The radical right won by superior organizing, superior networking, a singular focus, seeding their ideas in a zillion conservative spaces, and a patient long game—aided by unlimited funds and resources and an electoral landscape that greatly favors them. It’s a real Goliath.
We don’t have money on our (pro-democracy) side, but we have wisdom & expertise & compassion & decent people we’d all rather hang out with.
Love your instinct to forge a “coalition of conscience.” We have to be at our best… and I’m trying to clean up my own act (have a LOT of anger right now at all the elites who were in on the con—not the voters who were conned— and helped him win) as well as network with people/orgs I trust.
MASHA GESSEN (who fled authoritarianism for America & might be eyeing the EU right now):
“Individual moral authority—is what threatens autocrats most. It's something that they can't capture.
"You can't buy it.
"You can't [...] take it by force
“You can't lay claim to it by title.
"You have either earned it or not.
"If you think back to the great liberation movements they've always had a person of moral authority or several people of moral authority as their organizing point of focus."
In 2025, we’re going to need to harmonize our skills & create safe spaces to communicate & organize…and stop beating each other up so we can better take on the forces that truly threaten us.
But they HAVE announced it. They are going all out on Project 2025. It was all over the news yesterday. If you haven't read Heather Cox Richardson's November 6 letter on Facebook, please do. The time for hand ringing about how it went down is over. It sucks, but we need to pivot to now. Those of us who still want a democracy need to come together and figure out how to stop this now. The fingers all need to be pointed at the way out of this, not each other.
The swing to right is now a global trend, which often means curtailment of human rights for some. LGBTQ, women, minorities, among others. Rights which have been struggled for over centuries. Is Trump fit to lead? Who will surround and influence him? How far back into the dark ages do we need to go? If this presidency looks like his previous one, many of us who are feeling devastated, are trying to prepare ourselves for laws that will favor corporations, cuts in funding for social programs that support people who don't have the income or resources to thrive in a profit driven system. Hopefully we will remember to reach one to another to help us endure what will come. Congress is not dependable and the supreme court is not very unbiased. Fear is in the air.
The no brainer, you saw the DEMs upsurp the process and it was downhill from there. I would encourage you to reach out to newly elected Pres. Donald Trump to see how you can serve, it's just another Dem crossing the aisle to become the One-ness and heal.
I agree, please reach across the aisle, this would help many of us heal & start unity & oneness! Call RFK and roll up your sleeves he needs your spiritual help! He is working to help our children just like you!
Marianne. You made many good points in your appearance on ABC. NOW they have you on, but I digress.
You are 100 percent right that it was anti democratic (small d) for the big D Democrats not to have had a real primary.
But I lost faith in the Democratic party long ago. I have heroes in the party, like my US Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. And, of course, I love Bernie, the socialist who caucuses with the Democrats and has run for president twice as a Democrat.
Another important voice in what is happening in our politics today is Robert Reich who was labor secretary for Clinton.
He is putting out a lot of information about how the money of the corporations gets into our government and suppresses social change. He is kind and gracious when he talks about leaving the Clinton administration. But clearly, he did not agree with the actions Clinton was taking to advance big money against working people.
His information explains how the corporations and (now oligarchs, as well) get their money into the system and how they go about using their money to wield their power in our government.
(I am cringing at the thought of how Elon Musk will control what happens in tech in the Trump II administration.)
What I say next will get ME hate in some quarters.
My husband is fond of saying, "Bill Clinton was the best friend the business man ever had!" And, we own a small business. But the part that will get me hate follows.
As a resident of Oregon, I live in the bluest of states. In the 30 plus years I have lived here, my recollection is that my state has always voted Democratic in the presidential election.
So both my husband and I backed Ralph Nader in the Clinton v Dole race and (gasp) in the Gore v Bush race. Why? Because in those particular races, there was no easily perceivable daylight between the Democrats and the Republicans. They were both bellied up to the troth of big money, lapping up as much of it as possible. And Oregon still went for Gore.
So, most of the time, my husband and I stay registered as Pacific Greens because that was the party Nader ran on. I like the idea of being a Green. When people like you, Marianne, and Bernie Sanders run for national office on the Democratic ticket, I change my registration. Vote in the Democratic primary. Then I change back. My husband does the same.
Marianne, if your efforts and those of others can get the Democrats to rise up and somehow beat the money of the corporations and oligarchs out of the Democratic party, I'm all in.
But it is very difficult for me to understand how that could be possible.
I don't understand why we need political parties. My understanding is that there was discussion about the danger of political parties among the authors of our constitution.
But here in the 21st century, this is where we find ourselves - with two very wealthy and powerful political parties. So, if my country is going to go down this path of we MUST have parties, I'll register with what is considered a third party to show my distrust of the corrupt, powerful two major parties.
That said, you are correct Marianne, we need to find a way to give WE THE PEOPLE a voice in our democratic process.
What we got now, well that ain't it.
Finally, to the gentleman who is writing in this space that spirituality and politics don't mix... That's what they said about Jimmy Carter, who actually worked in and out of politics to end poverty, disease and ignorance. His move while president to allow a tax credit for anyone who pays to take a an educational course at the post secondary level or beyond is still on the books. I benefited from that into my 40s. I am hopeful that as I grow older, perhaps I will have time to take more post secondary classes and still benefit from his tax credit.
My husband and I went to Plains, GA and attended his Sunday School lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church. I admire him for actively sharing how his faith gave him lessons for making love the center of his political policies.
The late and beautiful Tich Naht Hahn (sp?) who left us with innumerable spiritual teachings talked about having love for our political adversaries. He once said that many people could write a protest letter to George Bush, the elder. But, he also asked, how many people could write a love letter to him. You can see him in the famous picture from the 1960s of the Buddhist monk in Vietnam setting himself on fire to protest that country's civil war.
Did not the Romans attempt to forever kill Jesus of Nazareth in part because he got in their way politically?
Love doesn't end at our wallets or our politics. That is where we need it the most.
Thank you for all you do! You are a beautiful shining light of unity, truth and goodness. Please keep reaching to heal the wounded & to other side to heal our division! Sending love & strength as always!🙏🏼❤️
Marianne- You are the leader for "We're all in this together". Thank you, and we have your back. I have your back.
As a lefty who is busy on climate restoration, I saw the polarization that we lefty's were creating by raising millions of dollars and millions of hours to oppose 'them'. We naturally were echoing and modifying 'their' attacks on 'us'.
The result of the election showed me on Wednesday that I need to lead, with you and millions of others, a new phoenix, of Humanity Flourishing. We're a tribal species that evolved in circumstances where the tribe 'over there' was often truly out to kill us. Our brains will react with fear, and we can replace that fear with love and forgiveness. We must do that over and over and over until we die.
Marianne- thank you for being the nation's and world's outstanding political leader calling for humanity as a whole flourishing, for millennia to come. We're behind you. I'm behind you.
I believe the future of this country and the world rests with the collective consciousness of “The People,” not any government, party, particular system, organization or any particular issues you brought forth in your campaign. Doing the latter is merely more of the same.
“What it will take for the phoenix to rise” in its true meaning, I believe can best be achieved with your leadership to “forge a new, more soulful political conversation” that indeed can only be repaired by love.”
I’ve been a Dem for almost 50 years and this is the first time I voted for a Republican for president. My eyes were opened in December 2020 when I began listening to the alternative media about mRNA vaccines. I learned that they have been trying to get an mRNA vaccine to work against a coronavirus for ten years with no success. I also learned that with their animal studies the animals showed that they developed antibodies after they received the vaccine but when they were exposed to the coronavirus they died. This information was suppressed by the mainstream media then and continues to be suppressed to this day. It was at that time that I finally learned that the mainstream media is a propaganda arm of the global elite and I began using my critical thinking skills. I witnessed over the next four years the depth of the lies and propaganda of the mainstream media and the Biden administration. It was during this time that I became aware of RFK Jr’s work with Children’s Health Defense and others who were telling the truth about the vaccines while the mainstream media kept up their mantra of “safe and effective “ and “if you get the vaccine you won’t get Covid and the pandemic will end”. Unfortunately for the many millions of people who believed the propaganda and got the shots, they soon discovered that they got Covid. But instead of admitting that the vaccines were never studied for whether they would stop infection or transmission the elite changed the narrative, initially to “there are some breakthrough Covid cases despite having the vaccines” to later “we never said it would stop infection or transmission, we only said that you wouldn’t get so sick from it or die from Covid”. Studies have also shown the lie with this narrative and that information continues to be suppressed even now. The studies show that a person who got the shots are more likely to get Covid multiple times. Others who did not get the shots developed natural immunity when they got Covid the first timeand they are much less likely to get Covid again. There were doctors across the world who knew by March 2020 effective and safe treatments for Covid but that information was censored by the elite who own the mainstream media and physicians who were successfully treating patients with these protocols were ridiculed, fired and some had their licenses suspended or removed.Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx lied to President Trump and the American public about all of this. Read The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK Jr. if you want to learn the truth about what happened and what continues to be censored. Then in 2021 after Biden took office his administration immediately began threatening all social media platforms that they would take away their Section 230 immunity if they didn’t censor all truthful information about effective treatment for Covid and the severe side effects from the vaccines that immediately began to manifest in early 2021. Read the Federal Court decision issued on July 4, 2023 filed by the attorney generals from Missouri and Louisiana along with several others against the Biden administration if you want to see the evidence of the abuses of the Biden administration, their threats to the social media platforms and the capitulation by the platforms to their requests. Unfortunately that continues to this day on most platforms except X. When Elon Musk bought Twitter he exposed what the Biden Administration had been doing and exposed the “Twitter files”. While there have be hearings in the House of Representatives regarding these censorship issues since the republicans won the House in 2022, there hasn’t been much coverage of those hearings in the mainstream media. Prior to this election prominent Dems such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Kamala Harris have all criticized the citizens rights to free speech. Thank God Harris was not elected as I believe our First Amendment rights to free speech would have been ended. Unfortunately earlier this year SCOTUS would not affirm our rights to free speech by ruling that Missouri, Louisiana and the other Plaintiffs did not have standing in the free speech case I mentioned earlier. I could go on for hours about many other lies the mainstream media has been feeding us about other issues now and in the past.
Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are owned by the elites who control the mainstream media in this country and many others. For the Dems to have any relevance for me there will have to be a complete overhaul of the party. Unfortunately many of the republicans are also owned by those elites. As we all know there was no democracy exercised by the Dems since at least 2016 in their “selection “ of their presidential candidate. It became so obvious to everyone this year when Marianne and RFK Jr. were told before the New Hampshire primary that Biden was the “selection “ this year because he insisted to run for reelection. Then they decided to show his dementia by having a debate before the convention and immediately started saying that he will never win and they “selected “ their puppet candidate, Harris. The mandating of the Covid shots and the millions of injuries and deaths that have occurred with these shots have awoken enough people to realize that the Dems don’t even care if the American people live or die. They only care about controlling this country. That’s why me as a lifelong Democrat voted for President Trump.
If you are able to take an objective look at what he does in the next four years you might come to realize, as I recently have, that he is not the person the mainstream media has portrayed. In 2016 he didn’t know much about politics and he took other peoples advice about who to appoint to the thousands of positions that need to be filled in the government. Unfortunately many of the people giving him advice about who to appoint were looking out for their best interests and not the American peoples best interests. President Trump has learned a lot in the past eight years and he now has good people advising him who are concerned about the future of this country and its people. I have faith that RFK Jr’s involvement in the Trump administration will be a major positive influence. I believe that he is going to make America healthy again. He will expose the corruption of the federal agencies and get the corporate influence out of the federal agencies. I doubt that it will be easy but the team President Trump has working for him this time is determined to do their best to make this country great and make the lives of all Americans better.
Unfortunately I received a text from the new Gavin Newsom organization “For Democracy “. They are having a meeting today to begin an attack on “red states”. I hope the Dems will reject the “democracy “ offered by people like Gavin Newsom and instead of attacking fellow citizens, work with them for the greater good of all Americans.
Marianne, while I do not agree with your assessment of President Trump and your choice in candidates this time, I do respect your opinions, particularly about the Department of Peace, I hope you and others who are afraid of President Trump can have an open mind about the new administration and try to work with it. 🙏
As a long-time observer of your work, I've tried sharing thoughts before without response, and this post unfortunately confirms my concerns about your disconnect from how power actually operates in our system.
Your interview today demonstrates why your spiritual-political framework remains inadequate for our current crisis. While you correctly identify devastating symptoms - 46% of Americans skipping meals to pay rent, 70% living with constant economic anxiety, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing - your solutions remain trapped in an idealistic bubble, disconnected from material reality.
A "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" for the Democratic Party? "Post-partisan dialogue"? A return to "Americanism"? These suggestions reveal how decades of ACIM thinking has created a blind spot to how political and economic power actually functions. The Democratic establishment didn't make mistakes - they actively fought against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action because these policies threaten capital interests.
Your call for a "deeper political conversation" based on abstract principles sounds noble but misses the point entirely. We don't need more dialogue about harmony and founding principles. We need organized resistance to a system that consistently prioritizes profit over human survival. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more soul-searching - they're operating exactly as intended to protect capital interests.
The path forward isn't through spiritual awakening or "post-partisan" harmony. It's through building a mass movement that can deliver actual material changes working people desperately need. The crisis we face isn't about political silos or lack of dialogue - it's about power and who controls resources. Until you can engage with this material reality, your analysis will remain stuck in well-meaning but ultimately ineffective spiritual bypassing.
My Lord. Do you think running for President isn't "about power and who controls resources?" Check out the issues pages on marianne2024.com and tell me I don't know what's up. Thanks
Your response perfectly demonstrates my point. Rather than engaging with the substantive critique about the limitations of spiritual solutions and Democratic Party channels for achieving material change, you respond with a dismissive "My Lord" and defensive "check my website."
For someone who preaches love, dialogue, and spiritual awareness - and who just wrote about the need for "deep and humble inquiry" - your inability to thoughtfully engage with reader criticism is telling. Simply having policy positions on a campaign website isn't the same as understanding how to build actual power to achieve those policies against entrenched capital interests.
This interaction, combined with reports about how you treated your campaign staff, suggests a concerning pattern: there seems to be a significant gap between your public persona of love and healing versus how you actually engage with people who challenge your views or work for you.
Your defensive response focused entirely on protecting your self-image rather than reflecting on the critique about spiritual bypassing and systemic change. When faced with substantive criticism, you've demonstrated exactly what my original comment addressed - an unwillingness to engage with material reality in favor of maintaining your spiritual-political brand.
If you can't have a thoughtful dialogue with readers who took time to engage seriously with your ideas, perhaps your calls for "deep political conversation" and "true reconciliation" are more about appearances than actual transformation.
The staff thing aside, about which I am unqualified to comment (don’t know the scope, nor the circumstances), I think this is a cogent but unfair argument.
I ran for state fucking rep and it took a long time to recover from the exhaustion of trying to create a coherent movement in six towns. I cannot even fathom what it took to run for president against the headwinds she faced, and how hard she has worked trying to build the people-powered momentum to bring forward the mass movements you accurately describe are necessary to create real change.
If she were just a public intellectual or a podcaster, fine. But she has put her money where her mouth is and done the hard boots-on-the-ground work to spark the conversations that lead to public support for the very things you care about.
“Check my website” may have sounded a bit snarky, but I can understand where she’s coming from. Do you want to check her Apple Watch and see how many miles she’s covered, how many fluorescent rooms she’s been in, trying to bring people out of despair and into a sense of possibility that transcends the corporate gridlock you aptly point to?
I kind of take this personally, for some reason. Maybe it’s because I have been working nonstop to reach voters and shift the conversation for many years. I know Marianne can’t ask this - God knows - so I will ask out of genuine curiosity, though I know there is a tinge of defensiveness in there that I can’t shake so I’ll just acknowledge it honestly: what are you doing to make it all happen ?
I appreciate your personal experience running for state representative and acknowledge the difficulty of campaign work. However, you're missing several key points:
1. The issue isn't about Williamson's effort or miles traveled - it's about her approach to systemic change and her response to criticism. Walking miles while promoting spiritual solutions to material problems doesn't address the underlying issues.
2. You say "check her Apple Watch" miles as proof of work, but let's check the actual results: 2-4% in primaries, multiple campaign staff departures citing toxic behavior, $270,000 in campaign debts, and multiple campaign exits/re-entries.
3. Your defense of her "snarky" website response actually proves my point - when faced with substantive critique about her approach to systemic change, she (and now you) default to defensive responses about personal effort rather than engaging with the actual criticism.
4. Your "what are you doing" challenge is a deflection tactic. I'm not the one claiming to be a spiritual-political leader with solutions to systemic problems. I'm not the one running for president while treating staff so poorly they describe the experience as "terrifying." I'm not the one responding dismissively to substantive criticism with "My Lord" and "check my website." The validity of my critique stands on its own merits, regardless of my personal activities.
I appreciate that you acknowledge your defensiveness here. Perhaps consider why criticism of Williamson's approach triggers such a personal response?
1. First of all, I am not fluent enough (anymore, if I ever was) in the specifics of her campaign messaging to parse whether her solutions were, when examined closely, solely or even primarily spiritual in nature. Maybe I have been a superficial consumer of her message, but I have a broad (though again, non-specific, at the moment) sense that her solutions have always been tethered to reality, like a balloon tied to a child's wagon. The balloon is there, for sure (a loftier spiritual perspective), but so is the string, and the wagon carrying the child from point A to point B. Again, I cannot mount a case in support of this argument, so I admit freely that it could be wrong. I wish I had time to do the research, but I'm not sure that it would be persuasive to you, regardless. Though I sense that I'd find your (almost inevitable) rebuttal to my research to be instructive.
