This post really gives me hope. Thank you, Tim. I really like People's Cabinet as a name because, as you mention, it invokes equality. This is one of the things the mumpers really want to destroy. The other is Truth.
Erin, I agree with you. This idea has given me enormous hope because it provides it way to oppose productively and communicate to people that there are much better alternatives that will serve the needs of the American people.
This is such a brilliant concept that actually DOES something proactive in real time. From a logistical standpoint, organization of the “People’s Cabinet” might best be accomplished by the DNC under their new leadership (Ben Wikler would be phenomenal here). Let’s make it happen.
Yes! Ben Wikler! We need to represent a younger generation of Democrats and Ben is a great organizer and coalition- builder between different progressive groups within the Democratic Party. We need a new vision, more allied with FDR than Clinton’s corporate Dems ( broadly seen as compromised and lacking courage.)
People's cabinet sounds right -- understandable, not to wonky, inclusive, attractive to the inevitable disappointed among the MAGA crowd. Who could criticize the "People's cabinet" -- even Trump might have trouble coming up with a slur nickname.
I'm all for a People's Cabinet. It is simple and the meaning is clear to all. Of course, those are also fighting words, meaning that we think the Mump Cabinet is not a people's cabinet. The idea that the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees and subcommittees could serve in parallel as the people’s cabinet is good. Because 1) They are there , because they have been elected and 2) They have experience with how government works
A little manipulation of my zip code I shared Dr. Snyders post thru Rep Raskin's Contact and asked him to contact Dr. Snyder with input. I like your recommendation! Also AOC, Sen Cory Booker and my Senator Chris Murphy and Liz Cheney
But NOT Dick Durbin of Judiciary as "People's A.G."! He's as bad as Merrick Garland. We need Adam Schiff from the Senate, and for the House, someone like: AOC, Eric Swalwell, Jamie Raskin, or former Rep. Katie Porter.
Who would you nominate for the People's Cabinet? I like Pete Buttigieg, Robert Reich, Stacey Abrams. Who else? Advisors could be Representative Clyburn and Senator Whitehouse.
I have a lot of respect for Robert Reich, but I think the People’s Cabinet needs new blood and fresh eyes. Rely on the old guard as a sounding board, but not as members of this initiative. I agree on Buttigieg and Abrams - still young and dynamic.
Yes, that’s why I vouched for Mayor Pete and Abrams. Lots of experience city and state wide, but with much broader experience. Another one would be Keisha Lance Bottoms, former mayor of Atlanta. But you could t have both Abrams and Bottoms.
I think we could have and need both. Robert Rich was a cabinet member on Clinton's administration. Secretary of Labor. He also predicted this oligarchic in 1994!! Tried to warn us!!
I like @Minority Leadership” to reference the whole cabinet and individually “Minority Leader for Transportation” or Health or foreign Policy and so in. There might be a little confusion with Senate Minority Leader but I’m okay with that.
I just received this important essay, and strongly agree with what’s proposed. It brought to mind a short poem by Philip Larkin, “New Eyes Each Year.” As a country, we need new and more eyes. Collectively, we can avoid worst outcomes.
I totally agree with you, Francesca. We need to invite new eyes and voices into the planning for a better world: Indigenous Peoples, educated youth, farmers, and so many others who've been left out of the conversation. We can do better. Let's get busy -- use this time to start making a list and reaching out. Two years and counting...
Exactly. Those who can communicate clearly need to help others who can’t, for whatever reason, do the same. There might be nothing more isolating than not being heard.
As I think about this, we're unlikely to hear those voices that we very much need to hear if we are behind a paywall. A way must be found to invite those voices, which are too often hidden because of a lack of means to participate.
Perhaps we can sponsor scholarships or find other ways to bring in points of view from those with very different lived experiences. This may also serve as the beginning of a dialogue we need to have as we face the consequences of Colonialism, Slavery, the Forced Internal-displacement of our Indigenous Peoples, the loss of the Family Farm, and the institution of (Japanese) Internment Camps, among other tragic choices in our history.
