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.
Steve you named the title Shadow Cabinet when several people preferred Peoples Cabinet. I like what you wrote but not the name and the way you decided what the name should be seems to reflect your preference and not the group. Are you willing to change the name? I think you would get mpre support this way.
Sure- I’ll amend it to use both! I agree people’s cabinet is better for external consumption and is what it should ultimately be named, but wanted to use a term consistent with the existing links and posts so people this petition is aimed at- engaged dem voters- would immediately know what we were talking about. Didnt meant to be undemocratic about it!
Yup, I just posted my idea, but here it is again: Timothy sets up a separate Substack: The People's Cabinet, there would be a dedicated place to a) flesh out the concept in detail, b) send prospective candidates, c) start a following dedicated to this project, d) track real time updates.
@dougshortridge has just suggested that he'll set up a Substack hub so we can start pulling this together. I suggest you subscribe, or at least follow him. And let's see how we pull this People's Cabinet into reality!
Note: if you are "liking" this comment and want to take it further, @dougshortridge has just suggested that he'll set up a Substack hub so we can start pulling this together.
I suggest you subscribe, or at least follow him. And let's see how we pull this People's Cabinet into reality!
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.)
I'm also for Peoples Cabinet. Should this idea become very popular among politicians, it would behoove the cause to select folks who have shown an interest in the truth with ambition and more than just name recognition. Whoever populates this cabinet must rely on experts in the subject matter, be it scientists, economist, engineers, environmentalists, medical professionals, etc.
I agree that a good start would be some of Biden's star cabinet members.
Yes! This is not just a forum for politicians but a coalition of bright minds who are fearless of purpose. And I don’t mean just “experts” or the super-educated. If this is truly to be a people’s cabinet, it should reflect the range of knowledge and experience from the fields and small shops as well as the halls of Congress.
No, People is already plural - the possessive is People's. Like children for example, already a plural word, possessive is children's, ie, children's books.
Actually, Sandie, pluralizing People suggests many different people (usually from different nations or ethnicities). While the US abounds in ethnicities, it is, as a nation, one people. So, People's is correct. Did give you a "Love" because I'm a grammar nerd from a family of such and enjoy sane debates, which have been in short supply lately.
“People’s” is a singular possessive form, but don’t let that confuse you. Even though “people” sounds plural (and it is when used alone), “people’s” refers to the belongings or qualities of a group considered as a whole. It’s like saying “the citizens’ rights” but for any group of people, not just citizens.
Examples:
The people’s choice is clear in this election.
(What the group, as a whole, prefers)
The people’s park is open from dawn till dusk.
(The park belonging to the community)
The people’s representative speaks on their behalf.
(The representative of the populace)
Peoples’ (Plural Possessive)
“Peoples'” is the plural possessive form and is used less commonly. It refers to things belonging to multiple groups of people, often from different nations or ethnic groups. Each group is considered distinct from the others."
It appears factual to suggest that American democracy is or is being made such when it is understood to be the work of the American peoples, that it is by choice and by action a peoples' democracy.
I like "Peoples'" because it speaks to the vast panoply of origins and experiences of the peoples who would strive together to overcome harm done by mump.
As I started down the comments I began to think this too! I think of the people who voted for mump but who will be mis-served by them. Peoples' Cabinet evokes many coming together.
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
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.
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
Katie Porter (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), all experienced office holders, should be part of the development of the People's Cabinet and also act as advisors.
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!!
Cam, it is not a ruling cabinet. It is a pseudo cabinet. A medicine cabinet. Youth is devoid of sage advice. The idea was to be a sounding board that media would be crazy not to avail themselves of since it is free and so very experienced. Am I wrong on that?
I’m fully versed in shadow cabinets, as I live in a Parliamentary Democracy. Here they’re used exclusively by members of the Loyal Opposition - a term unfamiliar to your style of Government. Each shadow cabinet member’s responsibility is to become familiar enough with the subject matter of their portfolio so that they can contribute to holding the government to account in their particular role.
