View this post on the web at [link removed]

This is The Social Contract Community Issue, our free weekly edition built by and for the readers of The Social Contract. If you have something to share with the community, we’d love to hear from you. Please send it our way at [email protected] [ [link removed] ]. Thank you!
Hi Friends,
A couple weeks ago, I told you [ [link removed] ] about a conversation I had with a friend and then asked you to tell me if I’m really a Democrat (my friend insists that I’m not). The feedback was overwhelming—and fantastic. I wish I could include all of it here, but I did include some of it below.
The verdict? A plurality of you said, yes, I’m a Democrat. But a sizeable chunk of respondents said I’m somewhere in between—not really a Republican anymore, but not really a Democrat either. That has given me something to think about.
Thanks again to all of you for your thoughtful replies. There were far too many for me to reply to each of you individually. But I want you to know that I read every single one and took what you said to heart.
Have a good week!
Joe
Last Week
My Substack Lives are open to all subscribers, unless noted. Click below if you missed any of my conversations last week!
Tuesday with Rich Logis [ [link removed] ]
Wednesday with Michael Cohen [ [link removed] ]
Wednesday with Ilana Redstone [ [link removed] ]
Thursday with Edwin Eisendrath [ [link removed] ]
Friday with Mike Nellis [ [link removed] ]
Sunday with Royce [ [link removed] ]
Nobody should care if you are a Democrat or a Republican. Labels, schmabels. Does not matter.
The best policy made is through intelligent, thoughtful discussion and debate, and ultimately compromise.
We have gotten to a point in our political discourse where compromise is the furthest thing from the minds of our career politicians (which the Founding Fathers would never have imagined possible).
Our representative government was supposed to be made up of people who had other jobs and volunteered some of their time to come and represent their neighbors and engage in thoughtful discussion about the policy issues of the day. Through careful discussion, sometimes energetic debate, and careful analysis, policies would be formed that perhaps left both sides unfulfilled, but did in fact represent the best way forward. Then when they were done, they were supposed to go home. The idea of full-time legislators and, worse, lifetime legislators is completely wrong in my book. We need term limits and age limits.
The orange dude represents the worst of America. His kind used to hide under the rocks or, better, spend time in prison. The current level of corruption is incredible. I keep thinking we have gotten to a new low, and he finds a way to dig deeper literally every single day. I wake up and look at the news and the next incredible, awful action in the headlines. Unbelievable.
I do not agree with all of your positions on issues, but I respect your right to hold your own views and express them. I actually love how you express them.
It is such a pleasure to watch your podcasts and see your thoughtful, fearless approach to the issues of the day. Thanks for what you do. —Larry E.
Interesting question, and the way you—and your pro-Trump friend put it—kind of highlights a major problem the two-party system has developed, especially in the last 40 years.
The notion that whether you’re a Democrat(ic) or Republic(an) is somehow a moral or religious choice.
Your friend’s argument seems to go something like, “Hey, I know you oppose Trump, his fascist political leanings, his corrupt self-dealing, his weaponization of the DoJ, and the fact that to be a Republic(an) these days you must pretend to be in favor of all of those things, but can you really say that you’ve changed religions?”
I like that you spelled out why you feel associated with some of what the GOP once stood for. Oddly, I have some concerns with some of the reasons you listed for being a Democrat(ic). Bottom line, I thought I’d throw an independent’s view of your points...
For Republic(an):
1. Support for Israel. This is a complicated concept that twists in chaos when you try to reduce it to a binary pro/anti statement. You can be in favor of maintaining a Jewish homeland (something I would still disagree with you on) without supporting what is clearly a genocidal action by the current theocratic and corrupt Israeli government. Israel does not equal Jewish, and there are many Jews who feel that the war in Gaza is a horror.
2. Guns. This is one of those things that many people treat very casually in one way...and religiously in another. The actual 2nd Amendment has a contextual qualifier that many gun rights defenders tend to ignore—specifically, that the right to keep and bear arms is in support of a well-regulated militia. We could talk about that a lot, and I assure you I’ve done a lot of thinking on the subject. That aside, the basis for people feeling fervor about the 2nd Amendment tends to be in reaction to a myth run up the flag pole by gun manufacturers: specifically, that the Democrat(ics) want to take all guns away from all citizens—something that has never been true, even in that brief period where assault weapon sales were banned.
