Dr. Synder, you have offered us a civil means of active resistance. I wonder the steps involved for the DNC to build that framework. I can see past Secretaries, the likes of Robert Reich being assigned Commerce, and Mayor Pete being assigned Transportation, etc. That is Level 2. Level 1 would be the lead agency “Shadow Cabinet”. Natural questions: Who leads this, who funds this, who establishes the charter, who writes the project plan? Also we must begin the platform to build the movement. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/start-our-movement?r=3m1bs
Carl, I LIKE your initial picks. As for leader, it seems eminently logical to continue our original choice of Kamala thereby giving her the time and space to continue to clarify and publish her would-be policies and preferences. It would, in effect, lengthen her campaign from the scant time she had without the need to be constantly in motion. She HAS been part of one of the most effective administrations for the people since FDR!
I think there needs to be a leadership triumvirate at the top composed of Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries of a "Policy Cabinet. This way, we get Harris's expertise on the executive branch and national campaigning and Schumer's and Jeffries' expertise on legislative implementation and feedback from the Democratic caucus.
All former Presidents and candidates for President should be invited to monthly meetings to provide input and feedback. There is a depth of knowledge and experience that should be formally solicited and acknowledged, but in an advisory capacity, so that the focus remains on new ideas. Democrats have been too reticent about having former high-profile party members speak out during the Republican administrations. Trump certainly didn't show any restraint over the last 4 years. We need every voice to be peaking out.
I loved many of the picks for cabinet secretaries suggested below, but again, there should be pairings of the current Biden Secretaries with new choices to ensure that new ideas are generated, but past experience is not lost. And this should be done not just for cabinet secretaries but all major agencies.
Essentially, this group should generate a "Vision 2028" as guidance for the next Democratic administration. The Heritage Foundation has produced iterations of its platform and agenda since Reagan. Project 2025 was just the latest one. This would provide Democrats with an opportunity to develop party cohesion around major issues between different groups within the party coalition.
"Policy Cabinet" white papers could also be a great way to educate and reach out to not only the Democratic base but also independents and members of the non-voting electorate (NVEs). Engaging the 1/3 of the electorate who were NVEs 2024 is the only way Democrats can win over MAGA. The key is to give people a way to voice their opinions and feel like their opinions are being heard.
The various Democratic national committees could develop discussion packets with a range of options for legislation in a particular area with background information to help people think deeply about the issue. Voters in a district would be invited to town hall workshops where discussion leaders break up the group into tables of 4-8 people. Each table would discuss an aspect of the issue, and someone in the group would record the comments and then report them to the group as a whole. Then, people could vote on their phones at the end for which proposals they liked the best in rank order and add comments. The attendees could have the takeaway packages they could share with others who are likely to focus on the topic. The phone summaries get compiled and provided to the appropriate Policy Cabinet chairs.
Participants could go online to see the cumulative results from dozens of focus groups nationwide.
Love this input. Might I suggest Vision 2028 be the ‘28 Democratic Platform. (Too many things and we have distraction.) Also, people with full time jobs, like Schumer and Jeffries, lack the time necessary for the mission. Am I a stick in the mud now?
Good points! I don't think 2028 should be in there though, because we need to take this a day at a time and not make it be about the next election, but shine a constant light on what the Trump administration is doing. Let them get away with nothing: quickly expose their lies and attempts to change the subject, divert attention, misinform and scape goat. Highlight their cruelty.
It essentially would be a mostly evergreen platform document with modifications for each election cycle as new issues like AI require more attention—preferably each 2-year legislative election cycle.
The pairing of the Policy Cabinet department heads helps alleviate the issue of what single person would have the time to take on the role.
No you are not a stick in the mud. Schumer and Jefferies will not have time because they do have full time jobs. You are going to have draw on people who are not currently in government and are willing to do what is being suggested.
It would not be unreasonable to have two or three caucuses in the House (obviously including whatever's the name of the group AOC works with) nominating their favorite members for the Other Cabinet. A pretty good, and more democratic, substitute for the tradition structuring of the opposition party in Parliament.
The Senate would do -- well, whatever our House Lords see fit.
I like the caucuses idea, especially because we have un-elected forces driving the MAGA-government agenda with Musk et al, so it seems appropriate to have a legitimate and elected counter-force in place to act and speak about their BS in real time. Not unlike what Comer and Jordan do, with less performance and more meat and logic.
Is there a place for Kinzinger here?
The Press will be critical here. With The Atlantic and others forming a unified voice of journalistic resistance, we need to push for an instantaneous social media presence too. This would be something the former cabinet members could work on, with a centralized resource on all platforms, except perhaps Twitter. (?)
I hope Pete is reading this stream...tried to send the link and comments to his office...any one know how to pass this along to get it in front of him?? Shadow Cabinet seems like the best organized defense to counter the misinformation with which we are about to be confronted!!
The key to project management is the charter, the selection of the project manager, the project management plan which includes the organization, work tasks, the schedule, milestones, and the criteria for objective attainment. Georgia is so far ahead on this, she was just a blur.
I added much later. I went through 350 posts below. The result is that it is wildly thought of as a great idea. I see key issues discussed several times.
1. Who appoints and charters the group?
The shadow cabinet can have no role here until it is chartered. But by whom. It has to be handed a portfolio. Chartered by the DNC, I presumed, so that it has that portfolio at a very high national level. It does not have to be so ordained.
2. What is the group in our vernacular?
Is it an alternative? Is it a cabinet, Constitutional, Opposition, or Policy or otherwise? Is it a policy group? Is it stakeholders? Is it a coalition?
3. How big is the group? Is it 12 or 144?
4. What is the group named? Many suggestions are in the thread.
It could be a very key media interface but only if the sage and expert individual stood the credibility test enough to be respected. Synder, Buttigieg, Meacham, Stavridis, Reich, Harris, etc. Lacking that, why bother to contact them. (No one wants to talk to a dunce, except JD Vance and Elon Musk.)