2. As an aside, you've used the term "proof of work." Are you a bitcoin person? Just curious. That q aside: I feel like there is more to the story behind those numbers. Campaigns are very weird animals, and the work is very stressful, low-pay, etc. I will just refrain from commenting on the toxic behavior stuff, because it's all in the specifics and I don't know them.
3. I understand what you're saying about the snarky comment, and the defensive responses (including mine). I am trying to think about why I posted such an uncharacteristically emotionally muddy comment; she doesn't need me to defend her, and she didn't ask. I think it comes from the fact that for her to mount a response commensurate to your criticism would be like trying to recreate an encyclopedic history of the last howervermany years, when the work should stand on its own. For example: I attended two (both?) of her Sister Giant conferences, in 2013(ish) and 2016(ish). They were designed entirely around educating and mobilizing in terms of crucial issues, from economics and the erosion of the American Dream to ecological destruction to ISIS. Bernie was a keynote, etc. There was a spiritual container, to be sure, but the entire conference was designed to steer concrete work on key issues of enormous relevance. I feel like for her to take the time to articulate a comprehensive summary, "here's what I've been doing for 15/30/howevermany years in a not-only-spiritual way" in response to a critical comment would be impossible. I guess that's why I took it personally; maybe that's why I am not (yet LOL) ready to run for president.
4. You are 100% right about my "what are you doing" challenge. It was a pretty low-vibration question, and is more of a reflection of my frustration with everyone who opines constantly and does next to nothing than with you specifically (for all I know, you could be working day and night in the trenches of democratic activism). I absolutely do think that there is a serious imbalance between people who talk and people who work, but a comments section of someone else's newsletter is probably not a productive vehicle for working out my personal frustration with that.
I will be honest: I thought that, over the last decade, there would be more of a "we're all in this together and must do our part" situation than has actually materialized. I think that there are many people who are still relying on others to get it done. To use an imperfect metaphor, just for the sake of wrapping this up quickly: it's like there's a beach littered with trash. If everyone came with a bag and pitched in, the beach would be clean. But a lot of people are just sitting at home, watching a few people clean up the beach on YouTube, and weighing in on their process.
She's a Post Hippie who blew out too much wiring with the psychedelics. Now I think she's using too much anti-wrinkle lotion, which is taking the wrinkles out of her brain sometimes.
most voters would probably quickly agree the US is a mess and in crisis, but they dont want to examine it - they dont want solutions - they just want a president that will destroy immigrants at home and Russians overseas.
"While you correctly identify devastating symptoms...your solutions remain trapped in an idealistic bubble, disconnected from material reality.
Your call for a "deeper political conversation" based on abstract principles sounds noble but misses the point entirely. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more soul-searching - they're operating exactly as intended...
The path forward isn't through spiritual awakening or "post-partisan" harmony. It's through building a mass movement that can deliver actual material changes working people desperately need."
I think every word is 100% correct. But I'm afraid every word will be 100% falling on deaf ears.
Thanks for seeing what I saw here. You're right to be cautious about the staff claims - that's good critical thinking. And you're absolutely spot-on about this falling on deaf ears - her dismissive "My Lord..." response proved that point immediately. It's revealing when someone who preaches deep dialogue and spiritual awareness can't even engage thoughtfully with substantive criticism from their own readers.
Kind of a "mask off" moment, right? The gap between her public persona of love and healing versus how she actually handles challenging feedback became pretty clear in this exchange. As you said, "it's kinda already happened..." - we watched it play out right here in her defensive response.
What do you think about this pattern of spiritual leaders who seem unable to practice their own teachings when actually challenged?
I think that I don't see too many spiritual leaders nowadays. And how many true ones will we be able to come up with if we look throughout history? Check out Chesterton's essay on Joan of Arc where he juxtaposes her with Nietzsche and Tolstoy. It has directly to do with the subject. So they have always been rarer than black opals. And if we go closer to home... I have spent about 18 months on this Substack offering pretty much the same observations and asking the same questions as appeared in your comments. My first question on day one of the campaign was, "Great...but how? How are you going to try implementing all those beautiful things given that you already know everything you need to know about the DNC and quite a bit about the DP at large? What's the plan?" The same question was asked from time to time in interviews MW gave during her campaign. Her answer always was, "Well, I still have this romantic vision of the Democratic Party....". Which makes zero sense as far as I'm concerned. And even now, after giving her speech from the side of a road outside the Democratic National Convention (my prediction from a year ago) she is still...well you have read the above article. At the same time, MW is certainly an intelligent and well informed person. So, as of this moment, I'd have a hard time trying to come up with any rational explanation of her plainly irrational at this point approach other than the one you suggest -- it seems to be simply all about "maintaining one's self-image and spiritual-political brand."
I don't know; I think spiritual leaders are people, too. And they get exhausted (per my comment above). Her "My lord" comment may have been dismissive, but it wasn't aggressive. It seems to stem more from exhaustion than anything else, which is maybe why I felt called to wade in and defend her. I think it would be refreshing if she said, "You know what? You're right, that was kind of snarky. I am a mom, a grandmother, I am trying to say things, I've been thwarted a zillion times over, and that takes its toll. I sometimes express that frustration badly." That would be honest. I think expecting our spiritual leaders to be perfect is also not spiritual. Maybe this is an important part of a bigger discussion around what we expect from our leaders, spiritual and otherwise.
Your 18-month observation is incredibly insightful - the contradiction between Williamson knowing how the DNC operates yet maintaining this "romantic vision" of transforming it makes zero sense... unless we consider that this positioning serves a purpose.
Presidential campaigns, win or lose, create incredible opportunities. Look at the Clintons, who went from being "dead broke" after leaving the White House to amassing over $100 million through books and speaking engagements. The Obamas secured a $65 million book deal after their presidency. Even candidates who didn't win, like Bernie Sanders, have seen their books become bestsellers and their influence grow enormously.
Williamson can be genuinely committed to her presidential aspirations AND aware that the exposure from two presidential runs expands her platform significantly. The Forbes article notes her campaign stops at bookstores, showing how she's able to merge political outreach with building her broader audience.
So while I believe she's sincere about wanting Democratic Party transformation, the "romantic vision" she maintains despite clear strategic flaws makes more sense when we understand how it serves to maintain and grow her influence - whether she succeeds politically or not. It's a more marketable message than acknowledging the fundamental incompatibility between spiritual transformation and the DNC's protection of capital interests.
As Forbes notes, even during her campaign stops, she's at bookstores because she "still needs to sell books to earn a living."
I have no doubt that MW holds this sincere in a way belief that she's doing the right thing. Which is meant to actually benefit the country. But so did Madeleine Albright. One can go to incredible lengths to "reconcile" the irreconcilable if it indeed "serves a purpose". By the way, I don't necessarily find this idea of a "revolution in consciousness" preceeding radical social change entirely absurd. I just don't find it very realistic. But I would be interested in any viable suggestions. Actually, that was the reason why I got into this Substack. But after a while, I couldn't help but arrive at the conclusion that MW's deliberately following the strategy that clearly leads nowhere. This is why I think your description of her enterprise as a "spiritual-political brand" is pretty apt. Basically, she's just selling hopium. Both in esoteric and political terms (so in this sense at least there is a perfect unity there :). While -- let's put it in this way -- choosing to genuinely believe that she genuinely believes in all this stuff. And you are right about this "message" being seriously more marketable than what the whole truth about the present situation, it origins, and probably the only possible way out would be. As we can see, it sells...
Hopium. That's twice now I've heard that word used. It's such a great word, thank you for using it and to whoever made it up. It's perfect.
You're a great writer and excellent communicator. I look forward to reading your Substack. Thanks again for chiming in, it's great to know I'm not the only one who sees through the BS.
I wasn't expecting perfection - I was expecting basic consistency with what she preached in her original post. She explicitly invited opinions and said our thoughts matter. So I took the time to craft a thoughtful critique, only to be dismissively shut down because I'm not a devotee who sees her as some kind of spiritual savior.
This perfectly demonstrates the problem with spiritual echo chambers - there's no actual room for dialogue despite all the talk about "deeper conversations" and "love." Just look at the responses to my comment from her readers: instead of engaging with substance, it's all attacks, one-upmanship, and smug moral superiority.
Spiritual communities often claim to be the most open-minded while displaying the worst examples of groupthink. When faced with legitimate criticism, the mask drops quickly - revealing that all this talk of love and dialogue is just performance. The instant retreat into defensive condescension shows the gap between proclaimed values and actual practice.