Yes. I am trying my best to adapt it. Really trying to do that. My main point is that cabinet is a government function and counsel is what Dr. Synder suggests here, but does not name it so. He names it cabinet also. A failure to communicate comes with Carl, Cam.
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.
I'm glad you raised important issues that would need representation via this people's cabinet. Deb Haaland, outgoing head of the Dept of Interior should be on this list.
Someone might ask George Takai, who's very politically active (a major presence on Bluesky) for input. He spent three years in an internment camp as a child.
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.
No separate sessions. Their function in the House of Commons is to lead their party as they engage the government in ongoing debates and votes about proposed legislation. They are not really any different from the other elected legislators of their party in opposition - except in that they are the recognised lead spokesperson for the department that they shadow, and supposedly have a command of their brief. But this does mean that they are the go-to legislators for the press and broadcast media when they wish to cover the opposition's policy or point of view, and thus they have a public profile (some of them are adept at using social media, too) Sometimes their influence is well beyond their competence.
I should add, that the UK shadow cabinet is a good place for an ambitious politician, as it is often referred to as "the government-in-waiting". The set-up here obviously is not directly transferable to the American system - not until your President is required to be the official leader of his party and an elected member of Congress - who can pick his cabinet only from among his fellow elected legislators! With, of course, an elected Shadow President in Congress.
“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.
MAGA supporters (in a way quite unlike corporations) are ‘people too, my friend”. In someways they are the ones most affected (or afflicted - “justifiably” or not) by shame and guilt arising from being victimized and victimizing (in micro or major) ways. It’s urgent to consider how they still need to be engaged to every extent possible. There are ways (believe it or not) that we are ALL (always already) “lost causes” but we are also always MORE!!!
Whatever it is called, and I wholeheartedly endorse the concept, the question is how it would be formed. Someone would need to take the lead. How would they be legitimized? In a parliamentary shadow cabinet, it would fall to Hakeem Jeffries. Should we be writing to him, or calling, to ask that he take it on? Or AOC? Or someone not obvious? Is there another mechanism?
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.
No, no! “People’s” has too many communist/socialist connotations. Take it from someone in the Communications industry - this is not a good marketing strategy. People’s cabinet will only speak to those left of center. If you want to appeal to people from the middle and center right who are on the fence and who won’t worry that hard left Marxists are the opposition, you can’t sound like anything reminiscent of the People’s Republic of China. Please reconsider.
But is this an opportunity to reclaim "people" for our purposes? Keep the p small and it could work. Like patriot, we the people can use the words we please and do so effectively when we act and speak in ways that defy distortion and smears.
Frankly, I don’t think we should be overly concerned with how red-baiting has been (and CONTINUES to be) used to divide and demoralize us.
Ever since the 2016 debacle that electorated Trump, I have not been shy about identifying as a “rule-of-law COMMUNIST (though with any thoughtful person who wants to engage me earnestly, I will allow that I can’t see much difference between a “rule-of-law” Communist, a Democratic Socialist, or a progressive New Deal Democrat. (I’m retired now, but my first decade or so of submitting resumes included *similar* provocations/full disclosures.)
Discussions of Communism should involve separating out the ruthlessness of ruling Maoists and Bolsheviks from the idealism AND the desperation that allowed them to seize power. A study of the Paris Commune should offer some of the same as well as different hard lessons that were highlighted by Marx and Engels. Also, there is much to salvage in the materialist theories of Marx as long as we reject the determinism. (This is true even if one doesn’t wholly buy into materialism.) Frankly, I have a lot of respect for Christians who “keep their faith” even if they don’t buy into every orthodoxy or endorse the Crusades (including the Cathar crusade from where we get the phrase “Kill them all. Let God sort them out!), the Spanish Inquisition, and a legacy of anti-Semitic pogroms. I extend the same respect to those who keep the faith with Marx and also with lesser known left libertarian thinkers.
