result, Biden and his team pressed for his reelection, while virtually no one in the Democratic Party resisted publicly, even as polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old to run again.
Why didn’t the Democrats do something about this obvious train wreck in the making? Why didn’t Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren and other congressional progressives call this process into question so there would be time to select a new candidate through primaries? Why didn’t Governors Pritzker and Newsom, along with other presidential hopefuls, say something—anything—to the American public?
The current crop of answers goes something like this: Biden was protected by his “Polit Bureau” of close advisors, as Democrats labeled them. Those in government who were in contact with Biden always reported that he was sharp and fit because he was only made available during his good times. In short, it was largely his advisor’s fault, including his wife Jill, who failed the party and American democracy by protecting him from more scrutiny. And perhaps, more importantly, it was Biden’s foolish ego that pushed him to hold onto power until it was too late.
Much of that may be true, but it’s inadequate. Kissinger’s aphrodisiac explanation goes deeper.
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. How could anything match being the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief of the largest military arsenal in history, and the single person who can control U.S. laws and legislation, from the bully pulpit, by executive order, or with a veto? Everyone wants to kiss your ring.
The president has that power. Power for most everyone else (except for the Supreme Court justices, when they show some spine) is largely derivative. As a result, those who have access to the president are far more powerful than those who do not. Gaining presidential access and then holding on to it is the next best aphrodisiac.
Progressives in Congress—like Sanders, AOC, and Warren—believed they had great influence over Biden and his agenda. There was the repeated bluster that Biden was the most pro-working-class president since FDR. Big ideas, like the Green New Deal, gained Biden’s support, and progressives were often in the center of the action, passing progressive legislation and regulations (even when ambushed by Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema).
Had they dared to question Biden’s re-election run, it is likely, very likely, they would have lost their access in a hurry. That threat no doubt quieted their tongues. Proximity to power may even have led them to ignore Biden’s decline, to avoid seeing it, and even to choose not to think about it. The power-high can do that and more.
What about the presidential hopefuls? They are hungry for the fullest dose of the power aphrodisiac. If they challenged Biden and his incumbent advantage in 2024 and failed, they might never get another chance at that ultimate high. The Biden supporters among Democratic elites, especially, would never forgive them for stepping into the race. And if Biden beat them in the primaries, and then lost to Trump, or if they beat Biden and then lost to Trump, they would get blamed, and their lofty political ambitions would be quashed. Just calling Biden out, without challenging him in the primaries, would get them nowhere but down. Just ask Dean Phillips.
But if they sat back and let Biden win, or fail on his own, then the 2028 would be wide open. Their choice wasn’t that hard. The safest path to power was to bide their time.
Unfortunately, that political pragmatism and surrender to the aphrodisiac might turn out to be enormously problematic for the Democrats. It’s not a given that Trump’s scorched earth policies will flip the House back to the Democrats in 2026, and the Senate map is a particularly tough one for the Democrats. The Biden debacle has voters questioning why Democrats remained dead silent even as the rest of the country could see plainly that Biden was too old to govern.
That silence now leads to more questions about the timing of Biden’s cancer diagnosis. Did he release this information to turn media coverage away from the new book’s revelations? How could he not know of his ailment while he was president, given that he had the best health care support in the country, if not the world?
All this adds to the stains on the Democratic brand and further undermines their credibility, which already is severely tarnished among working-class voters.
As this story festers, it might be a good time for progressives to question their lifelong strategy of rebuilding the Democratic Party into an instrument of working-class justice. Maybe, just maybe, they should concede that task is doomed to failure. Most Democratic Party officials do not want to be the defenders of the working class. Most, in fact, are content to work hand-in-hand with their wealthy donors who have gained their riches by siphoning wealth away from working people.
Instead, it might be time to have a serious discussion about what it will take to build a new working-class political formation, possibly a new party, even if it is going to take a decade and maybe longer to come to fruition.
The billionaires have two political parties. We need one of our own—one that is not intoxicated by the enfeebling lust for power.
"We need to return the Democratic Party to its roots," said one attendee of Sen. Bernie Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy Tour, hoping for a party not beholden to "the corporate interests and the megadonors and the oligarchs."
Polling released Wednesday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows Democratic voters are cynical about the state of politics in the United States and how leaders are chosen under the political system, and they are increasingly pessimistic about their party's future.
The poll—conducted earlier this month, six months after President Donald Trump won a second term and Republicans narrowly claimed both chambers of Congress—found that 55% of Democrats are pessimistic about how political leaders are selected. Seventy-three percent said the same about the state of politics in the country.
Additionally, 36% of Democrats are pessimistic about the future of the party, compared with 35% who are optimistic and 29% who said they are neither. That's a major shift from July 2024, when just 26% were pessimistic, 57% were optimistic, and 16% were neither.
"I'm not real high on Democrats right now," said poll respondent Damien Williams, a 48-year-old Democrat from Cahokia Heights, Illinois and a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, which notably did not endorse in the 2024 presidential contest. "To me, they're not doing enough to push back against Trump."
