Power V. Empathy

Chuck Schumer's team tweeted the following on the 18th of June in regards to trans kids being diversion over the health of millions of Americans.

Now, if someone was reaching, one could attempt the argument that Schumer might have been thinking "bigger picture" as in, he was considering the major overall fight for healthcare. To that I call bullshit. That bigger picture is being illustrated through the pain of trans kids. This way of thinking is the same way one might consider those being kidnapped by ICE– it's not the majority, so why bother? The answer is because just like trans kids are Americans, so are the people being targeted by ICE. More importantly, they are people. And so this is not the problem of a few, but rather, this is a problem for all Americans to not only empathize with, but to call on everyone to fight for as well. There's no picking and choosing when it comes to people hurting.

Where is his empathy for the trans community being harmed?

He deleted the tweet, but that lack of empathy has been seen by many with outrage. Maybe that could be considered empathetic? Maybe all the people who called him out on his bullshit was enough for him to delete. Probably the second one.

Ask yourself why that tweet was worded that way in the first place. That lack of empathy for one group over the majority, throwing one group under the bus– how come?

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, recently spoke regarding the Trump administration's bombing on three Iranian nuclear sites . Rather than back the already existing War Powers Resolution ( Here if you need further detail but the short version is federal law intended to check the U.S. President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. congress), when asked if he supports it, Jeffries states "I haven't taken a look at it." Apparently, high-ranking House Democrats were working on alternative measures. It's worth noting that the resolution was filed a week before he admits to not looking at it. Plenty of time to be looked at before the bombings. It was filed the Tuesday before the strikes took place on the following Saturday.

Why the indecision? Why not stand up to the wildly unpopular? Where's empathy for Americans who don't want to participate in bloodshed? Where's empathy for the American people who don't want to participate in war?

So what's my point here?

Empathy is given and considerations for the American people are only fought for if there is something in it for the current Democratic leadership.

Regarding Schumer again, this lack of fight, was never more apparent in March, where, rather than use the leverage they had, threatening a government shut down, Schumer backed down over the fight against the GOP’s government funding bill, claiming that said government shut down is what Trump and Elon Musk wanted.

Some would argue that Schumer meant well, and that he thought he was doing the right thing throwing the majority of his party under the bus. Schumer, one could argue, was being empathetic to the government employees, to the government institutions in danger of being cut by DOGE. Cuts that were going to be made regardless.

There was a theory going around that Schumer let the Republicans pass their budget, not due to wanting to avoid a government shut down like he argued, and not for the sake of being a leader. Rather, his true intent was to avoid the government shutdown for the sake of the markets. The theory goes that a few interests were worried that, with Trump's erratic tariffs, the markets were about to take a substantial hit with included shutdown. Being once known to be a favorite Senator of Wall Street, it seems like those interests came calling, and most likely asked for a favor. There is no direct evidence, again, just a theory with some legs. But if one was to assume the rumors were true, it seems like the protection of position and power and influence were the priority.

House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries was less than empathetic when apparently, according to the Bulwark and their sources, the minority leader discouraged further excursions to El Salvador from Democrats in regards to advocating for Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US back in March. Per those sources, “They want to let the El Salvador stuff slow down”. Those trips, those attempts, especially by Senator Van Hollen were what fueled that return after mistakenly being deported by the Trump administration. It also shed further light on the blatant atrocities the Trump administration and ICE are conducting. But according to Jefferies, there was nothing to be gained from those trips.

There seems to be no empathy, or fight for even those in his own party. It took Chuck Schumer two weeks before he.. wrote a strongly-worded letter in regards to Senator Alex Padilla being violently and forcibly removed from Kristi Noem's press conference.

This is the leadership of supposed opposition to Trump's fascist administration?

The Genius Act

The Genius act, a piece of legislation that would attempt to give cryptocurrency government legitimacy, essentially introducing financial instability to an already unstable economy. The Genius Act would allow any institution with means, to issue their own currency. Imagine the introduction of thousands of different currencies, some of which will be forced upon you. Imagine if you worked for one of these institutions and you were paid with one of these currencies, and why wouldn't you be? These "stablecoins", they are now a legitimate form of currency. And each one of these stablecoins are supposed to be backed by $1, a dollar each of these corporations issuing said coin apparently holds. I say "apparent" because assets change in value, so what happens to the stable coins now backed by a dollar that no longer exists? The assets in question would have to verified, that's the only way something like this could work. Apparently this verification will come in the form of account firms tasked in doing so under the Genius Act. However, if thousands of these coins existed, how often and efficient would that verification work out?