I don’t want to claim that anyone is being “cowed” by reactionary or reflexively anti-communist red-scare habits of mind, but we have to value and valorize the history of workers’ resistance to corporate tyranny and that means the honoring history of international and US socialism/communism/anarchism because it was people who called themselves Communists, Socialists, and Anarchist who were at the forefront of the labor movement and many forms of anti-racism and even feminism. I call myself a rule-of-law Communist both to honor their memory and also to demonstrate a commitment to learning from mistakes that some of them made or the actual heinous crimes of others that are still being wrongly used to taint EVERy notion associated with freedom, equality, and justice in any workable (as opposed to honorific or empty formal) sense.
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.
OK, here is a petition to sign! Please forward.
https://chng.it/vfB6gJjFvB
Steve you named the title Shadow Cabinet when several people preferred Peoples Cabinet. I like what you wrote but not the name and the way you decided what the name should be seems to reflect your preference and not the group. Are you willing to change the name? I think you would get mpre support this way.
Sure- I’ll amend it to use both! I agree people’s cabinet is better for external consumption and is what it should ultimately be named, but wanted to use a term consistent with the existing links and posts so people this petition is aimed at- engaged dem voters- would immediately know what we were talking about. Didnt meant to be undemocratic about it!
Let’s not get hung up on the name! Let’s get this half imagined thing closer to reality. A name will emerge.
Are you the Republican Stephen Engel?
No- not even a little! It was so annoying when he was in the news. If you google with a ph in our first name I am the scientist/professor who comes up
Yup, I just posted my idea, but here it is again: Timothy sets up a separate Substack: The People's Cabinet, there would be a dedicated place to a) flesh out the concept in detail, b) send prospective candidates, c) start a following dedicated to this project, d) track real time updates.
Sounds like a great idea to me! Let me know if you need help with anything.
@dougshortridge has just suggested that he'll set up a Substack hub so we can start pulling this together. I suggest you subscribe, or at least follow him. And let's see how we pull this People's Cabinet into reality!
https://substack.com/@dougshortridge
The first 17 candidates should be the IGs that were/are being fired. They know their agencies well and have a history/reputation for truth-telling.
Note: if you are "liking" this comment and want to take it further, @dougshortridge has just suggested that he'll set up a Substack hub so we can start pulling this together.
I suggest you subscribe, or at least follow him. And let's see how we pull this People's Cabinet into reality!
https://substack.com/@dougshortridge
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.
Well, maybe not "enormous."
mumpers? Labels are so nice.
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'm also for Peoples Cabinet. Should this idea become very popular among politicians, it would behoove the cause to select folks who have shown an interest in the truth with ambition and more than just name recognition. Whoever populates this cabinet must rely on experts in the subject matter, be it scientists, economist, engineers, environmentalists, medical professionals, etc.
I agree that a good start would be some of Biden's star cabinet members.
Yes! This is not just a forum for politicians but a coalition of bright minds who are fearless of purpose. And I don’t mean just “experts” or the super-educated. If this is truly to be a people’s cabinet, it should reflect the range of knowledge and experience from the fields and small shops as well as the halls of Congress.
Membership should start with the 17 IGs that were/are being fired. They know their agencies very well and have a history of independence.
I totally agree with this
I believe the correct punctuation and spelling should be: The Peoples' Candidate
No, People is already plural - the possessive is People's. Like children for example, already a plural word, possessive is children's, ie, children's books.
Actually, Sandie, pluralizing People suggests many different people (usually from different nations or ethnicities). While the US abounds in ethnicities, it is, as a nation, one people. So, People's is correct. Did give you a "Love" because I'm a grammar nerd from a family of such and enjoy sane debates, which have been in short supply lately.
Thank you, Peggy, for this clarification and this distinction.
Using "peoples' " does seem much more descriptively robust in this case and more to the point of inclusive and cooperative assessing and proposing.
In snooping around for some improving of my references about this word suggestion, this appears at https://englishoverview.com/peoples-and-peoples/ :
" People’s (Singular Possessive)
“People’s” is a singular possessive form, but don’t let that confuse you. Even though “people” sounds plural (and it is when used alone), “people’s” refers to the belongings or qualities of a group considered as a whole. It’s like saying “the citizens’ rights” but for any group of people, not just citizens.