Williams told The Associated Press that he likely won't feel good about the Democratic Party again "until somebody steps up in terms of being a leader that can bring positive change—an Obama-like figure."
The poll also asked all 1,175 respondents—including Independents and Republicans—about a few political leaders affiliated with the party: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.); Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats and sought their presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020; and progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
A plurality of all voters (43%) have an unfavorable view of Schumer, with 36% not knowing enough to say, and just 21% viewing him favorably. Among Democrats, 31% see him negatively, 34% don't know enough, and 35% have a positive opinion.
Schumer has come under fire for his response to the Trump administration and Republican control of Congress—particularly his March decision to help advance the GOP's stopgap funding bill, which led to calls for his resignation and for Ocasio-Cortez to launch a primary challenge against him for the 2028 cycle.
Across party lines, only 29% of respondents have a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez, but that jumps to 55% among Democrats. While 65% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of the "Squad" member, 50% of Independents don't know enough.
Sanders—who has been traveling the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, with appearances from House progressives including Ocasio-Cortez—has the highest favorability of the three. The full survey class was split: 43% favorable, 40% unfavorable, and 16% unsure. While 72% of Republicans have an unfavorable view, Independents were divided in thirds across the three categories, and 75% of Democrats have a positive view of the senator, with only 13% seeing him negatively and 12% unsure.
Sanders on Wednesday released a video from recent Fighting Oligarchy stops in which Pennsylvania residents shared critiques that align with the poll results. A man named Matthew Bennet said, "I'm not happy with the state of the Democratic Party. We need to return the Democratic Party to its roots, unbeholden [to] the corporate interests and the megadonors and the oligarchs."
Leading up to the November election, officials across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum worked to reelect then-President Joe Biden, who was ultimately replaced as the nominee by then-Vice President Kamala Harris after a disastrous debate performance raised concerns about his fitness for another term.
Writing about Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's new book, Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, for The Nation on Tuesday, Norman Solomon noted:
Partisan denial transcended ideology. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were outspoken in favor of Biden's reelection effort until he withdrew from the race. Progressive legislators were no better than their centrist colleagues in resisting pressure from the Biden White House to pretend that the president was fit to run again, while the Democratic Party's power structure insisted on a position opposed by a sizable majority of the party's voters.
[...]
The operative mentality of Democratic Party leaders is not much different now than it was during the protracted cover-up of Biden's cognitive decline. Today, like a political ghost, Joe Biden haunts the party, with leadership that prefers hagiography to candor.
Since the election, polling has shown that registered Democrats and Independent voters who lean Democratic are frustrated with the party, see no clear leader of it, and want to see elected officials fight harder for working people—and elected progressives, including Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, have been more critical of the party.
In November, Sanders said that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them," and predicted that "the big money interests and well-paid consultants" who control the party probably wouldn't "learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign."
Sanders' comments were met with swift backlash from then-Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who called his take "straight up BS." Six months later, as Wednesday's survey results make clear, voters aren't happy with the party.
"I just feel like the majority of the old Democratic Party needs to go," Democrat Monica Brown, a 61-year-old social worker from Knoxville, Tennessee, told the AP. "They're not in tune with the new generation. They're not in tune with the new world. We've got such division within the party."
That division was on full display last December, when Ocasio-Cortez ran for ranking member of U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, but lost to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)—a 75-year-old soon leaving the post due to his battle with cancer.
Ocasio-Cortez left the panel, and the 35-year-old confirmed last week that she will not return to seek the leadership role, telling reporters, "It's actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary, so I believe I'll be staying put at Energy and Commerce."
On that committee, Ocasio-Cortez called out Republican members early Wednesday for rushing ahead with their proposal to cut Medicaid "at 2:38 in the morning, when everyone is asleep, when we've asked for the opportunity to do this in the light of day so that people can call their representatives' offices in order to stop this disaster."
While there was a clear age gap with Ocasio-Cortez and Connolly, people of various generations fall into the Democratic Party's different factions. For example, 48-year-old Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was sharply criticized for suggesting last month that Americans don't know what oligarchy means, so Democrats should stop saying it—as 83-year-old Sanders' tour centered on that term has drawn more than 250,000 people across several states.
Last week, 42-year-old Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) said he refuses to hold town halls because of Indivisible, a grassroots movement "with a mission to elect progressive leaders, rebuild our democracy, and defeat the Trump agenda."
Both Indivisible and Sanders are now working to mobilize voters nationwide against Republicans' emerging reconciliation package that would provide tax giveaways to wealthy individuals and corporations by gutting programs like Medicaid that serve the working class and raising the national debt they so often complain about by trillions of dollars over the next decade.
"If Trump's 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill goes through, 13.7 million people will lose their health insurance and even more will become underinsured," Sanders warned Tuesday. "Make no mistake, thousands of low-income and working-class Americans will die unnecessarily if it passes. We must not allow it."