With all of the brilliant historians and others with government experience on this site, perhaps it's possible to form working groups made up of folks with different backgrounds who could speak the truth about our past policies, help to educate all of us and then allow us to listen more clearly to those who've lived through those policy choices. We don't want to make these same terrible decisions again.
It seems to me that we need to admit what has happened and then stop talking so that we can truly listen, and listen for a long time. There is likely to be a lack of trust at the beginning by those who have been left unheard for so long. But we need to begin.
This time that we have, sitting on the Group W bench, may turn out to be our gift after all.
“People’s Cabinet” has the virtues you identify. It conveys the sense that this is not a body prepared to assume power, as “opposition cabinet” might. But it leaves uncomfortably open the question of who are the people it represents and therefore how it is to be constituted. MAGATs are people and have their own claims to the term.
I was thinking of this possibility also. MAGA supporters (and the oligarchs in power) might say, "Hey, we ARE the people - remember? We won the election, including the popular vote." Also the connection some, perhaps not many, might make to a communist system - Stalin and the PPR.
On reflection, I am not certain that a "negative" tone is out of place. "Opposition" may be too long a word, but "people's" may sound too much like Sunday in the park. Opposition is what is called for.
I have repeatedly argued the same points made by Dr. Snyder supporting the need for an opposition not a resistance to counter the policies, programs, and positions of the Trump MAGA administration and his Republican enablers. Yes, it is important to oppose wrong headed policies and initiatives, and we can expect many of those requiring opposition. However, being only a resistance without alternatives to approaching challenges will not win the day or build the necessary collective will to build an electable majority to prevail in future elections.
The idea of a People’s Cabinet, or whatever label is eventually attached to it, that is aligned by policy areas and informed on issues and challenges to develop and promote alternative approaches to challenges and issues is essential. Those members of the People’s Cabinet can and should possess the policy chops and profiles to regularly communicate with the media to present those alternatives and explain in detail why those approaches are more likely to provide better outcomes.
People, voters, need to understand that the goal of facing challenges and developing solutions is not about promoting a political agenda or perpetuating political power. It should and must be about better outcomes. Most challenges are complex and not well understood by the general public. It should be the task of the People’s Cabinet to explain challenges and threats as well as the alternative approaches to facing them in ways that can be easily communicated and understood. It is not about trying to win the day with the best sound bites. It should be about truth telling and educating the public. It should be about communicating effectively alternatives that would promote better outcomes for all.
Whatever we decide to call it, the opposition needs to identify charismatic, informed, and respected leadership well aligned against individual policy areas and establish those individuals as recognized leadership of the opposition movement.
The concept of resistance, while necessary in the face of policies and initiatives that undermine democratic norms and societal well-being, is ultimately insufficient to build a durable coalition capable of governing and enacting meaningful change. Resistance, by its very nature, is reactive. It seeks to block, delay, or dismantle harmful initiatives but often fails to articulate a coherent vision for the future. For this reason, an organized opposition—one that is proactive, policy-driven, and solutions-oriented—is essential to counter the Trump MAGA administration and its Republican enablers effectively.
The key to this opposition lies in developing what could be termed a “People’s Cabinet.” This body would consist of policy experts, charismatic leaders, and communicators who can align their efforts across specific policy areas to present clear and compelling alternatives to the public. Such a structure would not only oppose wrongheaded policies but also educate the electorate on the challenges at hand and propose solutions grounded in evidence and focused on outcomes.
The Limitations of Resistance Alone
Resistance often rallies around the urgency of the moment, responding to each new affront to democracy, equity, or public welfare. While this energy can galvanize movements and mobilize voters, it risks being fragmented and inconsistent. Resistance without a vision can devolve into mere opposition, leaving the public with little sense of what an alternative future might look like. This approach might successfully block policies in the short term but is unlikely to build the collective will needed to form an electable majority in the long term.
Resistance also tends to focus on personalities—opposing Trump as an individual, for example—rather than systematically addressing the structural and policy issues that enable his administration and its enablers to thrive. Without a well-defined policy framework, the opposition risks being dismissed as negative or obstructive, a perception that plays into the hands of its opponents.