Let's say the store Target issued their currency and then used it to pay their employees. Then imagine Target files for Bankruptcy. They are no longer a thing. And yet, those stablecoins, that could be saved, are no longer worth anything. One could maybe argue that the government would bail those holding the bag. But then how many would need to get bailed out before the government has to stop?

The bill passed with a bipartisan vote of 68-30.

Donald Trump, who proclaims himself the Crypto President, not only shelled out his own coin, as well as the first lady, also shelled out a coin, both, which immediately lost value, to those who purchased said coin, while earning Trump and his family earned millions, to what is essentially a pump and dump. Investors themselves call meme coin "a pure form of gambling or "a lottery ticket." The Trump administration in general has been very friendly with Crypto, even pouring thousands of dollars into cryptocurrency.

18 democrats in the Senate helped in that passage, joining most Republicans in favor (just two republicans voted against it - Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri).

Within the Genius act, there's not only no real language to prevent not only Donald Trump from making further money with a "lottery ticket" (he made around $2.9 billion dollars so far on crypto alone), but there's no real language preventing any law maker from doing the same thing.

Those who disclosed their earnings through cryptocurrency, have made money so far.

So why allow the passage of something that would bring more corruption? They call it the future – the future of what? Financial de-stability? For the sake of what? Being in the pockets of Cryptocurrency?

No one is arguing that donor money is not needed, especially the way current politics is set up, however, there seems to be more action in regards to keeping these donors happy compared to the general constituency's happiness.

It seems, they can work together, even reach across the aisle where there's money to be made.

We need to talk about Celebrity, Money and Politics

And that's where the problem lies– the celebrity and money problem in general. You need money to run a successful campaign, you need a lot of money to do so. And so the fastest way to raise that money is through donors with deep pockets. How does one be known to these donors? How does one guarantee that return in investment after they agree to give you that money? Through "scratch your back, scratch mine" dealings, of course. How does one guarantee they will be in office to do so? By creating that credibility through celebrity through that money. In exchange for being that "celebrity", politicians like Schumer can write a book so he can go on book tours and generate more of both.

Consider Trump. Consider how he started as a celebrity and how most of his credibility came from that celebrity. You talk to any boomer about Trump and why they think he would make a great president, during the first election and they mostly focus on him being great at business and wanting to bring that to the presidency. Trump is a terrible business man. But he's a great celebrity. He knew how to market himself as that business man through branding that turned him into that celebrity, celebrity he could use to run for office. An already established brand without the need to further market outside the specific politics. He's also pretty good at grifting.

But the thing about this type of celebrity, the political celebrity, is there's a power to it that's especially addicting. It's addicting enough to get others to follow your lead, in attempts to become political celebrities in their own right, even if it means selling out previous values/humiliating one's self. (see Ted Cruz or JD Vance as examples) - that's how powerful the draw seems to be.

But that's how you get those around you to be in your favor, that's how you get those to like your politics. That's how you get those to follow your leadership, if there is any leadership at all.

And there's also the potential revenue growth, through speaking engagements, general appearances, through podcasting, through writing books, you can do all those things through your relevancy, through the position politicians are in.

Unless you lose your relevancy through no longer having that position.

Let's face it, but due to the lack of education regarding politics, the only way anyone is known anymore is through the celebrity, especially through social media (or Fox News if you're a boomer). You create that relevancy through speaking, through action, any action, big or small. Some could argue that you can even create that relevancy by actually doing your job.

Except that you have to appease those who got you there in the first place. Except that you have to also appease your constituents too. And in the case of our vindictive president Trump, you don't want to draw too much attention. You don't want to be in his crosshairs, (even though they should be) for the sake of avoiding ire, when it comes to potential voters who consider themselves "moderates" but actually lean more to the right.

And so, through the wanting that relevancy, that celebrity, you play a balancing act. You create those soundbites, but you do nothing after the fact. You applaud the actions of your colleagues, but you secretly tell them to stop bringing that attention, that heat, to the party. You create theater, rather than actual opposition.

You tweet about throwing a group under the bus, for the sake of what you think the majority wants to hear.

Breaking the longest House floor speech in U.S. history is fine and all, but where was the real opposition? But where was real action when it was actually needed. We don't need theater! When it really mattered, where was the action?

The fear of losing relevancy, whether to the donors or the "middle of the aisle" voter, is what is what lost the election to the Democrats in the first place. Not having real positions for the sake of trying to make them happy.