This, it seems to me, has to be the most sage, expert individuals that are able to work day in and day out on this mission. The name of the group must have unequivocal stature, and the individuals must be up to that stature. It is a Council of Fellows. The DNC’s Council of Fellows on Executive Agencies or the DNC’s Executive Agency Council of Fellows. Who else would you call given it is a free resource of international esteem and repute. This is just the opinion of one person from Lower Alabama, a blue dot 🔵 there.
That council needs to be chartered and then individuals vetted, appointed/anointed to their lofty positions as THE expert authority on an agency by credentials and qualifications. Just my thoughts. Dr. Synder started this discussion and has not weighed in on how to proceed. It needs leadership and DNC funding. THAT WILL BE EASY TO COME BY. Donations could fund this, given the level of enthusiasm I see below. See what you think.
Is it time to give attention to public servants who are doing their job for the American people? The Washington Post, that newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, has received a lot of negative attention for Bezos' bows to the president elect's wishes. I have always read a good number of solid stories by the newspaper. Here are excerpts from one By Missy Ryan :
'Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel, outlined 10 areas of concern, including allegations of heavy drinking and sexual misconduct, remarks suggesting female troops should play a more limited role in the military, his past skepticism about the need for U.S. personnel to comply with laws of war, and accusations of mismanagement of veterans’ organizations he headed. Hegseth has vehemently denied claims of wrongdoing.'
“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” 'Warren said in a letter sent late Monday to Hegseth, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.' “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of service members who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”
'The 33-page letter, which includes more than 70 specific questions for Hegseth and his team about statements and incidents reported by the news media, comes a week before Hegseth, a former Army National Guard member, Princeton University graduate and longtime Fox News host, appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing on Jan. 14.'
'Separately, a group of Democratic senators, including Warren, Tim Kaine (Virginia), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), sent a letter to Trump’s designated chief of staff last month focused on Hegseth’s record on women. (WAPO) See link attached, which was not gifted.'
Many people have retired and many have no need to work for subsistence. Elected officials have another full time job, and I envision it is more work that that.
Or Democratic Republic Cabinet which is true and extends the label past just Democrats, given there are far too many in the country who would roast in hell before they'd vote Democrat "just because", yet because it is too much of a mouthful just call it the DR Cabinet. I do like Pro-Democracy Cabinet though. I don't mind Opposition so much for being combative, but it so invites confusion if over time who is in and who is out (hopefully!) switches.
William, I think that the word "Opposition" is too negative for a label that represents the principles of democracy. Naturally, we oppose totalitarianism, dictatorship, authoritarianism - rule by billionaires and the loss of citizens' rights.
I support clearly messaging what we are for and documenting how 'they' have acted against democracy and the rights of American citizens.
'The economy, stupid.' (Carville, 1992)
We will be 'On it': The Cost of Living; Housing; Education; Heath Care; Jobs and Wages; Safety; Free and Fair Elections for all citizens!
Here’s a proposed shadow cabinet for 2025 that aligns with the idea of a prosocial democratic administration, focusing on expertise, credibility, and the ability to effectively communicate.
Shadow Cabinet 2025
1. Shadow President/Chief Executive Visionary
• Stacey Abrams
A proven leader in voting rights, Abrams is articulate, visionary, and deeply committed to democratic processes and social equity.
2. Secretary of State
• Samantha Power
Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, known for her expertise in foreign policy, human rights, and diplomacy. She represents a global and inclusive approach to American leadership.
3. Secretary of the Treasury
• Heather Boushey
An economist and advisor on equitable economic policies, Boushey would articulate and defend policies addressing wealth inequality and sustainable growth.
4. Secretary of Defense
• Admiral William McRaven (Ret.)
A decorated military leader with a strong commitment to ethical leadership and a balanced approach to national security.
5. Attorney General
• Preet Bharara
A former U.S. attorney with a reputation for fighting corruption and defending the rule of law. His voice would emphasize accountability and justice.
6. Secretary of the Interior
• Deb Haaland
Currently serving in this role, Haaland has demonstrated strong leadership in environmental protection and Indigenous rights, setting the tone for responsible land and resource management.
7. Secretary of Agriculture
• Tom Vilsack
An experienced voice for rural communities, sustainable farming practices, and food security, Vilsack can connect with both farmers and urban constituencies.
8. Secretary of Commerce
• Ro Khanna
A leader in technology and manufacturing policy, Khanna’s forward-thinking approach balances innovation with worker protections and equitable growth.
9. Secretary of Labor
• Sara Nelson
A leading union advocate and president of the Association of Flight Attendants, Nelson would powerfully champion workers’ rights and workplace equity.
10. Secretary of Health and Human Services
• Dr. Ashish Jha
A respected public health expert, Jha would be a compelling voice for science-driven healthcare reform and pandemic preparedness.
11. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
• Raphael Bostic
Economist and president of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, Bostic has expertise in housing equity and urban development.
12. Secretary of Transportation
• Pete Buttigieg
With his current experience, Buttigieg could continue to articulate a progressive and transformative vision for transportation infrastructure.
13. Secretary of Energy
• Jennifer Granholm
A passionate advocate for clean energy, Granholm would communicate a clear strategy for renewable energy investments and climate action.
14. Secretary of Education
• Randi Weingarten
President of the American Federation of Teachers, Weingarten would emphasize equitable, high-quality education for all.
15. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
• Tammy Duckworth
A veteran and U.S. Senator, Duckworth has firsthand experience and a strong voice for veterans’ rights and services.
16. Secretary of Homeland Security
• Jeh Johnson
A former Secretary of Homeland Security, Johnson is a balanced, pragmatic voice on security and immigration issues.