If we can take that fear out of the discussion, most Americans agree with the rationale of sensible gun laws. Are you a “it’s a citizen’s right to own any and all types of munitions necessary to feel that he or she could fend off an attack by the government of the United States” guy...or someone who might be convinced that an estranged spouse or boyfriend who has threatened his former partner might need to have his gun possession rights curtailed until he settles down?
3. Free Market Capitalism. Honestly your comment on this sounds like you’re rational about the topic. My problem is that the description you go to next fails to understand the logical progression of unfettered capitalism, which I’ll reference by calling your attention to the tendency for the very rich to create rules or follow practices that first eliminate competition (something that is unwisely assumed by many to be a part of free markets) and then turn the screws on profits. See healthcare costs and comments by certain oligarchs that they would love to corner the market on potable water because everyone needs it and they could charge whatever they wanted.
4. Limited Government. I get it—this has been an historical position of mine too. However, the argument tends to be made in response to anything other than defense spending. The myth that private sector corporations run things more efficiently than a properly regulated, carefully overseen governmental agency drives a lot of bad decisions, including ignoring infrastructure needs for decades to the point where bridges between states become hazardous...before they fall into the rivers they cross. I like the phrase “right-sized government” better. Not everything needs a governmental agency, but some things suffer when profit motive becomes a primary driver.
5. Not 100% Pro-Choice. This is one of those things that looks a bit hypocritical to me in light of the small government, pro-individual rights stance Republic(ans) have traditionally espoused. If you don’t want one, don’t have one, but why legislate everyone else into believing as you do? Your comments do not make you a Republic(an) rather than a Democrat(ic). They make you compassionate...and Democrat(ics) are not in favor of terminating a viable fetus unless there’s a dire situation threatening the mother’s health. Roe v. Wade held to the same position. The Republic(an) party position now is to ban all abortions, regardless of threats to the mother’s health. I don’t believe that reflects all or necessarily even most Republic(an) voters,just the party leadership.
For Democrat(ic):
1., 2., 3. Campaign for, vote for, endorse Democrat(ics). I believe that this is a rational decision based on your positions in viewing what the Republic(an) Party has become. It means you use your mind and your values to make decisions, rather than blindly following someone else’s instructions. It is something I admire. I would also say that a lot of people do this for the same unexamined reasons some people do the same for Republic(ans). Following instructions, rather than using your own compass.
4. Kind of the same, but what I’m hearing is that you’re trying to remind people that representatives should represent their constituents in general, not party leadership. Sometimes that means explaining reality to under-informed constituents and taking the chance that doing the right thing against popular opinion will cost you your seat, but in general, that’s why voters send people to represent them. At least that’s what they’re told.
The current situation, in which all Democrat(ics) vote this way, and all Republic(ans) vote the other way, rather than discussing problems and coming up with a solution that makes sense to both, is abysmal. I think your temporary stance is based on the slightly greater possibility that the Democrat(ics) will actually allow for the bigger tent and people with differing ideas. I concur.
5. YES. Enough said.
I liked your letter. Soul-searching is kind of out of fashion, having taken a back seat to being the loudest in support of leadership. I hope you continue to do so. —Jordan A.
Frankly, I think your thoughts point to the problems with having a two-party system. All of us are somewhere on the giant spectrum, and as American citizens, all of our voices deserve to be heard. In a two-party system, that just doesn’t happen. Most of our issues are highly nuanced, and those nuances are lost in having to choose either column “a” or column “b”. Add to that the fact that we stopped educating our citizens about our form of government and civics about 50 years ago, and the result is our current situation, where emotion kicks logic to the curb, and the bullies reign.
The Dems are frantically enlarging their tent to cover almost any political ideology, while the Repubs are trying to figure out if they will even still exist after the radical, stringent, and unwholesome shrinking of that party to MAGA. And both parties are dominated by “old school” political operatives who like the perks of office and want to keep their jobs for the rest of their lives.
So yeah, I think your question is a good one, and your instincts are right on the nose. You are neither. And while the most critical thing we must do right now is save our democracy from Trump, MAGA, and Project 2025, reality is that the whole system needs revamping. American citizens should not be forced to choose between two deeply flawed parties. There must be a better way.