Examples:
The people’s choice is clear in this election.
(What the group, as a whole, prefers)
The people’s park is open from dawn till dusk.
(The park belonging to the community)
The people’s representative speaks on their behalf.
(The representative of the populace)
Peoples’ (Plural Possessive)
“Peoples'” is the plural possessive form and is used less commonly. It refers to things belonging to multiple groups of people, often from different nations or ethnic groups. Each group is considered distinct from the others."
It appears factual to suggest that American democracy is or is being made such when it is understood to be the work of the American peoples, that it is by choice and by action a peoples' democracy.
I like "Peoples'" because it speaks to the vast panoply of origins and experiences of the peoples who would strive together to overcome harm done by mump.
You are so right. My error. Thanks for the correction.f
As I started down the comments I began to think this too! I think of the people who voted for mump but who will be mis-served by them. Peoples' Cabinet evokes many coming together.
You're telling us that Amerikans are not Ein Volk? Come to think of that, it may be a good idea.
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
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.
I hear Jack Smith needs a new job...
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
Jon Tester as well.
Former Senators and Representatives, like Bob Casey or Cori Bush could be called to the People's Cabinet.
Along these lines, Sherrod Brown.
Katie Porter (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), all experienced office holders, should be part of the development of the People's Cabinet and also act as advisors.
All great suggestions.
(Imagining Katie making the case with one of her famous white boards)
Jon Tester (MT)
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!
Except the term "ranking" is used for the party that's not in the majority. Hopefully that won't apply to Dems any more after 2026 elections.
Of course, the Trumper/Mumpers are always saying THEY represent the will of the American People! Well, that isn't exactly true.
Labels are so nice.
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.
Keisha is definitely a"major" suggestion. Buttigieg and Abrams are not super suggestions in my book, but Major Lance's daughter. YES!
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!!
Robert Reich would be great. Adam Schiff.
Cam, it is not a ruling cabinet. It is a pseudo cabinet. A medicine cabinet. Youth is devoid of sage advice. The idea was to be a sounding board that media would be crazy not to avail themselves of since it is free and so very experienced. Am I wrong on that?
I’m fully versed in shadow cabinets, as I live in a Parliamentary Democracy. Here they’re used exclusively by members of the Loyal Opposition - a term unfamiliar to your style of Government. Each shadow cabinet member’s responsibility is to become familiar enough with the subject matter of their portfolio so that they can contribute to holding the government to account in their particular role.
It is foreign to us. The cabinet word is the culprit. We don’t have a loyal opposition. Ours is cutthroat.
Isn’t that the point of Dr. Snyder’s foray into this concept on how to adapt it to the government work of your Republic.
Yes. I am trying my best to adapt it. Really trying to do that. My main point is that cabinet is a government function and counsel is what Dr. Synder suggests here, but does not name it so. He names it cabinet also. A failure to communicate comes with Carl, Cam.
Melissa Slotkin, Gary Peters (senators from michigan)
AOC Elizabeth Warren
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad you raised important issues that would need representation via this people's cabinet. Deb Haaland, outgoing head of the Dept of Interior should be on this list.
Someone might ask George Takai, who's very politically active (a major presence on Bluesky) for input. He spent three years in an internment camp as a child.
Awesome! Great ideas. Thanks.
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!
: )
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.?
No separate sessions. Their function in the House of Commons is to lead their party as they engage the government in ongoing debates and votes about proposed legislation. They are not really any different from the other elected legislators of their party in opposition - except in that they are the recognised lead spokesperson for the department that they shadow, and supposedly have a command of their brief. But this does mean that they are the go-to legislators for the press and broadcast media when they wish to cover the opposition's policy or point of view, and thus they have a public profile (some of them are adept at using social media, too) Sometimes their influence is well beyond their competence.