The Role of a People’s Cabinet
The idea of a People’s Cabinet addresses these limitations by creating a structured, policy-driven opposition. Members of this cabinet would be selected based on their expertise, communication skills, and ability to propose innovative solutions in specific policy areas such as healthcare, climate change, economic inequality, and criminal justice reform. These individuals would not only critique existing policies but also articulate detailed alternatives and explain why these alternatives would lead to better outcomes for the public.
This approach serves several purposes:
1. Educating the Public: Many challenges, such as climate change or income inequality, are complex and not well understood by the general public. The People’s Cabinet would have the responsibility of breaking down these issues in accessible terms, helping voters understand the stakes and the potential paths forward.
2. Promoting Truth and Transparency: In an era of disinformation, the People’s Cabinet would serve as a trusted source of factual, evidence-based analysis and proposals. This would not only counter the propaganda of the MAGA movement but also rebuild public trust in democratic institutions.
3. Shifting the Narrative: By focusing on solutions rather than soundbites, the People’s Cabinet could change the political conversation from one of conflict to one of constructive problem-solving, appealing to voters across ideological divides.
4. Creating a Leadership Pipeline: By elevating individuals with expertise and charisma, the People’s Cabinet would cultivate a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the opposition’s vision into electoral success.
Building an Electable Majority
The ultimate goal of an organized opposition is to build a majority coalition that can win elections and govern effectively. This requires not only opposing the policies and programs of the MAGA administration but also offering a vision of governance that inspires hope and confidence. Voters need to see that the opposition is not merely a collection of critics but a team of leaders who are prepared to tackle the nation’s challenges with competence and integrity.
To achieve this, the opposition must communicate effectively across diverse audiences. This means tailoring messages to resonate with different communities while maintaining a consistent focus on outcomes rather than ideology. The People’s Cabinet would play a crucial role in this effort by serving as a unified voice for the opposition’s policy platform.
An organized opposition aligned by policy areas is not just a strategic necessity; it is a moral imperative. The challenges facing the United States—whether economic inequality, climate change, or threats to democracy—are too great to be addressed by resistance alone. The People’s Cabinet represents a bold and innovative approach to building a proactive, solutions-oriented opposition that can educate the public, inspire voters, and ultimately lead the nation toward better outcomes for all.
By focusing on truth-telling, effective communication, and evidence-based alternatives, the People’s Cabinet can help shift the political discourse from one of division to one of possibility. In doing so, it would not only counter the policies of the Trump MAGA administration but also lay the groundwork for a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future.
Stick with Shadow Cabinet. The term has a long history and it has not been changed in all the years it’s been in use in parliamentary democracies, proving its timelessness. Furthermore, when people don’t understand what the Democrats are doing, we can point to the Shadow Cabinets in the UK and Canada as examples we are following. These shadow cabinets are the loyal opposition, and that loyalty is to the Constitution and the democratic norms that sustain our democracy and the rights freedoms we enjoy under it.
People’s is out because it has historically been used by ostensibly Marxist regimes. For example, formal name of China is the People’s Republic of China. In the 60’s, peopled enamored of communal living set up people’s parks, committees, etc. The name is associated with both authoritarian regimes and naïve attempts at socialist organization. These are not good associations for the institution that Timothy Snyder proposes. The name used has to evoke a dedication to constitutional democracy, the accountability of the elected and of those appointed and confirmed by the Senate to serve in the Executive branch. This is precisely the connotation of the term shadow cabinet as it has long been used.
Use all of these labels to familiarize the public as part of educating ourselves on these concepts and practices.
Clear explanations of purpose and policy are more important than labels. The message is more meaningful when it spreads into multiple channels from different angles.
Give the behaviors a body, and the bigger and more lively that body the better.
TS: "The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is open. Candidates could make a people’s cabinet part of their platform and explain how they would form it. This would be an obvious first step." A next step would be KISS. Have Shadow State, Defense, HHS, DNI, Justice, and Treasury. Start there. Elect them right along with the leadership of the DNC - from among those ranks. And OBTW- if this idea has legs, it won't be an exclusively "Democrat" effort down the road.
I agree with that--if it effective during the Trump years, there will be one formed during the next Democratic Administration. And I think that would be useful.