17. Secretary of Environmental Protection (proposed new role to elevate climate action)
• Bill McKibben
A leading climate activist and author, McKibben would bring urgency and credibility to environmental policies.
18. Secretary of Technology and Innovation (proposed new role)
• Tim Wu
An advocate for fair technology policies and the architect of net neutrality, Wu would focus on regulating big tech and fostering ethical innovation.
19. OMB Director (Office of Management and Budget)
• Elizabeth Warren
Known for her sharp focus on government accountability and the effective use of public funds.
Purpose and Strategy
1. Unified Vision: The shadow cabinet would articulate a cohesive and positive vision for America’s future, emphasizing solidarity, fairness, and problem-solving.
2. Daily Communication: Members should use podcasts, social media, and traditional media to set the narrative, challenge oligarchic norms, and propose actionable policies.
3. Representation and Diversity: The team reflects America’s diversity and addresses the concerns of all communities.
4. Policy Advocacy: Each member would counter specific policies of the Musk-Trump administration with clear, expert-driven alternatives.
This shadow cabinet can redefine opposition by being proactive, solution-oriented, and deeply connected to citizens’ needs, showing what an inclusive, functional democracy could achieve.
These are great. Suggestion: we need commentators on other issues as well, as additions, backup, or broad appeal and perspective. What about Lynn Cheney on governance, Adam Kinzinger on [something], and Danielle Citron of UVA, https://www.daniellecitron.com/, on Cyber issues. Sherod Brown. Etc.
So more than only a one for one match. What do you think?
I have just subscribed although I have been a reader of yours. In my personal comment to you, I mentioned “coalition” as opposed to “cabinet”. People of different persuasions including both political parties and lay people outside Congress representing law, education, business, etc.
Preserving democracy and rule of law in this case will take more than a group of Dems. The opposition in this case really is We the People. Of, by, and for.
Quite frankly, I’d love to see representation such as you or Joyce Vance or Heather Cox Richardson and such in the coalition. You have become the voice of journalism to millions of people. And messaging and history, not whitewashed, is so key to what is ahead.
I like the word 'coalition' better than cabinet. Coalition implies that you are involving a group of folks from a variety of backgrounds (not just Democrats) that support the Constitution first and foremost despite our differences. (Hey! Maybe Constitution Coalition??) And I'd like it to be more than just our current Democratic lawmakers. They'd be a lightening rod for the far right.
I think you made a good point, Christine. Despite the failure of a large part of the various media, there have been a solid body of journalists in all of them who have functioned as a kind of "shadow cabinet" in the sense of following what is happening and calling our attention to things that both we and our representatives need to pay attention to. And I agree that it will take more than just Dems to preserve democracy.
But in order to build that coalition, we need to begin with something like what Britain calls its shadow cabinet. In Britain it is a coalition of many parties, while we have only two major parties, which are coalitions within themselves, though there are also a number of much smaller minor parties, many of whom align with one of the two major parties. How we do this should grow out of our own structures if it is to work. It does need to be a body that can be a source of information that can counter or supplement what comes from the now Maga- dominated lock-step right. And it needs to have some legitimacy in the eyes of the country.
The wider kind of coalition that you speak of is supposed to be what Congress should be, but isn't. This would be a step toward creating a more balanced view of the issues, actions, perspectives of what our government is doing, for both Congress and for the people through the press, who should feel the pressure to better and more reality based coverage. As Timothy pointed out, one of the remits would be to ensure that the press is getting accurate and more complete information than the kind of thing we can expect to get from Trump's extremist administration and from the Right wing controlled Congress.
I also thought of other terms for the group. But there really are so many coalitions (and councils...), and but a single cabinet to which this body would be specifically responsive - or thinking ahead of. For that reason, I prefer staying with cabinet.
I don't think "Shadow cabinet" works in the US. When I first read the title of your piece I thought it was going to be about Musk and the Broligarchs influencing from the shadows. Many will think that or see something nefarious, since Trump is already calling the Democrats the enemy. But I love the idea and am grateful for you raising something I didn't know existed in Britain.
At the beginning of Trump's first term, the first resistance on social media came from the National Parks. Badlands was first, iirc. They established a trend of naming their accounts Alt[insert name]. While those voices remained anonymous for their own safety, an Alt-Cabinet would quickly convey to those in the US what was intended without requiring that the voices be anonymous.
So, Pete Buttigieg as the Alt-Transportation Secretary; Adam Schiff as the Alt-Chair of Senate Intelligence, etc.; and I'd take Kamala Harris as the Alt-POTUS any day of the week.
Good comment on "Shadow" - a pity, because I'm familiar with the UK idea; but most Americans are not, more's the pity. But I still think that the basis of the UK model, a selection from (mostly) the prominent members of the legislative branch of the opposition would be the best.
But there's still the question of how they're to be selected. I've suggested a group mainly from the Congress, selected by their peers, but there may be others. Selected by the DNC?? OMG no, for the love of America!
Sure you can take the alt out of alt right... or better take the right out of it. It has already been done. During Trump's first term a number of the agencies' members and their associated voices opened "alt" and "opposition" and "resist" accounts on the pre-Musk Twitter and voiced opinions on moves being made within their departments and elsewhere. It provided a rare and fascinating look into the inner workings of the government and why some attempts were being thwarted.
For another thing, it has absolutely been a tool of the far right to take words and use the heck out of them until their original meaning has been diluted and de-fanged and turned around. Any legitimate tool that can be misused for ill but can be used for good should be so used.
As to your point about legitimacy and funding - yes. In fact, funding is core. Right next up under assigning responsibility for action. Ideas are vapor until someone has taken the task on, and then become a burden until they are funded at which point they become an assignment... a desirable, paid and professional job.