So that fear of losing the perks of having a relevant position in politics, has become a problem in so many ways. As I was writing this, Trump passed his "Big Beautiful Bill."

This will cut healthcare for those who need it, it will be the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It will make ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency in history, with more money at its disposal so that can Trump's secret police can disappear people. So that they can build more prison camps in order to keep the downtrodden in cages.

The Democrats are not even using this celebrity to educate the public. So what's their point in them holding these positions? This celebrity? Why not write books about how this could hurt people and then go on tour? Why even write the book and just go on the tour?

In the last two and a half years, eight sitting members of the House or Senate have died in office. Every time, it's been a Democrat.

Why does that matter? Per that same business Insider post regarding Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia's death in May:

He's the third House Democrat to die in the last three months. If Democrats had gained a narrow 1 or 2-seat majority in 2024, they would have lost it by now.

That seat is still vacant. There are still 3 vacant seats in the house. They passed Trump's bill through a final House vote that was 218-214, with two republicans voting no (Massie & Fitzpatrick). They might have passed it by one, sure, but it would have been narrower; at times, especially like these, that matters.

The democratic party's older leadership has been a problem for a long time.

And there are no fresh faces because there is no push for that fresh leadership. Because of the lack of push, the Democratic party, in its current form, is stagnant. Combined with the in-fighting, rather than any opposition against the right, and nothing seems to get done.

Gerry Connolly, prior to his passing, was top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, a position some wanted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York for. A seat now vacated due to his death after battling esophageal cancer. But why? Everyone knew he was sick, so why put him in this position?

Democratic politics, the way it is currently playing out, is a numbers game.

Those in the democratic party treat these positions– treat their positions as something they have earned, due to the time they put in, and not for what's good for the party, and not what is good for the American people. Unlike the right, who would step over each other for the chance to get favor from Trump. That favor is quite the motivator as well. Though the Democrats were never that ambitious when Biden was in office. To be fair though, Biden never did anything during his administration that would motivate that sort of favor.

This is why they would rather have Gerry Connolly, be top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee over AOC. It was his turn. That's essentially it. Rather than nurture the party with fresh faces, fresh opinions and actions, they are playing "turns" with positions.

This is the same with leadership. They think they've earned the right to go on book tours when they shouldn't have. They think they've earned the right to tell the rest of the party to not consider their constituents. They think they've earned the right to coast.

You want to stay in leadership because it feels like you finally made it to that celebrity tier, and damn if you give it up that easily.

They only care about winning future elections and not actually governing.

A New Hope

The celebrity of being a politician is bullshit. But why would you vote for someone you know nothing about? How does one garner the prestige of being known on a national level in order to make your way higher up the politics ladder without letting that celebrity get to you? Without letting you turn you into, frankly, a career politician, rather than for one that actually wants to fight back?

The answer is of course Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And recently, the answer is Zohran Mamdani. But how did they both gain national celebrity (especially Mamdani, who is only involved in local politics. Of course, one could make the argument that it's New York City, the most influential city in the country, but the New York city Mayoral race is still local politics)?

Better writers can tell you- and I agree with the bullet points:

• Money doesn't matter
• Young people do vote
• You can say "controversial things."

"Controversial", at this point, can also just mean directly telling your voters what you're all about. And that's the difference— by directly getting involved with their constituents. By actually talking to them, by actually letting them know who they are and what their actual politics are all about. By not worrying about their positions, even, if it costs them positions within the party, due to it not being "their turn" .

This is the way it should be– politicians should only be famous for getting the word out – they should be celebrities, not for how much money they can earn or what positions of leadership they are in, but for people knowing who they are because they've talked to each other. That's it. It's that simple. Through communication through digestible messaging. By not looking down at the people you represent, but by actually wanting to represent them. Through real consideration. Through real empathy.

A politician should only be famous for getting the word of the people out, and not for anything else.

We should be getting rid of these "money earners" - we should be getting rid of these sort of politics in general. The right should be the party run by this greed - they have the motivation to do so. Why should the left have similar motivation if they claim to be the party of the working class? Why should the left sink to their level at all?

There are already talks of a splinter of sorts, of a formation of a third party. It seems people want this alternative of sorts. A lot of the blame goes can be attributed to both parties - the Republicans being the party of Trump and the Democrats' lack of action are to blame for this.

The Democrats are killing their own party, and for what? To keep positions of power that at this point, don't seem to really matter? To stay captains to a sinking ship?

Chuck can at least be proud knowing he was able.... to officially change the name of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" ... I guess he can pat himself on the back. I know I won't.