I have read some really interesting analysis lately (Noah Smith and Reuben Gallego) faulting Dems for listening to the leaders of special interest groups instead of to the members of the groups. Gallego was saying that the immigrant contingent in his constituency, in Arizona, WANTS immigration control. Noah Smith wrote that the members of the Steelworkers Union saw Japan's offer to buy US Steel as saving the US steel industry. We all need to listen to a lot of voices, and the People's Cabinet would further that project.
The only problem with such nomenclature is that it sounds far too much like so much of the Soviet terminology. (The People’s Courts, etc) which were in actuality a venue for Stalin’s show trials.
This post really gives me hope. Thank you, Tim. I really like People's Cabinet as a name because, as you mention, it invokes equality. This is one of the things the mumpers really want to destroy. The other is Truth.
Is there something we can all do right now to start to get this great idea to happen? Maybe a petition to send the DNC candidates? Other ideas?
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
Erin, I agree with you. This idea has given me enormous hope because it provides it way to oppose productively and communicate to people that there are much better alternatives that will serve the needs of the American people.
This is such a brilliant concept that actually DOES something proactive in real time. From a logistical standpoint, organization of the “People’s Cabinet” might best be accomplished by the DNC under their new leadership (Ben Wikler would be phenomenal here). Let’s make it happen.
Yes, I hope Ben Wikler is named DNC Chair. He's terrific!!
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
Yes! Ben Wikler! We need to represent a younger generation of Democrats and Ben is a great organizer and coalition- builder between different progressive groups within the Democratic Party. We need a new vision, more allied with FDR than Clinton’s corporate Dems ( broadly seen as compromised and lacking courage.)
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
I totally agree with this
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
People's cabinet sounds right -- understandable, not to wonky, inclusive, attractive to the inevitable disappointed among the MAGA crowd. Who could criticize the "People's cabinet" -- even Trump might have trouble coming up with a slur nickname.
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
I'm all for a People's Cabinet. It is simple and the meaning is clear to all. Of course, those are also fighting words, meaning that we think the Mump Cabinet is not a people's cabinet. The idea that the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees and subcommittees could serve in parallel as the people’s cabinet is good. Because 1) They are there , because they have been elected and 2) They have experience with how government works
Actually I am wrong - It is not the Committees Chairs who should be in the People's Cabinet, but the Ranking Members
Jamie Raskin would be fantastic!
A little manipulation of my zip code I shared Dr. Snyders post thru Rep Raskin's Contact and asked him to contact Dr. Snyder with input. I like your recommendation! Also AOC, Sen Cory Booker and my Senator Chris Murphy and Liz Cheney
Former Senators and Representatives, like Bob Casey or Cori Bush could be called to the People's Cabinet.
Along these lines, Sherrod Brown.
Ranking Cabinet would be a good name that people would recognize, and would continue to work in a post-MAGA administration - yes, there will be one!
But NOT Dick Durbin of Judiciary as "People's A.G."! He's as bad as Merrick Garland. We need Adam Schiff from the Senate, and for the House, someone like: AOC, Eric Swalwell, Jamie Raskin, or former Rep. Katie Porter.
Of course, the Trumper/Mumpers are always saying THEY represent the will of the American People! Well, that isn't exactly true.
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
I support a “People’s Cabinet” and will contact my Senators and Representatives to urge them to make this happen.
I will forward both of Timothy’s articles regarding this topic to Lloyd Doggett who would consider it and Cruz and Cornyn…not so much…
This is Dems. Don’t need or want anything from Cruz or Cronyn.
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
Who would you nominate for the People's Cabinet? I like Pete Buttigieg, Robert Reich, Stacey Abrams. Who else? Advisors could be Representative Clyburn and Senator Whitehouse.
Jamie Raskin, Sheldon Whitehouse
I emailed both , and AOC with a link to this and last weeks original post I like your idea!
I have a lot of respect for Robert Reich, but I think the People’s Cabinet needs new blood and fresh eyes. Rely on the old guard as a sounding board, but not as members of this initiative. I agree on Buttigieg and Abrams - still young and dynamic.
We need a balance of new blood and fresh eyes with the wisdom of experience and the facility of being a known character/intellect/worker.