With most of the billionaires taken, who will guarantee desirable or at least adequate compensation for these positions which do at least have the desirable characteristic of being auditions for eventual positions should they become open under the correct leadership? How is the funding structured in England?
Brilliant and thank you. Let the idea flourish and the means will follow. Democracy Committee--comes to mind. Would love to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Jamie Raskin, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris , Timothy Snyder among those on the committee!
I like "Shadow Cabinet". It has the benefit of being well recognized and thus not needing a bunch of intros everytime it is raised. The sane-washing and both-siderism of the NYT and the WaPo over the past 8 years has been appalling and detrimental to our republic. With the exception of the brave Pete Buttigieg's guest appearances on Fox, to my mind there's been no strong loyal opposition voices talking clearly and widely about the other side of the coin.
Swbv, unfortunately, the term "shadow" in America has the connotation of a shadow government hovering quietly waiting to take over the legitimately elected government. In Britain, the word is commonly used to refer to someone following and observing another in order to learn the ins and outs of the job. In government it doesn't have quite the same negative connotation that it has in America.
Shame on Americans for being so ignorant of the world outside our boundaries, and for that matter of the nation inside; but that doesn't solve the problem.
I, too, like shadow cabinet, both because of its origins, and because it states pretty well what the group proposed might be assembled to do,and in a way that other more expansive terms may not. I get the negative connotations some (possibly many) will have - at least initially, and take that seriously.
The opposite, a sunlight cabinet, seems a bit too lighthearted. Sunlight has, however. been called the best disinfectant, if memory serves.
Otherwise, one that could amuse/be laughable, but still aims at what I want: The Jedi Cabinet. Yah, it isHollywood and out there and a little dated. But if ever there was a time we needed people with light swords and skill to use them. I wouldn't mind having a Wookie along.
It would be interesting to ask some of the high profile people discussed here if they have thoughts on the name. But were it left to them to decide, it might take a WHILE.
Put Heather Cox Richardson on the 'shadow cabinet' (fyi, I don't like that name) because of her deep understanding of history and current politics, plus her ability to communicate to all of us in everyday language.
What about the Accountability Cabinet? Or Constitutional Accountability Cabinet? I'll keep thinking.
Maybe Coalition Cabinet, combining a couple earlier. I also like People’s Cabinet. It needs to be something that doesn’t scream DEMOCRAT. It does us no good to continue talking only to the choir. (And I, too, am concerned about who will “publish” this, with journalism and the media under such fire.)
Hear, hear! A resounding yes! I would not call it the shadow cabinet, as you say too evocative of deep state and other sub rosa, and therefore illegitimate organizations. How about just the loyal opposition?! And yes, Democratic politicians should have weekly podcasts, YouTube channels, Substack articles, Providing a coalition to converse, comment on, and resist the Trump administration, his oligarchs, and fascism generally! I miss Kamala Harris rallies! If she were on every week, I would watch her every week. If she had a daily podcast or newsletter, I would read it! And there are many like her!
I like the word LOYAL. OPPOSITION and also THE SHADDOW CABINET. I also think that Kamala would be a good person to be the leader. Members would need physical protection tho.
I need helping understanding how this will be put into action when the main stream public media is owned and run by the oligarchs. The journalists are not allowed to write or make their political cartoons public and trying to even find a newspaper has become a rare thing. How will the information get to public? Does democracy have the means to fight the oligarchs in this era of extreme wealth and ownership of technology and the mainstream media.
Ah...'Thinking about...' and thinking it through. Thank you, Timothy Snyder. I like the 'We the People Cabinet'. Shall we select among the people and public serving politicians to be our voices of the United States? Journalism and citizenship together.
This is a great idea! The Democrats would need to include people from across the spectrum. The recent blocking of AOC from the chair of the Oversight Committee position concerns me. The more centrist members seem intent on appeasement. She is one of our best communicators and should be part of any opposition cabinet.
The head of this shadow group of leaders should not be chosen by the DNC. They would only choose their best fundraisers. This should not be criteria for leaders anyway because it has become obvious that these people don't represent the voters.
What a wonderful idea! I'm all for it, but if the history of the modern Democratic Party is any guide, this idea would be very much resisted by the Democratic leadership gerontocracy, which even as I type is trying to rationalize their loss by saying, "We didn't really get beaten that badly."
On the one hand, that's true, as Trump didn't even get 50% of the popular vote. On the other hand, however, Trump won every single swing state. He won them, by the way, with margins I find suspiciously similar, but the Democrats chose not to look into any possible electoral shenanigans, so that's a non-starter.
I'm all for a shadow-cabinet, and the sooner the better. Even more important is for the Democrats to label themselves "the loyal opposition." Now, what can we all do to make that happen?
Dr. Synder, you have offered us a civil means of active resistance. I wonder the steps involved for the DNC to build that framework. I can see past Secretaries, the likes of Robert Reich being assigned Commerce, and Mayor Pete being assigned Transportation, etc. That is Level 2. Level 1 would be the lead agency “Shadow Cabinet”. Natural questions: Who leads this, who funds this, who establishes the charter, who writes the project plan? Also we must begin the platform to build the movement. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/start-our-movement?r=3m1bs
Carl, I LIKE your initial picks. As for leader, it seems eminently logical to continue our original choice of Kamala thereby giving her the time and space to continue to clarify and publish her would-be policies and preferences. It would, in effect, lengthen her campaign from the scant time she had without the need to be constantly in motion. She HAS been part of one of the most effective administrations for the people since FDR!
Excellent input. Had not considered Kamala, but she has the tickets!
Absolutely!
I think there needs to be a leadership triumvirate at the top composed of Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries of a "Policy Cabinet. This way, we get Harris's expertise on the executive branch and national campaigning and Schumer's and Jeffries' expertise on legislative implementation and feedback from the Democratic caucus.