So no, I'm not demanding perfection. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of preaching love and open dialogue while creating an environment where only adoration is acceptable. The way her followers respond to criticism just reinforces my point about spiritual bypass culture.
I re-read your original post to see if it truly felt like a thoughtful critique. I guess my sense is that, at bottom, it didn't strike me as particularly thoughtful; it was more of a criticism of a short clip, asking it to stand in for the totality of a lifetime of work rather than a more comprehensive assessment of that body of work writ large (which I addressed in my other response; wondering what you thought about that). Inserting my own feelings (since again, I do not know her and really am not close to this situation), I would say that if your critique had actually felt more thoughtful, rather than more of a vessel to prove your (again, valid) point about a very unpleasant tendency in spiritual communities, it might have garnered a different response.
Or not. I have no idea. Maybe she is the difficult person you describe. I only met her in an elevator once for 2 seconds, so I have no clue. But it would have definitely gotten a different response from me; probably none, to be honest.
I guess that's why I felt personally protective of her defensive comment; I understood it, even as I have zero skin in this game. I didn't get the sense that she responded that way b/c you aren't a robotic devotee, slavishly hoping to polish her shoes. I sensed that it was just that your critique felt under-researched, even though you mentioned that you are a long-time observer of her work.
If I posted some general comment about this election/the state of the democratic party and you wrote that my comment does not take into account your (very good) point about protecting capital interests, I'd feel that way, too. Like: dude, this situation is unbelievably mutli-faceted, which is why the entire world is trying to make sense of it. Talking about 1-3 facets does not mean that someone is ignorant of the others; it just means that, for now, those are the facets that one feels called to highlight. That's where I felt your post was unfair.
I completely understand (and share) your frustration with/disdain for spiritual echo chambers. I just felt like this particular exchange wasn't as much the opportunity to have it out on that score as you felt it was, which is obviously just a difference in perception and experience.
She has no idea who I am, and I am even a bit perplexed by my own continuation of this conversation. Perhaps I am intrigued by the possibility of understanding myself better, as well as the things you point to. I hope you sense that this comes from a place of sincerity and honesty, and not simply attack.
My critique wasn't about a "short clip" - it was exposing a fundamental contradiction: Williamson advocates for "deeper political conversation" and "Truth and Reconciliation" with the very Democratic establishment that actively fights against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action. She's proposing dialogue and soul-searching with a party that deliberately crushes progressive policies to protect capital interests.
This isn't just naive - it's completely misreading how power works. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more "spiritual awareness" or "soulful conversation" - they're operating exactly as intended, consistently choosing profit over human needs. They don't need healing or reconciliation; they need to be replaced by mass movements focused on material change.
Williamson's approach of trying to transform the Democratic Party through spiritual awakening and "post-partisan harmony" ignores their proven track record of suppressing any threat to capital accumulation. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with an institution that's fundamentally designed to prevent the very changes you claim to want.
That's why my critique targeted this contradiction - her entire political framework ignores the fundamental reality of how the Democratic establishment actually operates. She's proposing solutions that are completely incompatible with the party's core purpose and function.
You also don’t understand how a movement against the established power and corruption will not work without the spiritual energy of love & truth! It is the only power that will move or change this disaster & Marianne knows all this better than anyone else! ❤️
Actually, I understand perfectly well how movements against established power work - they require organized resistance and material action, not just "spiritual energy." History shows us that real change comes from mass movements building actual power to challenge systems of oppression, not from spiritual platitudes.
You claim Marianne "knows this better than anyone else" yet her response to thoughtful criticism was a dismissive "My Lord" and defensive deflection. Multiple campaign staff members have described working with her as "toxic" and "terrifying." Is that the "spiritual energy of love & truth" you're referring to?
This perfectly demonstrates the problem - when faced with substantive critique about systemic issues and political power, ACIM followers retreat into vague spiritual assertions while ignoring documented behavior that contradicts their leader's message. Real transformation requires engaging with material reality, not bypassing it with feel-good spiritual rhetoric.
If you truly care about challenging established power and corruption, maybe start by examining how spiritual bypass culture enables leaders to avoid accountability while maintaining an image of enlightened awareness.
Your comment perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with performative "progressive" politics. Here you are, supposedly from the party of love, unity, and inclusion, immediately resorting to condescension ("cheap seats"), gatekeeping, and sarcastic mockery ("brother," "Good lord!") when faced with legitimate criticism.
The cognitive dissonance is stunning - defending a spiritual leader who preaches love while acting with the same sneering elitism that progressives claim to stand against. This faux-moral superiority while punching down at critics is exactly why so many see through this act.
You're not interested in actual dialogue or examining failed strategies - you just want to shut down criticism while pretending to occupy some imagined moral high ground. The instant retreat to "well why don't YOU run for office?" is the kind of shallow, thought-terminating response that shows you have no real counter to the substance of the critique.
But please, continue demonstrating how "loving" and "unified" you are with more condescending remarks from your position of enlightened awareness. It really helps prove my point about the toxic nature of spiritual bypass culture in progressive politics.
"The Democratic establishment didn't make mistakes - they actively fought against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action because these policies threaten capital interests." YES!
" - they're operating exactly as intended to protect capital interests" YES!
So these are simply systems or machines that operate like capitalism itself? No humanity is involved? Am i understanding you correctly?
Seems like at some point, soul-searching IS required. Somewhere, some human beings... like those few at center of DNC establishment... are making their choices and decisions about how these systems will operate. No? Yes?
Are you thinking more like Chinese approach of total control and authoritarianism to make the machine run smoothly and efficiently where that is all that matters?
I read two different parts in your comments. One is political so human. One is systemic so mechanical. Just trying to comprehend your view. Thanks.
Recognizing that the Democratic establishment operates to protect capital interests isn't about removing humanity from the equation or advocating for "Chinese authoritarianism." It's about understanding that individuals within these systems make conscious choices to prioritize capital over human needs.
The "soul-searching" you mention isn't required to understand why DNC leaders make these choices - they do it purposefully and knowingly to serve their class interests. This isn't mechanical or inhuman - it's very human. People in positions of power actively choose to protect wealth and privilege over addressing basic human needs.
The difference between this view and Williamson's approach is that she believes these choices can be changed through spiritual awakening and dialogue. I'm suggesting that these leaders are already fully aware of their choices and their consequences - they just prioritize different interests than we do.
So it's not about removing humanity from the analysis - it's about being honest about human motivations and class interests within these systems. Understanding this doesn't make us more mechanical - it makes us more clear-eyed about how power actually operates.
Thank you, Don. Your words - all of them, includiing in the long thread you and a couple of others have been carrying on - are more than enlightening. I've been trying to sort this out for a long time. You've just helped me clear another hurdle in my limited comprehension of "how it all works."
I've agreed with your take as articulated above until relatively recently, when i finally decided (maybe just wanting to make it simpler in my own head?) that it doesn't seem to matter WHO is 'elected' to office. Everyone who 'seems' trustworthy and ready to bring some 'integrity' to DC, gets elected by 'the people' and goes into "the machine or system."
Like a cartoon, they go in one door on the conveyor belt and soon transform <-- nice word - into pawns of that capitalistic system, as i saw it. So this has been my more recent view. Finally decided that it's simply the system and not the individuals who go into it. The rare ones who somehow don't get transformed - like Katie Porter - are soon rejected and pushed out.
Obviously, the system needs to be removed and replaced. (Or maybe it actually implodes under its own weight of deep and inherent corruption, is another scenario i've envisioned.)
It's how it 'mysteriously' corrupts or changes elected officials into pawns, magically removing all of their 'principles' and intentions to honestly serve their constituents instead of the toxic system that's clearly running the show.
Does this make any sense to you? Your excellent and thoughtful response has helped me shift gears again in the never-ending process of trying to comprehend what's happening. Can't help anything if we don't truly get what our problems are versus how they're portrayed by those with conflicting agendas.
Your clear-eyed view is most appreciated. Thank you, again.
I think the breakdown was at the very beginning when there was no debate between all those who were interested in running for President to then allow "the people" to decide who WE wanted to support. I don't like being told who to vote for, especially by the group that is preaching democracy. At this point, I don't see much difference in the two parties - it doesn't seem either care much about what the people want.
The radical right won by superior organizing, superior networking, a singular focus, seeding their ideas in a zillion conservative spaces, and a patient long game—aided by unlimited funds and resources and an electoral landscape that greatly favors them. It’s a real Goliath.
We don’t have money on our (pro-democracy) side, but we have wisdom & expertise & compassion & decent people we’d all rather hang out with.
Love your instinct to forge a “coalition of conscience.” We have to be at our best… and I’m trying to clean up my own act (have a LOT of anger right now at all the elites who were in on the con—not the voters who were conned— and helped him win) as well as network with people/orgs I trust.