Yes, that’s why I vouched for Mayor Pete and Abrams. Lots of experience city and state wide, but with much broader experience. Another one would be Keisha Lance Bottoms, former mayor of Atlanta. But you could t have both Abrams and Bottoms.
I think we could have and need both. Robert Rich was a cabinet member on Clinton's administration. Secretary of Labor. He also predicted this oligarchic in 1994!! Tried to warn us!!
Melissa Slotkin, Gary Peters (senators from michigan)
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
I like @Minority Leadership” to reference the whole cabinet and individually “Minority Leader for Transportation” or Health or foreign Policy and so in. There might be a little confusion with Senate Minority Leader but I’m okay with that.
Excellent straightforward title.
But the out-of-power party might not actually be in the minority as when someone wins the popular vote but not the electoral college.
Watch DNC forum for DNC chair and other DNC offices at 11am Sat Jan 11. https://www.youtube.com/live/Ge4L-qIgbsE?si=sr1TQcbt5uVvsiac.
The People's Cabinet is now in session.
Did someone bring donuts and coffee?
That brings up how does the Opposition Cabinet actually function in Britain? Do they have separate sessions, etc.?
I just received this important essay, and strongly agree with what’s proposed. It brought to mind a short poem by Philip Larkin, “New Eyes Each Year.” As a country, we need new and more eyes. Collectively, we can avoid worst outcomes.
New eyes each year
Find old books here,
And new books,too,
Old eyes renew;
So youth and age
Like ink and page
In this house join,
Minting new coin.
I totally agree with you, Francesca. We need to invite new eyes and voices into the planning for a better world: Indigenous Peoples, educated youth, farmers, and so many others who've been left out of the conversation. We can do better. Let's get busy -- use this time to start making a list and reaching out. Two years and counting...
Exactly. Those who can communicate clearly need to help others who can’t, for whatever reason, do the same. There might be nothing more isolating than not being heard.
As I think about this, we're unlikely to hear those voices that we very much need to hear if we are behind a paywall. A way must be found to invite those voices, which are too often hidden because of a lack of means to participate.
Perhaps we can sponsor scholarships or find other ways to bring in points of view from those with very different lived experiences. This may also serve as the beginning of a dialogue we need to have as we face the consequences of Colonialism, Slavery, the Forced Internal-displacement of our Indigenous Peoples, the loss of the Family Farm, and the institution of (Japanese) Internment Camps, among other tragic choices in our history.
With all of the brilliant historians and others with government experience on this site, perhaps it's possible to form working groups made up of folks with different backgrounds who could speak the truth about our past policies, help to educate all of us and then allow us to listen more clearly to those who've lived through those policy choices. We don't want to make these same terrible decisions again.
It seems to me that we need to admit what has happened and then stop talking so that we can truly listen, and listen for a long time. There is likely to be a lack of trust at the beginning by those who have been left unheard for so long. But we need to begin.
This time that we have, sitting on the Group W bench, may turn out to be our gift after all.
“People’s Cabinet” has the virtues you identify. It conveys the sense that this is not a body prepared to assume power, as “opposition cabinet” might. But it leaves uncomfortably open the question of who are the people it represents and therefore how it is to be constituted. MAGATs are people and have their own claims to the term.
And for these reasons, I tend to favor, even wth the possible dissing, of Shadow Cabinet, due to its well known use in the UK.
If this can be initiated, and pretty quickly, doubtless the body itself might have ideas on its name.
I was thinking of this possibility also. MAGA supporters (and the oligarchs in power) might say, "Hey, we ARE the people - remember? We won the election, including the popular vote." Also the connection some, perhaps not many, might make to a communist system - Stalin and the PPR.
On reflection, I am not certain that a "negative" tone is out of place. "Opposition" may be too long a word, but "people's" may sound too much like Sunday in the park. Opposition is what is called for.
I vote for People's Cabinet. That's versus the Billionaire Cabinet or Mump Cabinet.
You could members of the Mump Cabinet Mumps -- like Trump and his Mumps.
Thanks for writing this as it uplifted my spirits, ones that had settled into a perpetual state of doom. I like the sounds of People's Cabinet.