All former Presidents and candidates for President should be invited to monthly meetings to provide input and feedback. There is a depth of knowledge and experience that should be formally solicited and acknowledged, but in an advisory capacity, so that the focus remains on new ideas. Democrats have been too reticent about having former high-profile party members speak out during the Republican administrations. Trump certainly didn't show any restraint over the last 4 years. We need every voice to be peaking out.
I loved many of the picks for cabinet secretaries suggested below, but again, there should be pairings of the current Biden Secretaries with new choices to ensure that new ideas are generated, but past experience is not lost. And this should be done not just for cabinet secretaries but all major agencies.
Essentially, this group should generate a "Vision 2028" as guidance for the next Democratic administration. The Heritage Foundation has produced iterations of its platform and agenda since Reagan. Project 2025 was just the latest one. This would provide Democrats with an opportunity to develop party cohesion around major issues between different groups within the party coalition.
"Policy Cabinet" white papers could also be a great way to educate and reach out to not only the Democratic base but also independents and members of the non-voting electorate (NVEs). Engaging the 1/3 of the electorate who were NVEs 2024 is the only way Democrats can win over MAGA. The key is to give people a way to voice their opinions and feel like their opinions are being heard.
The various Democratic national committees could develop discussion packets with a range of options for legislation in a particular area with background information to help people think deeply about the issue. Voters in a district would be invited to town hall workshops where discussion leaders break up the group into tables of 4-8 people. Each table would discuss an aspect of the issue, and someone in the group would record the comments and then report them to the group as a whole. Then, people could vote on their phones at the end for which proposals they liked the best in rank order and add comments. The attendees could have the takeaway packages they could share with others who are likely to focus on the topic. The phone summaries get compiled and provided to the appropriate Policy Cabinet chairs.
Participants could go online to see the cumulative results from dozens of focus groups nationwide.
Love this input. Might I suggest Vision 2028 be the ‘28 Democratic Platform. (Too many things and we have distraction.) Also, people with full time jobs, like Schumer and Jeffries, lack the time necessary for the mission. Am I a stick in the mud now?
Good points! I don't think 2028 should be in there though, because we need to take this a day at a time and not make it be about the next election, but shine a constant light on what the Trump administration is doing. Let them get away with nothing: quickly expose their lies and attempts to change the subject, divert attention, misinform and scape goat. Highlight their cruelty.
Good points here. Thank you.
It essentially would be a mostly evergreen platform document with modifications for each election cycle as new issues like AI require more attention—preferably each 2-year legislative election cycle.
The pairing of the Policy Cabinet department heads helps alleviate the issue of what single person would have the time to take on the role.
no....but input will have to come from within the two houses for sure!!
No you are not a stick in the mud. Schumer and Jefferies will not have time because they do have full time jobs. You are going to have draw on people who are not currently in government and are willing to do what is being suggested.
I definitely like the idea of Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries.
I would add AOC and a few more of the bright younger up and comers
It would not be unreasonable to have two or three caucuses in the House (obviously including whatever's the name of the group AOC works with) nominating their favorite members for the Other Cabinet. A pretty good, and more democratic, substitute for the tradition structuring of the opposition party in Parliament.
The Senate would do -- well, whatever our House Lords see fit.
I like the caucuses idea, especially because we have un-elected forces driving the MAGA-government agenda with Musk et al, so it seems appropriate to have a legitimate and elected counter-force in place to act and speak about their BS in real time. Not unlike what Comer and Jordan do, with less performance and more meat and logic.
Is there a place for Kinzinger here?
The Press will be critical here. With The Atlantic and others forming a unified voice of journalistic resistance, we need to push for an instantaneous social media presence too. This would be something the former cabinet members could work on, with a centralized resource on all platforms, except perhaps Twitter. (?)
Shadow Cabinet - "Constitutional Cabinet"
I love the idea of a shadow cabinet. Make Pete as prominent as possible.
He is the BRAIN and has huge capacity for organizing!!!
I hope Pete is reading this stream...tried to send the link and comments to his office...any one know how to pass this along to get it in front of him?? Shadow Cabinet seems like the best organized defense to counter the misinformation with which we are about to be confronted!!
Excellent comments…totally agree!
The key to project management is the charter, the selection of the project manager, the project management plan which includes the organization, work tasks, the schedule, milestones, and the criteria for objective attainment. Georgia is so far ahead on this, she was just a blur.
Excellent suggestions, Carl
Here's a similar concept from Sheldon Whitehouse: the Offensive coordinator concept
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXNTGi9kM7I
I added much later. I went through 350 posts below. The result is that it is wildly thought of as a great idea. I see key issues discussed several times.
1. Who appoints and charters the group?
The shadow cabinet can have no role here until it is chartered. But by whom. It has to be handed a portfolio. Chartered by the DNC, I presumed, so that it has that portfolio at a very high national level. It does not have to be so ordained.
2. What is the group in our vernacular?
Is it an alternative? Is it a cabinet, Constitutional, Opposition, or Policy or otherwise? Is it a policy group? Is it stakeholders? Is it a coalition?
3. How big is the group? Is it 12 or 144?
4. What is the group named? Many suggestions are in the thread.
It could be a very key media interface but only if the sage and expert individual stood the credibility test enough to be respected. Synder, Buttigieg, Meacham, Stavridis, Reich, Harris, etc. Lacking that, why bother to contact them. (No one wants to talk to a dunce, except JD Vance and Elon Musk.)
This, it seems to me, has to be the most sage, expert individuals that are able to work day in and day out on this mission. The name of the group must have unequivocal stature, and the individuals must be up to that stature. It is a Council of Fellows. The DNC’s Council of Fellows on Executive Agencies or the DNC’s Executive Agency Council of Fellows. Who else would you call given it is a free resource of international esteem and repute. This is just the opinion of one person from Lower Alabama, a blue dot 🔵 there.