I should add, that the UK shadow cabinet is a good place for an ambitious politician, as it is often referred to as "the government-in-waiting". The set-up here obviously is not directly transferable to the American system - not until your President is required to be the official leader of his party and an elected member of Congress - who can pick his cabinet only from among his fellow elected legislators! With, of course, an elected Shadow President in Congress.
Thanks, Karen Lewton, for the very useful information furthering defining what we might be looking to do.
I really hope, very much, that you can find a format that works for you. It would be a source of hope on this side of the Atlantic, too.
I definitely understand your perspective -- I'm Ukrainian....
“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.
MAGA supporters (in a way quite unlike corporations) are ‘people too, my friend”. In someways they are the ones most affected (or afflicted - “justifiably” or not) by shame and guilt arising from being victimized and victimizing (in micro or major) ways. It’s urgent to consider how they still need to be engaged to every extent possible. There are ways (believe it or not) that we are ALL (always already) “lost causes” but we are also always MORE!!!
Correction: I mean PRC. People's Republic of China.
Whatever it is called, and I wholeheartedly endorse the concept, the question is how it would be formed. Someone would need to take the lead. How would they be legitimized? In a parliamentary shadow cabinet, it would fall to Hakeem Jeffries. Should we be writing to him, or calling, to ask that he take it on? Or AOC? Or someone not obvious? Is there another mechanism?
How about Sheldon Whitehouse? He has the sensibility for it.
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.
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.
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 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.
Freedom cabinet. Appeals to all.
No, no! “People’s” has too many communist/socialist connotations. Take it from someone in the Communications industry - this is not a good marketing strategy. People’s cabinet will only speak to those left of center. If you want to appeal to people from the middle and center right who are on the fence and who won’t worry that hard left Marxists are the opposition, you can’t sound like anything reminiscent of the People’s Republic of China. Please reconsider.
Excellent point. People's Cabinet is a no-go.
But is this an opportunity to reclaim "people" for our purposes? Keep the p small and it could work. Like patriot, we the people can use the words we please and do so effectively when we act and speak in ways that defy distortion and smears.
Frankly, I don’t think we should be overly concerned with how red-baiting has been (and CONTINUES to be) used to divide and demoralize us.
Ever since the 2016 debacle that electorated Trump, I have not been shy about identifying as a “rule-of-law COMMUNIST (though with any thoughtful person who wants to engage me earnestly, I will allow that I can’t see much difference between a “rule-of-law” Communist, a Democratic Socialist, or a progressive New Deal Democrat. (I’m retired now, but my first decade or so of submitting resumes included *similar* provocations/full disclosures.)
Discussions of Communism should involve separating out the ruthlessness of ruling Maoists and Bolsheviks from the idealism AND the desperation that allowed them to seize power. A study of the Paris Commune should offer some of the same as well as different hard lessons that were highlighted by Marx and Engels. Also, there is much to salvage in the materialist theories of Marx as long as we reject the determinism. (This is true even if one doesn’t wholly buy into materialism.) Frankly, I have a lot of respect for Christians who “keep their faith” even if they don’t buy into every orthodoxy or endorse the Crusades (including the Cathar crusade from where we get the phrase “Kill them all. Let God sort them out!), the Spanish Inquisition, and a legacy of anti-Semitic pogroms. I extend the same respect to those who keep the faith with Marx and also with lesser known left libertarian thinkers.
I don’t want to claim that anyone is being “cowed” by reactionary or reflexively anti-communist red-scare habits of mind, but we have to value and valorize the history of workers’ resistance to corporate tyranny and that means the honoring history of international and US socialism/communism/anarchism because it was people who called themselves Communists, Socialists, and Anarchist who were at the forefront of the labor movement and many forms of anti-racism and even feminism. I call myself a rule-of-law Communist both to honor their memory and also to demonstrate a commitment to learning from mistakes that some of them made or the actual heinous crimes of others that are still being wrongly used to taint EVERy notion associated with freedom, equality, and justice in any workable (as opposed to honorific or empty formal) sense.
"“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.