I have repeatedly argued the same points made by Dr. Snyder supporting the need for an opposition not a resistance to counter the policies, programs, and positions of the Trump MAGA administration and his Republican enablers. Yes, it is important to oppose wrong headed policies and initiatives, and we can expect many of those requiring opposition. However, being only a resistance without alternatives to approaching challenges will not win the day or build the necessary collective will to build an electable majority to prevail in future elections.
The idea of a People’s Cabinet, or whatever label is eventually attached to it, that is aligned by policy areas and informed on issues and challenges to develop and promote alternative approaches to challenges and issues is essential. Those members of the People’s Cabinet can and should possess the policy chops and profiles to regularly communicate with the media to present those alternatives and explain in detail why those approaches are more likely to provide better outcomes.
People, voters, need to understand that the goal of facing challenges and developing solutions is not about promoting a political agenda or perpetuating political power. It should and must be about better outcomes. Most challenges are complex and not well understood by the general public. It should be the task of the People’s Cabinet to explain challenges and threats as well as the alternative approaches to facing them in ways that can be easily communicated and understood. It is not about trying to win the day with the best sound bites. It should be about truth telling and educating the public. It should be about communicating effectively alternatives that would promote better outcomes for all.
Whatever we decide to call it, the opposition needs to identify charismatic, informed, and respected leadership well aligned against individual policy areas and establish those individuals as recognized leadership of the opposition movement.
The concept of resistance, while necessary in the face of policies and initiatives that undermine democratic norms and societal well-being, is ultimately insufficient to build a durable coalition capable of governing and enacting meaningful change. Resistance, by its very nature, is reactive. It seeks to block, delay, or dismantle harmful initiatives but often fails to articulate a coherent vision for the future. For this reason, an organized opposition—one that is proactive, policy-driven, and solutions-oriented—is essential to counter the Trump MAGA administration and its Republican enablers effectively.
The key to this opposition lies in developing what could be termed a “People’s Cabinet.” This body would consist of policy experts, charismatic leaders, and communicators who can align their efforts across specific policy areas to present clear and compelling alternatives to the public. Such a structure would not only oppose wrongheaded policies but also educate the electorate on the challenges at hand and propose solutions grounded in evidence and focused on outcomes.
The Limitations of Resistance Alone
Resistance often rallies around the urgency of the moment, responding to each new affront to democracy, equity, or public welfare. While this energy can galvanize movements and mobilize voters, it risks being fragmented and inconsistent. Resistance without a vision can devolve into mere opposition, leaving the public with little sense of what an alternative future might look like. This approach might successfully block policies in the short term but is unlikely to build the collective will needed to form an electable majority in the long term.
Resistance also tends to focus on personalities—opposing Trump as an individual, for example—rather than systematically addressing the structural and policy issues that enable his administration and its enablers to thrive. Without a well-defined policy framework, the opposition risks being dismissed as negative or obstructive, a perception that plays into the hands of its opponents.
The Role of a People’s Cabinet
The idea of a People’s Cabinet addresses these limitations by creating a structured, policy-driven opposition. Members of this cabinet would be selected based on their expertise, communication skills, and ability to propose innovative solutions in specific policy areas such as healthcare, climate change, economic inequality, and criminal justice reform. These individuals would not only critique existing policies but also articulate detailed alternatives and explain why these alternatives would lead to better outcomes for the public.
This approach serves several purposes:
1. Educating the Public: Many challenges, such as climate change or income inequality, are complex and not well understood by the general public. The People’s Cabinet would have the responsibility of breaking down these issues in accessible terms, helping voters understand the stakes and the potential paths forward.
2. Promoting Truth and Transparency: In an era of disinformation, the People’s Cabinet would serve as a trusted source of factual, evidence-based analysis and proposals. This would not only counter the propaganda of the MAGA movement but also rebuild public trust in democratic institutions.
3. Shifting the Narrative: By focusing on solutions rather than soundbites, the People’s Cabinet could change the political conversation from one of conflict to one of constructive problem-solving, appealing to voters across ideological divides.
4. Creating a Leadership Pipeline: By elevating individuals with expertise and charisma, the People’s Cabinet would cultivate a new generation of leaders capable of carrying the opposition’s vision into electoral success.