MASHA GESSEN (who fled authoritarianism for America & might be eyeing the EU right now):
“Individual moral authority—is what threatens autocrats most. It's something that they can't capture.
"You can't buy it.
"You can't [...] take it by force
“You can't lay claim to it by title.
"You have either earned it or not.
"If you think back to the great liberation movements they've always had a person of moral authority or several people of moral authority as their organizing point of focus."
In 2025, we’re going to need to harmonize our skills & create safe spaces to communicate & organize…and stop beating each other up so we can better take on the forces that truly threaten us.
But they HAVE announced it. They are going all out on Project 2025. It was all over the news yesterday. If you haven't read Heather Cox Richardson's November 6 letter on Facebook, please do. The time for hand ringing about how it went down is over. It sucks, but we need to pivot to now. Those of us who still want a democracy need to come together and figure out how to stop this now. The fingers all need to be pointed at the way out of this, not each other.
The swing to right is now a global trend, which often means curtailment of human rights for some. LGBTQ, women, minorities, among others. Rights which have been struggled for over centuries. Is Trump fit to lead? Who will surround and influence him? How far back into the dark ages do we need to go? If this presidency looks like his previous one, many of us who are feeling devastated, are trying to prepare ourselves for laws that will favor corporations, cuts in funding for social programs that support people who don't have the income or resources to thrive in a profit driven system. Hopefully we will remember to reach one to another to help us endure what will come. Congress is not dependable and the supreme court is not very unbiased. Fear is in the air.
The no brainer, you saw the DEMs upsurp the process and it was downhill from there. I would encourage you to reach out to newly elected Pres. Donald Trump to see how you can serve, it's just another Dem crossing the aisle to become the One-ness and heal.
I agree, please reach across the aisle, this would help many of us heal & start unity & oneness! Call RFK and roll up your sleeves he needs your spiritual help! He is working to help our children just like you!
Marianne. You made many good points in your appearance on ABC. NOW they have you on, but I digress.
You are 100 percent right that it was anti democratic (small d) for the big D Democrats not to have had a real primary.
But I lost faith in the Democratic party long ago. I have heroes in the party, like my US Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. And, of course, I love Bernie, the socialist who caucuses with the Democrats and has run for president twice as a Democrat.
Another important voice in what is happening in our politics today is Robert Reich who was labor secretary for Clinton.
He is putting out a lot of information about how the money of the corporations gets into our government and suppresses social change. He is kind and gracious when he talks about leaving the Clinton administration. But clearly, he did not agree with the actions Clinton was taking to advance big money against working people.
His information explains how the corporations and (now oligarchs, as well) get their money into the system and how they go about using their money to wield their power in our government.
(I am cringing at the thought of how Elon Musk will control what happens in tech in the Trump II administration.)
What I say next will get ME hate in some quarters.
My husband is fond of saying, "Bill Clinton was the best friend the business man ever had!" And, we own a small business. But the part that will get me hate follows.
As a resident of Oregon, I live in the bluest of states. In the 30 plus years I have lived here, my recollection is that my state has always voted Democratic in the presidential election.
So both my husband and I backed Ralph Nader in the Clinton v Dole race and (gasp) in the Gore v Bush race. Why? Because in those particular races, there was no easily perceivable daylight between the Democrats and the Republicans. They were both bellied up to the troth of big money, lapping up as much of it as possible. And Oregon still went for Gore.
So, most of the time, my husband and I stay registered as Pacific Greens because that was the party Nader ran on. I like the idea of being a Green. When people like you, Marianne, and Bernie Sanders run for national office on the Democratic ticket, I change my registration. Vote in the Democratic primary. Then I change back. My husband does the same.
Marianne, if your efforts and those of others can get the Democrats to rise up and somehow beat the money of the corporations and oligarchs out of the Democratic party, I'm all in.
But it is very difficult for me to understand how that could be possible.
I don't understand why we need political parties. My understanding is that there was discussion about the danger of political parties among the authors of our constitution.
But here in the 21st century, this is where we find ourselves - with two very wealthy and powerful political parties. So, if my country is going to go down this path of we MUST have parties, I'll register with what is considered a third party to show my distrust of the corrupt, powerful two major parties.
That said, you are correct Marianne, we need to find a way to give WE THE PEOPLE a voice in our democratic process.
What we got now, well that ain't it.
Finally, to the gentleman who is writing in this space that spirituality and politics don't mix... That's what they said about Jimmy Carter, who actually worked in and out of politics to end poverty, disease and ignorance. His move while president to allow a tax credit for anyone who pays to take a an educational course at the post secondary level or beyond is still on the books. I benefited from that into my 40s. I am hopeful that as I grow older, perhaps I will have time to take more post secondary classes and still benefit from his tax credit.
My husband and I went to Plains, GA and attended his Sunday School lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church. I admire him for actively sharing how his faith gave him lessons for making love the center of his political policies.
The late and beautiful Tich Naht Hahn (sp?) who left us with innumerable spiritual teachings talked about having love for our political adversaries. He once said that many people could write a protest letter to George Bush, the elder. But, he also asked, how many people could write a love letter to him. You can see him in the famous picture from the 1960s of the Buddhist monk in Vietnam setting himself on fire to protest that country's civil war.
Did not the Romans attempt to forever kill Jesus of Nazareth in part because he got in their way politically?
Love doesn't end at our wallets or our politics. That is where we need it the most.
Put down the phone, switch off the TV, get out and talk to people.
Thank you for all you do! You are a beautiful shining light of unity, truth and goodness. Please keep reaching to heal the wounded & to other side to heal our division! Sending love & strength as always!🙏🏼❤️
perhaps we ALL need a truth and reconciliation event.
that may require a little time to heal ourselves then rest and willingness to engage.
I think it can be noted how the media was SO WRONG with their assessments of how close the race would be. Point- the media is out of integrity…
So glad you were on ABC
Praying🙏💕
Marianne- You are the leader for "We're all in this together". Thank you, and we have your back. I have your back.
As a lefty who is busy on climate restoration, I saw the polarization that we lefty's were creating by raising millions of dollars and millions of hours to oppose 'them'. We naturally were echoing and modifying 'their' attacks on 'us'.
The result of the election showed me on Wednesday that I need to lead, with you and millions of others, a new phoenix, of Humanity Flourishing. We're a tribal species that evolved in circumstances where the tribe 'over there' was often truly out to kill us. Our brains will react with fear, and we can replace that fear with love and forgiveness. We must do that over and over and over until we die.
Marianne- thank you for being the nation's and world's outstanding political leader calling for humanity as a whole flourishing, for millennia to come. We're behind you. I'm behind you.
I believe the future of this country and the world rests with the collective consciousness of “The People,” not any government, party, particular system, organization or any particular issues you brought forth in your campaign. Doing the latter is merely more of the same.
“What it will take for the phoenix to rise” in its true meaning, I believe can best be achieved with your leadership to “forge a new, more soulful political conversation” that indeed can only be repaired by love.”
You are correct, Marianne.
It's such a blessing to have your voice available and part of the process of transparency and "getting real". Thx!
I’ve been a Dem for almost 50 years and this is the first time I voted for a Republican for president. My eyes were opened in December 2020 when I began listening to the alternative media about mRNA vaccines. I learned that they have been trying to get an mRNA vaccine to work against a coronavirus for ten years with no success. I also learned that with their animal studies the animals showed that they developed antibodies after they received the vaccine but when they were exposed to the coronavirus they died. This information was suppressed by the mainstream media then and continues to be suppressed to this day. It was at that time that I finally learned that the mainstream media is a propaganda arm of the global elite and I began using my critical thinking skills. I witnessed over the next four years the depth of the lies and propaganda of the mainstream media and the Biden administration. It was during this time that I became aware of RFK Jr’s work with Children’s Health Defense and others who were telling the truth about the vaccines while the mainstream media kept up their mantra of “safe and effective “ and “if you get the vaccine you won’t get Covid and the pandemic will end”. Unfortunately for the many millions of people who believed the propaganda and got the shots, they soon discovered that they got Covid. But instead of admitting that the vaccines were never studied for whether they would stop infection or transmission the elite changed the narrative, initially to “there are some breakthrough Covid cases despite having the vaccines” to later “we never said it would stop infection or transmission, we only said that you wouldn’t get so sick from it or die from Covid”. Studies have also shown the lie with this narrative and that information continues to be suppressed even now. The studies show that a person who got the shots are more likely to get Covid multiple times. Others who did not get the shots developed natural immunity when they got Covid the first timeand they are much less likely to get Covid again. There were doctors across the world who knew by March 2020 effective and safe treatments for Covid but that information was censored by the elite who own the mainstream media and physicians who were successfully treating patients with these protocols were ridiculed, fired and some had their licenses suspended or removed.Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx lied to President Trump and the American public about all of this. Read The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK Jr. if you want to learn the truth about what happened and what continues to be censored. Then in 2021 after Biden took office his administration immediately began threatening all social media platforms that they would take away their Section 230 immunity if they didn’t censor all truthful information about effective treatment for Covid and the severe side effects from the vaccines that immediately began to manifest in early 2021. Read the Federal Court decision issued on July 4, 2023 filed by the attorney generals from Missouri and Louisiana along with several others against the Biden administration if you want to see the evidence of the abuses of the Biden administration, their threats to the social media platforms and the capitulation by the platforms to their requests. Unfortunately that continues to this day on most platforms except X. When Elon Musk bought Twitter he exposed what the Biden Administration had been doing and exposed the “Twitter files”. While there have be hearings in the House of Representatives regarding these censorship issues since the republicans won the House in 2022, there hasn’t been much coverage of those hearings in the mainstream media. Prior to this election prominent Dems such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Kamala Harris have all criticized the citizens rights to free speech. Thank God Harris was not elected as I believe our First Amendment rights to free speech would have been ended. Unfortunately earlier this year SCOTUS would not affirm our rights to free speech by ruling that Missouri, Louisiana and the other Plaintiffs did not have standing in the free speech case I mentioned earlier. I could go on for hours about many other lies the mainstream media has been feeding us about other issues now and in the past.
