Today in the WSJ: My Essay about the Rise of the Populist Left

Today I have an article in the Wall Street Journal. Titled “Civil War in the Democratic Party,” it’s an argument that the most potent – and ignored – force in American politics today is the populist left that supported Bernie Sanders. You can read the article here if you have a subscription but it’s behind a pay wall. However if you find the article via a link in Twitter (Hint: I tweeted it) you can read the whole thing.

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at, editor-in-chief of, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

8 thoughts on “Today in the WSJ: My Essay about the Rise of the Populist Left

  1. Not one of your best, Ted ; we usually get sharper and more incisive analyses from you. But perhaps readers of the Wall Street Journal will learn something they didn’t know before ?…


  2. RE: ” “What happened” was that the history-making potential of the first female president left almost half the party, not only white males, unmoved.”

    “What happened” was HRC’s platform, and her previous political career, that forced us to believe said platform. HRC’s campaign was on odious mix of flaccid entitlement and essential contempt for the average American (and average registered “Democrat”) that simply could not be hidden. It left a great deal of voters “moved” all right: they moved rapidly, screaming … in the opposite direction.

    Unfortunately, it appears Ted, along with too effin’ many alleged “Populist Left” voters (not to mention HRC, herself) have ignored and are still ignoring, the “history-making potential of the first female president” offered by ANOTHER person in the 2016 race: Jill Stein

    Along with the appropriate anatomy of “history-making potential,” Stein ALSO had a policy agenda that could truly be considered left of center. Maybe if she submits to, and “passes,” a chromosome test in 2020, she, too, can be included in the “history-making” category — even though, up to now, it has been merely a miserable a distraction from actual, relevant politics.

    (Thanks, Ted, for the tip on access to your article.)

    • During the election, Mr Rall made it clear he was for Stein, that a vote for Hillary or Trump would be a disaster. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, he couldn’t mention Stein, or no one would read past her name.

      The New York Times had an article that the Dems must resist the temptation to run a Sanders against Trump, the US desperately needed and needs Hillary as president. She promised regime change in Russia. The Times figures that, since they stole the election, an attack that is more of a casus belli than Pearl Harbor, WWIII is what the US needs today. The US military is now so strong (just ask them and Hillary and the New York Times) that Russia poses no more of a threat to the US than Grenada or Panamá, that Putin’s recent speech that Russia still has MAD was all Photoshop.

      Concerned Scientists say the Doomsday Clock is 2 minutes before midnight. Those Concerned Scientists are Pollyannas.

      • To michaelwme:

        You wrote: ” … Writing for the Wall Street Journal, he (Ted) couldn’t mention Stein … ”

        My point exactly! And I’d suggest that is essentially the same “dynamic” for the New York Times … the execrable rag that is no more than a stenographer team of the world’s “#1” empire of genocide-for-profit and now, as you point out, hankers for total nuclear self-destruction, apparently to seek even more “prestige.”

        My criticism was directed more to the infantile (or is that totalitarian?) political system of the US than it was of Ted. (However, the typical WSJ reader is NOT going to agree with anything Ted has to say, anyway, so why not use the opportunity to try, at least, to get Stein’s name in print in the Murderdoch rag?)

        I have written that His Hairness is likely guilty of no more than commission of consenting capitalism with Russia(ns). We better hope that he has several Russian income-generating properties that the vaunted Mueller investigation has not yet found or revealed.

        And this hope is NOT that such info will lead to indictments or impeachment (demanded diligently by the deliriously-daydreaming denizens of the DNC) but, rather, to provide disincentive for His Hairness to start lobbing nuclear warheads at Russia … and his own investments.

        If we survive to 2020, we will find that HRC enters the campaign flush will cash given by the perpetual war and domestic surveillance (i.e. “high tech”) industries that the current anti-Russia hysteria is/was designed to generate.

      • «And this hope is NOT that such info [i e, concerning possible properties in Russia that generate income for Mr Trump] will lead to indictments or impeachment (demanded diligently by the deliriously-daydreaming denizens of the DNC) but, rather, to provide disincentive for His Hairness to start lobbing nuclear warheads at Russia … and his own investments.» The evidence that it is not Mr Trump who, despite what the US Constitution has to say about the role of that country’s president, seems rather strong : consider that one of the major points of his campaign was that the US should improve relations with Russia, but that now, more than a year into his (first ?) term, relations have become still worse than they were under Mr Obama and perhaps as bad as they have been at any point during the last 50 years. On the other hand, another major point of the Trump campaign was that China was «raping» the US, but despite all the Sinophobic bluster coming from the Trump administration, it has so far steered away from a major confrontation with China : for example, China ranked only 11th among steel importers to the US in 2017 and accounted for no more than 2 % of such imports, cf this report….

        Things are not always what they seem….


      • To Henri,

        I’d say HH’s possible ownership of property in Russia could be precisely the reason he promised better relations with Russia and the fact that those relations are worse than ever are due to the Russia-hysteria/agitation, HRC and the DNC, that I have described.

        Any “militant” stand HH may credibly assume towards China will be subject to comparison to Obumma’s aggressive, if little discussed, policies.

Leave a Reply