Building an Electable Majority
The ultimate goal of an organized opposition is to build a majority coalition that can win elections and govern effectively. This requires not only opposing the policies and programs of the MAGA administration but also offering a vision of governance that inspires hope and confidence. Voters need to see that the opposition is not merely a collection of critics but a team of leaders who are prepared to tackle the nation’s challenges with competence and integrity.
To achieve this, the opposition must communicate effectively across diverse audiences. This means tailoring messages to resonate with different communities while maintaining a consistent focus on outcomes rather than ideology. The People’s Cabinet would play a crucial role in this effort by serving as a unified voice for the opposition’s policy platform.
An organized opposition aligned by policy areas is not just a strategic necessity; it is a moral imperative. The challenges facing the United States—whether economic inequality, climate change, or threats to democracy—are too great to be addressed by resistance alone. The People’s Cabinet represents a bold and innovative approach to building a proactive, solutions-oriented opposition that can educate the public, inspire voters, and ultimately lead the nation toward better outcomes for all.
By focusing on truth-telling, effective communication, and evidence-based alternatives, the People’s Cabinet can help shift the political discourse from one of division to one of possibility. In doing so, it would not only counter the policies of the Trump MAGA administration but also lay the groundwork for a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future.
I nominate Dr. Timothy Snyder to help with the formation of the People’s Cabinet 🙋♂️Is there a second to that motion?
I think there are many seconds !
And we seem to have already started the minutes! The future is ours unless we go into a daze and grow weak in the coming months!
Stick with Shadow Cabinet. The term has a long history and it has not been changed in all the years it’s been in use in parliamentary democracies, proving its timelessness. Furthermore, when people don’t understand what the Democrats are doing, we can point to the Shadow Cabinets in the UK and Canada as examples we are following. These shadow cabinets are the loyal opposition, and that loyalty is to the Constitution and the democratic norms that sustain our democracy and the rights freedoms we enjoy under it.
Despite its long history, Shadow Cabinet sounds a bit “Deep State” to me. The People’s Cabinet sounds open and inclusive.
People’s is out because it has historically been used by ostensibly Marxist regimes. For example, formal name of China is the People’s Republic of China. In the 60’s, peopled enamored of communal living set up people’s parks, committees, etc. The name is associated with both authoritarian regimes and naïve attempts at socialist organization. These are not good associations for the institution that Timothy Snyder proposes. The name used has to evoke a dedication to constitutional democracy, the accountability of the elected and of those appointed and confirmed by the Senate to serve in the Executive branch. This is precisely the connotation of the term shadow cabinet as it has long been used.
I had the same reaction initially but if we keep the p lower case we can take back patriot and people for we the people's use.
Use all of these labels to familiarize the public as part of educating ourselves on these concepts and practices.
Clear explanations of purpose and policy are more important than labels. The message is more meaningful when it spreads into multiple channels from different angles.
Give the behaviors a body, and the bigger and more lively that body the better.
TS: "The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is open. Candidates could make a people’s cabinet part of their platform and explain how they would form it. This would be an obvious first step." A next step would be KISS. Have Shadow State, Defense, HHS, DNI, Justice, and Treasury. Start there. Elect them right along with the leadership of the DNC - from among those ranks. And OBTW- if this idea has legs, it won't be an exclusively "Democrat" effort down the road.
I agree with that--if it effective during the Trump years, there will be one formed during the next Democratic Administration. And I think that would be useful.
I have read some really interesting analysis lately (Noah Smith and Reuben Gallego) faulting Dems for listening to the leaders of special interest groups instead of to the members of the groups. Gallego was saying that the immigrant contingent in his constituency, in Arizona, WANTS immigration control. Noah Smith wrote that the members of the Steelworkers Union saw Japan's offer to buy US Steel as saving the US steel industry. We all need to listen to a lot of voices, and the People's Cabinet would further that project.
"“People’s cabinet” sounds right.”
The only problem with such nomenclature is that it sounds far too much like so much of the Soviet terminology. (The People’s Courts, etc) which were in actuality a venue for Stalin’s show trials.
CITIZENS Cabinet. It implies interest, activism, and empowerment.
But not all the people who should have a voice are citizens.