Unfortunately for the country, the Dems are owned by the elites who control the mainstream media in this country and many others. For the Dems to have any relevance for me there will have to be a complete overhaul of the party. Unfortunately many of the republicans are also owned by those elites. As we all know there was no democracy exercised by the Dems since at least 2016 in their “selection “ of their presidential candidate. It became so obvious to everyone this year when Marianne and RFK Jr. were told before the New Hampshire primary that Biden was the “selection “ this year because he insisted to run for reelection. Then they decided to show his dementia by having a debate before the convention and immediately started saying that he will never win and they “selected “ their puppet candidate, Harris. The mandating of the Covid shots and the millions of injuries and deaths that have occurred with these shots have awoken enough people to realize that the Dems don’t even care if the American people live or die. They only care about controlling this country. That’s why me as a lifelong Democrat voted for President Trump.
If you are able to take an objective look at what he does in the next four years you might come to realize, as I recently have, that he is not the person the mainstream media has portrayed. In 2016 he didn’t know much about politics and he took other peoples advice about who to appoint to the thousands of positions that need to be filled in the government. Unfortunately many of the people giving him advice about who to appoint were looking out for their best interests and not the American peoples best interests. President Trump has learned a lot in the past eight years and he now has good people advising him who are concerned about the future of this country and its people. I have faith that RFK Jr’s involvement in the Trump administration will be a major positive influence. I believe that he is going to make America healthy again. He will expose the corruption of the federal agencies and get the corporate influence out of the federal agencies. I doubt that it will be easy but the team President Trump has working for him this time is determined to do their best to make this country great and make the lives of all Americans better.
Unfortunately I received a text from the new Gavin Newsom organization “For Democracy “. They are having a meeting today to begin an attack on “red states”. I hope the Dems will reject the “democracy “ offered by people like Gavin Newsom and instead of attacking fellow citizens, work with them for the greater good of all Americans.
Marianne, while I do not agree with your assessment of President Trump and your choice in candidates this time, I do respect your opinions, particularly about the Department of Peace, I hope you and others who are afraid of President Trump can have an open mind about the new administration and try to work with it. 🙏
Spot on Marianne. 🙏🏼🕊️
As a long-time observer of your work, I've tried sharing thoughts before without response, and this post unfortunately confirms my concerns about your disconnect from how power actually operates in our system.
Your interview today demonstrates why your spiritual-political framework remains inadequate for our current crisis. While you correctly identify devastating symptoms - 46% of Americans skipping meals to pay rent, 70% living with constant economic anxiety, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing - your solutions remain trapped in an idealistic bubble, disconnected from material reality.
A "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" for the Democratic Party? "Post-partisan dialogue"? A return to "Americanism"? These suggestions reveal how decades of ACIM thinking has created a blind spot to how political and economic power actually functions. The Democratic establishment didn't make mistakes - they actively fought against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action because these policies threaten capital interests.
Your call for a "deeper political conversation" based on abstract principles sounds noble but misses the point entirely. We don't need more dialogue about harmony and founding principles. We need organized resistance to a system that consistently prioritizes profit over human survival. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more soul-searching - they're operating exactly as intended to protect capital interests.
The path forward isn't through spiritual awakening or "post-partisan" harmony. It's through building a mass movement that can deliver actual material changes working people desperately need. The crisis we face isn't about political silos or lack of dialogue - it's about power and who controls resources. Until you can engage with this material reality, your analysis will remain stuck in well-meaning but ultimately ineffective spiritual bypassing.
My Lord. Do you think running for President isn't "about power and who controls resources?" Check out the issues pages on marianne2024.com and tell me I don't know what's up. Thanks
Your response perfectly demonstrates my point. Rather than engaging with the substantive critique about the limitations of spiritual solutions and Democratic Party channels for achieving material change, you respond with a dismissive "My Lord" and defensive "check my website."
For someone who preaches love, dialogue, and spiritual awareness - and who just wrote about the need for "deep and humble inquiry" - your inability to thoughtfully engage with reader criticism is telling. Simply having policy positions on a campaign website isn't the same as understanding how to build actual power to achieve those policies against entrenched capital interests.
This interaction, combined with reports about how you treated your campaign staff, suggests a concerning pattern: there seems to be a significant gap between your public persona of love and healing versus how you actually engage with people who challenge your views or work for you.
Your defensive response focused entirely on protecting your self-image rather than reflecting on the critique about spiritual bypassing and systemic change. When faced with substantive criticism, you've demonstrated exactly what my original comment addressed - an unwillingness to engage with material reality in favor of maintaining your spiritual-political brand.
If you can't have a thoughtful dialogue with readers who took time to engage seriously with your ideas, perhaps your calls for "deep political conversation" and "true reconciliation" are more about appearances than actual transformation.
The staff thing aside, about which I am unqualified to comment (don’t know the scope, nor the circumstances), I think this is a cogent but unfair argument.
I ran for state fucking rep and it took a long time to recover from the exhaustion of trying to create a coherent movement in six towns. I cannot even fathom what it took to run for president against the headwinds she faced, and how hard she has worked trying to build the people-powered momentum to bring forward the mass movements you accurately describe are necessary to create real change.
If she were just a public intellectual or a podcaster, fine. But she has put her money where her mouth is and done the hard boots-on-the-ground work to spark the conversations that lead to public support for the very things you care about.
“Check my website” may have sounded a bit snarky, but I can understand where she’s coming from. Do you want to check her Apple Watch and see how many miles she’s covered, how many fluorescent rooms she’s been in, trying to bring people out of despair and into a sense of possibility that transcends the corporate gridlock you aptly point to?
I kind of take this personally, for some reason. Maybe it’s because I have been working nonstop to reach voters and shift the conversation for many years. I know Marianne can’t ask this - God knows - so I will ask out of genuine curiosity, though I know there is a tinge of defensiveness in there that I can’t shake so I’ll just acknowledge it honestly: what are you doing to make it all happen ?
I appreciate your personal experience running for state representative and acknowledge the difficulty of campaign work. However, you're missing several key points:
1. The issue isn't about Williamson's effort or miles traveled - it's about her approach to systemic change and her response to criticism. Walking miles while promoting spiritual solutions to material problems doesn't address the underlying issues.
2. You say "check her Apple Watch" miles as proof of work, but let's check the actual results: 2-4% in primaries, multiple campaign staff departures citing toxic behavior, $270,000 in campaign debts, and multiple campaign exits/re-entries.
3. Your defense of her "snarky" website response actually proves my point - when faced with substantive critique about her approach to systemic change, she (and now you) default to defensive responses about personal effort rather than engaging with the actual criticism.
4. Your "what are you doing" challenge is a deflection tactic. I'm not the one claiming to be a spiritual-political leader with solutions to systemic problems. I'm not the one running for president while treating staff so poorly they describe the experience as "terrifying." I'm not the one responding dismissively to substantive criticism with "My Lord" and "check my website." The validity of my critique stands on its own merits, regardless of my personal activities.
I appreciate that you acknowledge your defensiveness here. Perhaps consider why criticism of Williamson's approach triggers such a personal response?
You are a very clear communicator. :)
Hmmm, ok:
1. First of all, I am not fluent enough (anymore, if I ever was) in the specifics of her campaign messaging to parse whether her solutions were, when examined closely, solely or even primarily spiritual in nature. Maybe I have been a superficial consumer of her message, but I have a broad (though again, non-specific, at the moment) sense that her solutions have always been tethered to reality, like a balloon tied to a child's wagon. The balloon is there, for sure (a loftier spiritual perspective), but so is the string, and the wagon carrying the child from point A to point B. Again, I cannot mount a case in support of this argument, so I admit freely that it could be wrong. I wish I had time to do the research, but I'm not sure that it would be persuasive to you, regardless. Though I sense that I'd find your (almost inevitable) rebuttal to my research to be instructive.