That council needs to be chartered and then individuals vetted, appointed/anointed to their lofty positions as THE expert authority on an agency by credentials and qualifications. Just my thoughts. Dr. Synder started this discussion and has not weighed in on how to proceed. It needs leadership and DNC funding. THAT WILL BE EASY TO COME BY. Donations could fund this, given the level of enthusiasm I see below. See what you think.
Is it time to give attention to public servants who are doing their job for the American people? The Washington Post, that newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, has received a lot of negative attention for Bezos' bows to the president elect's wishes. I have always read a good number of solid stories by the newspaper. Here are excerpts from one By Missy Ryan :
'Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel, outlined 10 areas of concern, including allegations of heavy drinking and sexual misconduct, remarks suggesting female troops should play a more limited role in the military, his past skepticism about the need for U.S. personnel to comply with laws of war, and accusations of mismanagement of veterans’ organizations he headed. Hegseth has vehemently denied claims of wrongdoing.'
“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” 'Warren said in a letter sent late Monday to Hegseth, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.' “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of service members who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”
'The 33-page letter, which includes more than 70 specific questions for Hegseth and his team about statements and incidents reported by the news media, comes a week before Hegseth, a former Army National Guard member, Princeton University graduate and longtime Fox News host, appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing on Jan. 14.'
'Separately, a group of Democratic senators, including Warren, Tim Kaine (Virginia), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), sent a letter to Trump’s designated chief of staff last month focused on Hegseth’s record on women. (WAPO) See link attached, which was not gifted.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/07/pete-hegseth-elizabeth-warren-confirmation-hearing/
Better to pick from the Senate and Congress. Otherwise they have no income.
Many people have retired and many have no need to work for subsistence. Elected officials have another full time job, and I envision it is more work that that.
“Opposition Cabinet.” Nothing cute, no other message.
Pro-Democracy Cabinet.
(Opposition is implied...)
Or Democratic Republic Cabinet which is true and extends the label past just Democrats, given there are far too many in the country who would roast in hell before they'd vote Democrat "just because", yet because it is too much of a mouthful just call it the DR Cabinet. I do like Pro-Democracy Cabinet though. I don't mind Opposition so much for being combative, but it so invites confusion if over time who is in and who is out (hopefully!) switches.
William, I think that the word "Opposition" is too negative for a label that represents the principles of democracy. Naturally, we oppose totalitarianism, dictatorship, authoritarianism - rule by billionaires and the loss of citizens' rights.
I support clearly messaging what we are for and documenting how 'they' have acted against democracy and the rights of American citizens.
'The economy, stupid.' (Carville, 1992)
We will be 'On it': The Cost of Living; Housing; Education; Heath Care; Jobs and Wages; Safety; Free and Fair Elections for all citizens!
I agree. Words matter. I like "alternative," which bespeaks another way of looking at and processing what is going on.
Alt right is too close to alternative.
Here’s a proposed shadow cabinet for 2025 that aligns with the idea of a prosocial democratic administration, focusing on expertise, credibility, and the ability to effectively communicate.
Shadow Cabinet 2025
1. Shadow President/Chief Executive Visionary
• Stacey Abrams
A proven leader in voting rights, Abrams is articulate, visionary, and deeply committed to democratic processes and social equity.
2. Secretary of State
• Samantha Power
Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, known for her expertise in foreign policy, human rights, and diplomacy. She represents a global and inclusive approach to American leadership.
3. Secretary of the Treasury
• Heather Boushey
An economist and advisor on equitable economic policies, Boushey would articulate and defend policies addressing wealth inequality and sustainable growth.
4. Secretary of Defense
• Admiral William McRaven (Ret.)
A decorated military leader with a strong commitment to ethical leadership and a balanced approach to national security.
5. Attorney General
• Preet Bharara
A former U.S. attorney with a reputation for fighting corruption and defending the rule of law. His voice would emphasize accountability and justice.
6. Secretary of the Interior
• Deb Haaland
Currently serving in this role, Haaland has demonstrated strong leadership in environmental protection and Indigenous rights, setting the tone for responsible land and resource management.
7. Secretary of Agriculture
• Tom Vilsack
An experienced voice for rural communities, sustainable farming practices, and food security, Vilsack can connect with both farmers and urban constituencies.
8. Secretary of Commerce
• Ro Khanna
A leader in technology and manufacturing policy, Khanna’s forward-thinking approach balances innovation with worker protections and equitable growth.
9. Secretary of Labor
• Sara Nelson
A leading union advocate and president of the Association of Flight Attendants, Nelson would powerfully champion workers’ rights and workplace equity.
10. Secretary of Health and Human Services
• Dr. Ashish Jha
A respected public health expert, Jha would be a compelling voice for science-driven healthcare reform and pandemic preparedness.
11. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
• Raphael Bostic
Economist and president of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, Bostic has expertise in housing equity and urban development.
12. Secretary of Transportation
• Pete Buttigieg
With his current experience, Buttigieg could continue to articulate a progressive and transformative vision for transportation infrastructure.
13. Secretary of Energy
• Jennifer Granholm
A passionate advocate for clean energy, Granholm would communicate a clear strategy for renewable energy investments and climate action.
14. Secretary of Education
• Randi Weingarten
President of the American Federation of Teachers, Weingarten would emphasize equitable, high-quality education for all.
15. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
• Tammy Duckworth
A veteran and U.S. Senator, Duckworth has firsthand experience and a strong voice for veterans’ rights and services.
16. Secretary of Homeland Security
• Jeh Johnson
A former Secretary of Homeland Security, Johnson is a balanced, pragmatic voice on security and immigration issues.