2. As an aside, you've used the term "proof of work." Are you a bitcoin person? Just curious. That q aside: I feel like there is more to the story behind those numbers. Campaigns are very weird animals, and the work is very stressful, low-pay, etc. I will just refrain from commenting on the toxic behavior stuff, because it's all in the specifics and I don't know them.
3. I understand what you're saying about the snarky comment, and the defensive responses (including mine). I am trying to think about why I posted such an uncharacteristically emotionally muddy comment; she doesn't need me to defend her, and she didn't ask. I think it comes from the fact that for her to mount a response commensurate to your criticism would be like trying to recreate an encyclopedic history of the last howervermany years, when the work should stand on its own. For example: I attended two (both?) of her Sister Giant conferences, in 2013(ish) and 2016(ish). They were designed entirely around educating and mobilizing in terms of crucial issues, from economics and the erosion of the American Dream to ecological destruction to ISIS. Bernie was a keynote, etc. There was a spiritual container, to be sure, but the entire conference was designed to steer concrete work on key issues of enormous relevance. I feel like for her to take the time to articulate a comprehensive summary, "here's what I've been doing for 15/30/howevermany years in a not-only-spiritual way" in response to a critical comment would be impossible. I guess that's why I took it personally; maybe that's why I am not (yet LOL) ready to run for president.
4. You are 100% right about my "what are you doing" challenge. It was a pretty low-vibration question, and is more of a reflection of my frustration with everyone who opines constantly and does next to nothing than with you specifically (for all I know, you could be working day and night in the trenches of democratic activism). I absolutely do think that there is a serious imbalance between people who talk and people who work, but a comments section of someone else's newsletter is probably not a productive vehicle for working out my personal frustration with that.
I will be honest: I thought that, over the last decade, there would be more of a "we're all in this together and must do our part" situation than has actually materialized. I think that there are many people who are still relying on others to get it done. To use an imperfect metaphor, just for the sake of wrapping this up quickly: it's like there's a beach littered with trash. If everyone came with a bag and pitched in, the beach would be clean. But a lot of people are just sitting at home, watching a few people clean up the beach on YouTube, and weighing in on their process.
Not sure about the staff thing, but otherwise another surgically precise analysis...
She's a Post Hippie who blew out too much wiring with the psychedelics. Now I think she's using too much anti-wrinkle lotion, which is taking the wrinkles out of her brain sometimes.
Don,
most voters would probably quickly agree the US is a mess and in crisis, but they dont want to examine it - they dont want solutions - they just want a president that will destroy immigrants at home and Russians overseas.
You'll never be guilty of spiritual bypassing. I just had to say that out loud to you. In fact you're the person who told me not to engage in it.
So that's that. ❤
"While you correctly identify devastating symptoms...your solutions remain trapped in an idealistic bubble, disconnected from material reality.
Your call for a "deeper political conversation" based on abstract principles sounds noble but misses the point entirely. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more soul-searching - they're operating exactly as intended...
The path forward isn't through spiritual awakening or "post-partisan" harmony. It's through building a mass movement that can deliver actual material changes working people desperately need."
I think every word is 100% correct. But I'm afraid every word will be 100% falling on deaf ears.
It's kinda already happened...
Thanks for seeing what I saw here. You're right to be cautious about the staff claims - that's good critical thinking. And you're absolutely spot-on about this falling on deaf ears - her dismissive "My Lord..." response proved that point immediately. It's revealing when someone who preaches deep dialogue and spiritual awareness can't even engage thoughtfully with substantive criticism from their own readers.
Kind of a "mask off" moment, right? The gap between her public persona of love and healing versus how she actually handles challenging feedback became pretty clear in this exchange. As you said, "it's kinda already happened..." - we watched it play out right here in her defensive response.
What do you think about this pattern of spiritual leaders who seem unable to practice their own teachings when actually challenged?
I think that I don't see too many spiritual leaders nowadays. And how many true ones will we be able to come up with if we look throughout history? Check out Chesterton's essay on Joan of Arc where he juxtaposes her with Nietzsche and Tolstoy. It has directly to do with the subject. So they have always been rarer than black opals. And if we go closer to home... I have spent about 18 months on this Substack offering pretty much the same observations and asking the same questions as appeared in your comments. My first question on day one of the campaign was, "Great...but how? How are you going to try implementing all those beautiful things given that you already know everything you need to know about the DNC and quite a bit about the DP at large? What's the plan?" The same question was asked from time to time in interviews MW gave during her campaign. Her answer always was, "Well, I still have this romantic vision of the Democratic Party....". Which makes zero sense as far as I'm concerned. And even now, after giving her speech from the side of a road outside the Democratic National Convention (my prediction from a year ago) she is still...well you have read the above article. At the same time, MW is certainly an intelligent and well informed person. So, as of this moment, I'd have a hard time trying to come up with any rational explanation of her plainly irrational at this point approach other than the one you suggest -- it seems to be simply all about "maintaining one's self-image and spiritual-political brand."
I don't know; I think spiritual leaders are people, too. And they get exhausted (per my comment above). Her "My lord" comment may have been dismissive, but it wasn't aggressive. It seems to stem more from exhaustion than anything else, which is maybe why I felt called to wade in and defend her. I think it would be refreshing if she said, "You know what? You're right, that was kind of snarky. I am a mom, a grandmother, I am trying to say things, I've been thwarted a zillion times over, and that takes its toll. I sometimes express that frustration badly." That would be honest. I think expecting our spiritual leaders to be perfect is also not spiritual. Maybe this is an important part of a bigger discussion around what we expect from our leaders, spiritual and otherwise.
Your 18-month observation is incredibly insightful - the contradiction between Williamson knowing how the DNC operates yet maintaining this "romantic vision" of transforming it makes zero sense... unless we consider that this positioning serves a purpose.
Presidential campaigns, win or lose, create incredible opportunities. Look at the Clintons, who went from being "dead broke" after leaving the White House to amassing over $100 million through books and speaking engagements. The Obamas secured a $65 million book deal after their presidency. Even candidates who didn't win, like Bernie Sanders, have seen their books become bestsellers and their influence grow enormously.
Williamson can be genuinely committed to her presidential aspirations AND aware that the exposure from two presidential runs expands her platform significantly. The Forbes article notes her campaign stops at bookstores, showing how she's able to merge political outreach with building her broader audience.
So while I believe she's sincere about wanting Democratic Party transformation, the "romantic vision" she maintains despite clear strategic flaws makes more sense when we understand how it serves to maintain and grow her influence - whether she succeeds politically or not. It's a more marketable message than acknowledging the fundamental incompatibility between spiritual transformation and the DNC's protection of capital interests.
As Forbes notes, even during her campaign stops, she's at bookstores because she "still needs to sell books to earn a living."
I have no doubt that MW holds this sincere in a way belief that she's doing the right thing. Which is meant to actually benefit the country. But so did Madeleine Albright. One can go to incredible lengths to "reconcile" the irreconcilable if it indeed "serves a purpose". By the way, I don't necessarily find this idea of a "revolution in consciousness" preceeding radical social change entirely absurd. I just don't find it very realistic. But I would be interested in any viable suggestions. Actually, that was the reason why I got into this Substack. But after a while, I couldn't help but arrive at the conclusion that MW's deliberately following the strategy that clearly leads nowhere. This is why I think your description of her enterprise as a "spiritual-political brand" is pretty apt. Basically, she's just selling hopium. Both in esoteric and political terms (so in this sense at least there is a perfect unity there :). While -- let's put it in this way -- choosing to genuinely believe that she genuinely believes in all this stuff. And you are right about this "message" being seriously more marketable than what the whole truth about the present situation, it origins, and probably the only possible way out would be. As we can see, it sells...
Hopium. That's twice now I've heard that word used. It's such a great word, thank you for using it and to whoever made it up. It's perfect.
You're a great writer and excellent communicator. I look forward to reading your Substack. Thanks again for chiming in, it's great to know I'm not the only one who sees through the BS.
I wasn't expecting perfection - I was expecting basic consistency with what she preached in her original post. She explicitly invited opinions and said our thoughts matter. So I took the time to craft a thoughtful critique, only to be dismissively shut down because I'm not a devotee who sees her as some kind of spiritual savior.
This perfectly demonstrates the problem with spiritual echo chambers - there's no actual room for dialogue despite all the talk about "deeper conversations" and "love." Just look at the responses to my comment from her readers: instead of engaging with substance, it's all attacks, one-upmanship, and smug moral superiority.
Spiritual communities often claim to be the most open-minded while displaying the worst examples of groupthink. When faced with legitimate criticism, the mask drops quickly - revealing that all this talk of love and dialogue is just performance. The instant retreat into defensive condescension shows the gap between proclaimed values and actual practice.
So no, I'm not demanding perfection. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of preaching love and open dialogue while creating an environment where only adoration is acceptable. The way her followers respond to criticism just reinforces my point about spiritual bypass culture.
I re-read your original post to see if it truly felt like a thoughtful critique. I guess my sense is that, at bottom, it didn't strike me as particularly thoughtful; it was more of a criticism of a short clip, asking it to stand in for the totality of a lifetime of work rather than a more comprehensive assessment of that body of work writ large (which I addressed in my other response; wondering what you thought about that). Inserting my own feelings (since again, I do not know her and really am not close to this situation), I would say that if your critique had actually felt more thoughtful, rather than more of a vessel to prove your (again, valid) point about a very unpleasant tendency in spiritual communities, it might have garnered a different response.
Or not. I have no idea. Maybe she is the difficult person you describe. I only met her in an elevator once for 2 seconds, so I have no clue. But it would have definitely gotten a different response from me; probably none, to be honest.
I guess that's why I felt personally protective of her defensive comment; I understood it, even as I have zero skin in this game. I didn't get the sense that she responded that way b/c you aren't a robotic devotee, slavishly hoping to polish her shoes. I sensed that it was just that your critique felt under-researched, even though you mentioned that you are a long-time observer of her work.
If I posted some general comment about this election/the state of the democratic party and you wrote that my comment does not take into account your (very good) point about protecting capital interests, I'd feel that way, too. Like: dude, this situation is unbelievably mutli-faceted, which is why the entire world is trying to make sense of it. Talking about 1-3 facets does not mean that someone is ignorant of the others; it just means that, for now, those are the facets that one feels called to highlight. That's where I felt your post was unfair.
I completely understand (and share) your frustration with/disdain for spiritual echo chambers. I just felt like this particular exchange wasn't as much the opportunity to have it out on that score as you felt it was, which is obviously just a difference in perception and experience.
She has no idea who I am, and I am even a bit perplexed by my own continuation of this conversation. Perhaps I am intrigued by the possibility of understanding myself better, as well as the things you point to. I hope you sense that this comes from a place of sincerity and honesty, and not simply attack.
My critique wasn't about a "short clip" - it was exposing a fundamental contradiction: Williamson advocates for "deeper political conversation" and "Truth and Reconciliation" with the very Democratic establishment that actively fights against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action. She's proposing dialogue and soul-searching with a party that deliberately crushes progressive policies to protect capital interests.
This isn't just naive - it's completely misreading how power works. The Democratic establishment isn't failing because they need more "spiritual awareness" or "soulful conversation" - they're operating exactly as intended, consistently choosing profit over human needs. They don't need healing or reconciliation; they need to be replaced by mass movements focused on material change.
Williamson's approach of trying to transform the Democratic Party through spiritual awakening and "post-partisan harmony" ignores their proven track record of suppressing any threat to capital accumulation. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with an institution that's fundamentally designed to prevent the very changes you claim to want.
That's why my critique targeted this contradiction - her entire political framework ignores the fundamental reality of how the Democratic establishment actually operates. She's proposing solutions that are completely incompatible with the party's core purpose and function.
You also don’t understand how a movement against the established power and corruption will not work without the spiritual energy of love & truth! It is the only power that will move or change this disaster & Marianne knows all this better than anyone else! ❤️
Actually, I understand perfectly well how movements against established power work - they require organized resistance and material action, not just "spiritual energy." History shows us that real change comes from mass movements building actual power to challenge systems of oppression, not from spiritual platitudes.
You claim Marianne "knows this better than anyone else" yet her response to thoughtful criticism was a dismissive "My Lord" and defensive deflection. Multiple campaign staff members have described working with her as "toxic" and "terrifying." Is that the "spiritual energy of love & truth" you're referring to?
This perfectly demonstrates the problem - when faced with substantive critique about systemic issues and political power, ACIM followers retreat into vague spiritual assertions while ignoring documented behavior that contradicts their leader's message. Real transformation requires engaging with material reality, not bypassing it with feel-good spiritual rhetoric.
If you truly care about challenging established power and corruption, maybe start by examining how spiritual bypass culture enables leaders to avoid accountability while maintaining an image of enlightened awareness.
Well, Don, you do seem to know it all. I'm sure we'll see you engaging on the national level immediately, right?
It's easy from the cheap seats, brother. She is in the ring.
So yes, Good lord!
Your comment perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with performative "progressive" politics. Here you are, supposedly from the party of love, unity, and inclusion, immediately resorting to condescension ("cheap seats"), gatekeeping, and sarcastic mockery ("brother," "Good lord!") when faced with legitimate criticism.
The cognitive dissonance is stunning - defending a spiritual leader who preaches love while acting with the same sneering elitism that progressives claim to stand against. This faux-moral superiority while punching down at critics is exactly why so many see through this act.
You're not interested in actual dialogue or examining failed strategies - you just want to shut down criticism while pretending to occupy some imagined moral high ground. The instant retreat to "well why don't YOU run for office?" is the kind of shallow, thought-terminating response that shows you have no real counter to the substance of the critique.
But please, continue demonstrating how "loving" and "unified" you are with more condescending remarks from your position of enlightened awareness. It really helps prove my point about the toxic nature of spiritual bypass culture in progressive politics.
I'm not sure what discourse you are interested in other than someone affirming your righteousness.
"The Democratic establishment didn't make mistakes - they actively fought against universal healthcare, affordable housing, and climate action because these policies threaten capital interests." YES!
" - they're operating exactly as intended to protect capital interests" YES!
So these are simply systems or machines that operate like capitalism itself? No humanity is involved? Am i understanding you correctly?
Seems like at some point, soul-searching IS required. Somewhere, some human beings... like those few at center of DNC establishment... are making their choices and decisions about how these systems will operate. No? Yes?
Are you thinking more like Chinese approach of total control and authoritarianism to make the machine run smoothly and efficiently where that is all that matters?
I read two different parts in your comments. One is political so human. One is systemic so mechanical. Just trying to comprehend your view. Thanks.
Recognizing that the Democratic establishment operates to protect capital interests isn't about removing humanity from the equation or advocating for "Chinese authoritarianism." It's about understanding that individuals within these systems make conscious choices to prioritize capital over human needs.
The "soul-searching" you mention isn't required to understand why DNC leaders make these choices - they do it purposefully and knowingly to serve their class interests. This isn't mechanical or inhuman - it's very human. People in positions of power actively choose to protect wealth and privilege over addressing basic human needs.
The difference between this view and Williamson's approach is that she believes these choices can be changed through spiritual awakening and dialogue. I'm suggesting that these leaders are already fully aware of their choices and their consequences - they just prioritize different interests than we do.
So it's not about removing humanity from the analysis - it's about being honest about human motivations and class interests within these systems. Understanding this doesn't make us more mechanical - it makes us more clear-eyed about how power actually operates.
Thank you, Don. Your words - all of them, includiing in the long thread you and a couple of others have been carrying on - are more than enlightening. I've been trying to sort this out for a long time. You've just helped me clear another hurdle in my limited comprehension of "how it all works."
I've agreed with your take as articulated above until relatively recently, when i finally decided (maybe just wanting to make it simpler in my own head?) that it doesn't seem to matter WHO is 'elected' to office. Everyone who 'seems' trustworthy and ready to bring some 'integrity' to DC, gets elected by 'the people' and goes into "the machine or system."
Like a cartoon, they go in one door on the conveyor belt and soon transform <-- nice word - into pawns of that capitalistic system, as i saw it. So this has been my more recent view. Finally decided that it's simply the system and not the individuals who go into it. The rare ones who somehow don't get transformed - like Katie Porter - are soon rejected and pushed out.
Obviously, the system needs to be removed and replaced. (Or maybe it actually implodes under its own weight of deep and inherent corruption, is another scenario i've envisioned.)
It's how it 'mysteriously' corrupts or changes elected officials into pawns, magically removing all of their 'principles' and intentions to honestly serve their constituents instead of the toxic system that's clearly running the show.
Does this make any sense to you? Your excellent and thoughtful response has helped me shift gears again in the never-ending process of trying to comprehend what's happening. Can't help anything if we don't truly get what our problems are versus how they're portrayed by those with conflicting agendas.
Your clear-eyed view is most appreciated. Thank you, again.
I think the breakdown was at the very beginning when there was no debate between all those who were interested in running for President to then allow "the people" to decide who WE wanted to support. I don't like being told who to vote for, especially by the group that is preaching democracy. At this point, I don't see much difference in the two parties - it doesn't seem either care much about what the people want.