17. Secretary of Environmental Protection (proposed new role to elevate climate action)
• Bill McKibben
A leading climate activist and author, McKibben would bring urgency and credibility to environmental policies.
18. Secretary of Technology and Innovation (proposed new role)
• Tim Wu
An advocate for fair technology policies and the architect of net neutrality, Wu would focus on regulating big tech and fostering ethical innovation.
19. OMB Director (Office of Management and Budget)
• Elizabeth Warren
Known for her sharp focus on government accountability and the effective use of public funds.
Purpose and Strategy
1. Unified Vision: The shadow cabinet would articulate a cohesive and positive vision for America’s future, emphasizing solidarity, fairness, and problem-solving.
2. Daily Communication: Members should use podcasts, social media, and traditional media to set the narrative, challenge oligarchic norms, and propose actionable policies.
3. Representation and Diversity: The team reflects America’s diversity and addresses the concerns of all communities.
4. Policy Advocacy: Each member would counter specific policies of the Musk-Trump administration with clear, expert-driven alternatives.
This shadow cabinet can redefine opposition by being proactive, solution-oriented, and deeply connected to citizens’ needs, showing what an inclusive, functional democracy could achieve.
Secretary of Department of Freedom (proposed new role)
Timothy Snyder
These are great. Suggestion: we need commentators on other issues as well, as additions, backup, or broad appeal and perspective. What about Lynn Cheney on governance, Adam Kinzinger on [something], and Danielle Citron of UVA, https://www.daniellecitron.com/, on Cyber issues. Sherod Brown. Etc.
So more than only a one for one match. What do you think?
Excellent idea.
I would also create a "Shadow" Agencies list for: USPS, CDC, ICE, FBI, FTC, FAA, CIA, etc. Often that's where the most damage gets implemented.
Yes! Can it be done, @TimothySnyder?
Brilliant people and plan!
Love these pertinent suggestions!
great ideas!!
I have just subscribed although I have been a reader of yours. In my personal comment to you, I mentioned “coalition” as opposed to “cabinet”. People of different persuasions including both political parties and lay people outside Congress representing law, education, business, etc.
Preserving democracy and rule of law in this case will take more than a group of Dems. The opposition in this case really is We the People. Of, by, and for.
Quite frankly, I’d love to see representation such as you or Joyce Vance or Heather Cox Richardson and such in the coalition. You have become the voice of journalism to millions of people. And messaging and history, not whitewashed, is so key to what is ahead.
Thank you for all you do.
Salud!
🗽
Maybe the Accountability Coalition?
In order to address accountability, a body has to have power. Frankly, I'd hate to see this go that far.
I like the word 'coalition' better than cabinet. Coalition implies that you are involving a group of folks from a variety of backgrounds (not just Democrats) that support the Constitution first and foremost despite our differences. (Hey! Maybe Constitution Coalition??) And I'd like it to be more than just our current Democratic lawmakers. They'd be a lightening rod for the far right.
I think you made a good point, Christine. Despite the failure of a large part of the various media, there have been a solid body of journalists in all of them who have functioned as a kind of "shadow cabinet" in the sense of following what is happening and calling our attention to things that both we and our representatives need to pay attention to. And I agree that it will take more than just Dems to preserve democracy.
But in order to build that coalition, we need to begin with something like what Britain calls its shadow cabinet. In Britain it is a coalition of many parties, while we have only two major parties, which are coalitions within themselves, though there are also a number of much smaller minor parties, many of whom align with one of the two major parties. How we do this should grow out of our own structures if it is to work. It does need to be a body that can be a source of information that can counter or supplement what comes from the now Maga- dominated lock-step right. And it needs to have some legitimacy in the eyes of the country.
The wider kind of coalition that you speak of is supposed to be what Congress should be, but isn't. This would be a step toward creating a more balanced view of the issues, actions, perspectives of what our government is doing, for both Congress and for the people through the press, who should feel the pressure to better and more reality based coverage. As Timothy pointed out, one of the remits would be to ensure that the press is getting accurate and more complete information than the kind of thing we can expect to get from Trump's extremist administration and from the Right wing controlled Congress.
Coalition for Transparency in Government ??? Doesn't contain any negative connotations for me.
I also thought of other terms for the group. But there really are so many coalitions (and councils...), and but a single cabinet to which this body would be specifically responsive - or thinking ahead of. For that reason, I prefer staying with cabinet.
I don't think "Shadow cabinet" works in the US. When I first read the title of your piece I thought it was going to be about Musk and the Broligarchs influencing from the shadows. Many will think that or see something nefarious, since Trump is already calling the Democrats the enemy. But I love the idea and am grateful for you raising something I didn't know existed in Britain.
At the beginning of Trump's first term, the first resistance on social media came from the National Parks. Badlands was first, iirc. They established a trend of naming their accounts Alt[insert name]. While those voices remained anonymous for their own safety, an Alt-Cabinet would quickly convey to those in the US what was intended without requiring that the voices be anonymous.
So, Pete Buttigieg as the Alt-Transportation Secretary; Adam Schiff as the Alt-Chair of Senate Intelligence, etc.; and I'd take Kamala Harris as the Alt-POTUS any day of the week.
Good comment on "Shadow" - a pity, because I'm familiar with the UK idea; but most Americans are not, more's the pity. But I still think that the basis of the UK model, a selection from (mostly) the prominent members of the legislative branch of the opposition would be the best.
But there's still the question of how they're to be selected. I've suggested a group mainly from the Congress, selected by their peers, but there may be others. Selected by the DNC?? OMG no, for the love of America!
You need with an income, since unlike the Parliamentary system, you’re suggesting people who have other responsibilities.
You can’t pick people with no income and expect them to work for nothing.
Sure you can take the alt out of alt right... or better take the right out of it. It has already been done. During Trump's first term a number of the agencies' members and their associated voices opened "alt" and "opposition" and "resist" accounts on the pre-Musk Twitter and voiced opinions on moves being made within their departments and elsewhere. It provided a rare and fascinating look into the inner workings of the government and why some attempts were being thwarted.
For another thing, it has absolutely been a tool of the far right to take words and use the heck out of them until their original meaning has been diluted and de-fanged and turned around. Any legitimate tool that can be misused for ill but can be used for good should be so used.
As to your point about legitimacy and funding - yes. In fact, funding is core. Right next up under assigning responsibility for action. Ideas are vapor until someone has taken the task on, and then become a burden until they are funded at which point they become an assignment... a desirable, paid and professional job.
With most of the billionaires taken, who will guarantee desirable or at least adequate compensation for these positions which do at least have the desirable characteristic of being auditions for eventual positions should they become open under the correct leadership? How is the funding structured in England?
Brilliant and thank you. Let the idea flourish and the means will follow. Democracy Committee--comes to mind. Would love to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Jamie Raskin, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris , Timothy Snyder among those on the committee!
Excellent choices! We really do have a "deep bench"
As opposed to a deep state lol
I like "Shadow Cabinet". It has the benefit of being well recognized and thus not needing a bunch of intros everytime it is raised. The sane-washing and both-siderism of the NYT and the WaPo over the past 8 years has been appalling and detrimental to our republic. With the exception of the brave Pete Buttigieg's guest appearances on Fox, to my mind there's been no strong loyal opposition voices talking clearly and widely about the other side of the coin.
Swbv, unfortunately, the term "shadow" in America has the connotation of a shadow government hovering quietly waiting to take over the legitimately elected government. In Britain, the word is commonly used to refer to someone following and observing another in order to learn the ins and outs of the job. In government it doesn't have quite the same negative connotation that it has in America.
Therefore shame on us
Shame on Americans for being so ignorant of the world outside our boundaries, and for that matter of the nation inside; but that doesn't solve the problem.
I, too, like shadow cabinet, both because of its origins, and because it states pretty well what the group proposed might be assembled to do,and in a way that other more expansive terms may not. I get the negative connotations some (possibly many) will have - at least initially, and take that seriously.
The opposite, a sunlight cabinet, seems a bit too lighthearted. Sunlight has, however. been called the best disinfectant, if memory serves.
Otherwise, one that could amuse/be laughable, but still aims at what I want: The Jedi Cabinet. Yah, it isHollywood and out there and a little dated. But if ever there was a time we needed people with light swords and skill to use them. I wouldn't mind having a Wookie along.
It would be interesting to ask some of the high profile people discussed here if they have thoughts on the name. But were it left to them to decide, it might take a WHILE.
Or, DOLO (Dept of Loyal Opposition).
Put Heather Cox Richardson on the 'shadow cabinet' (fyi, I don't like that name) because of her deep understanding of history and current politics, plus her ability to communicate to all of us in everyday language.
What about the Accountability Cabinet? Or Constitutional Accountability Cabinet? I'll keep thinking.
Maybe Coalition Cabinet, combining a couple earlier. I also like People’s Cabinet. It needs to be something that doesn’t scream DEMOCRAT. It does us no good to continue talking only to the choir. (And I, too, am concerned about who will “publish” this, with journalism and the media under such fire.)
Hear, hear! A resounding yes! I would not call it the shadow cabinet, as you say too evocative of deep state and other sub rosa, and therefore illegitimate organizations. How about just the loyal opposition?! And yes, Democratic politicians should have weekly podcasts, YouTube channels, Substack articles, Providing a coalition to converse, comment on, and resist the Trump administration, his oligarchs, and fascism generally! I miss Kamala Harris rallies! If she were on every week, I would watch her every week. If she had a daily podcast or newsletter, I would read it! And there are many like her!
I like the word LOYAL. OPPOSITION and also THE SHADDOW CABINET. I also think that Kamala would be a good person to be the leader. Members would need physical protection tho.
Completely agree! Now, what do we do to make this actually happen? Whatever it is, sign me up.
I need helping understanding how this will be put into action when the main stream public media is owned and run by the oligarchs. The journalists are not allowed to write or make their political cartoons public and trying to even find a newspaper has become a rare thing. How will the information get to public? Does democracy have the means to fight the oligarchs in this era of extreme wealth and ownership of technology and the mainstream media.
Ah...'Thinking about...' and thinking it through. Thank you, Timothy Snyder. I like the 'We the People Cabinet'. Shall we select among the people and public serving politicians to be our voices of the United States? Journalism and citizenship together.
I like ‘The People’s Cabinet’
Ah! Me too!
This is a great idea! The Democrats would need to include people from across the spectrum. The recent blocking of AOC from the chair of the Oversight Committee position concerns me. The more centrist members seem intent on appeasement. She is one of our best communicators and should be part of any opposition cabinet.
The head of this shadow group of leaders should not be chosen by the DNC. They would only choose their best fundraisers. This should not be criteria for leaders anyway because it has become obvious that these people don't represent the voters.
THIS. Do not look to Democrat leadership to solve this.
What a wonderful idea! I'm all for it, but if the history of the modern Democratic Party is any guide, this idea would be very much resisted by the Democratic leadership gerontocracy, which even as I type is trying to rationalize their loss by saying, "We didn't really get beaten that badly."
On the one hand, that's true, as Trump didn't even get 50% of the popular vote. On the other hand, however, Trump won every single swing state. He won them, by the way, with margins I find suspiciously similar, but the Democrats chose not to look into any possible electoral shenanigans, so that's a non-starter.
I'm all for a shadow-cabinet, and the sooner the better. Even more important is for the Democrats to label themselves "the loyal opposition." Now, what can we all do to make that happen?