Thanks for your thoughts, always. I don’t always agree, of course, but you’re one of my top blogs. —Candice M.
I am 39, and a registered independent in Maryland who generally votes Democrat. I started to really pay more attention in 2015, and I was very intrigued by John Kasich, but unfortunately he did not win the GOP primary. I lean left on some issues but right on others.
I think you can call yourself a Democrat because you recognize the threat that is the current GOP and cannot support them. The Democratic Party needs to be more accepting and have a “big tent,” because how else can Democrats win again in places such as Montana and West Virginia?
I am glad you are as outspoken as you are, and I hope that one day you can call yourself a Republican again, which means that we have beaten back the authoritarian threat. We need a healthy Republican Party to keep the Left in check and vice versa. Unfortunately, right now, we only have one party that is sane and rational. I am glad you are part of it. —Matt I.
No, you are not a Democrat, but you have the integrity to step up when you see a wrong! You are correct that your old party has gone off the charts and become a rogue party. I commend you for your courage for stepping out, even though you don’t connect with Democrats.
It’s frustrating to see what they are doing to this marvelous country. Hard to believe these people can do the things they are doing in good conscience. How does one sleep at night when they can say “kill the homeless”? These people are evil! Thank you for standing for what is right and honorable. —Jan A.
I’ve been reading your Substack for a while now, getting your Social Contract emails daily, and listening to your podcasts. But I subscribed today just so I could have this conversation with you. It’s important, and I think there are lots of ways we could go here.
I’ll start by saying this first: Democrat and Republican are just boxes we tick when we go to vote. Nothing more. There are lots of no-Trumpers that still hold conservative Republican values. There are lots of no-Biden voters that still hold Democratic values. These are trying times.
The most important thing about right now is protecting the Constitution, which is under attack by the Republican Party. The DOJ is completely weaponized and corrupt from the top down. Career law enforcement and well-qualified judiciary are being forced out. This is straight from Bukele’s playbook. We are the only ones not afraid to stand up and say this is illegal and has to stop.
I believe that you are as much a Democrat as I am—and I am a Democrat. I think you should give it a shot. I don’t think you’d get attacked on guns or abortion. And if you should run, run on a message that resonates with the working class. They will relate to your values and see that you are moderate enough to speak their language. The working class is the heart of America, and right now, they feel like the red-headed stepchild. I can say that because I am a redhead.
The Democratic tent is meant to be a big one. Democrats are not all one thing, just like all Republicans aren’t MAGA. I am a lifelong Dem. I grew up inside the beltway in the D.C. suburbs in the 1970s. I was a young, barely teenager during Watergate and have always been a political junkie. But I don’t always agree with the party on every issue. I have my problems with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the whole gamut of leadership since I was old enough to vote.
My first presidential election was Jimmy Carter, whose post-presidential legacy outshined his presidency. I have never regretted my vote. But I would consider voting for a moderate Republican if I thought it was the best choice for the country. There is only one hard line I won’t cross—women’s reproductive healthcare.
I support the 2A and your right to own and love guns. Most of my friends who are Democrats own guns. That doesn’t make you an outlier. That isn’t a Republican value. And working class voters will love that you own guns. It’s a Constitutional value and should be taken off your list of ways you identify as a Republican. It’s not a political issue. There is an issue with the gun lobby and taking money from them just to win elections. There is an issue with certain types of weapons and who should have access to them. Those may be Democratic or Republican talking points, but not the 2nd Amendment. There are likely going to be some divides on open carry and campus carry laws, but again, those aren’t 2nd Amendment talking points. Those are gun control legislation issues, not issues with the 2A. Smaller government means states get to decide these issues.
On Israel, as a Democrat growing up in D.C., I lived in a neighborhood where you were either Jewish or Catholic. My family was secular. All my friends are friends of Israel. All my friends are not friends of Netanyahu. October 7th was a horrific day and left us all feeling gutted and angry and afraid of what would happen next. The last two years watching the complete destruction of Gaza has been equally horrifying when you think of all the children and families buried beneath that rubble who had nothing to do with the massacre of October 7th other than being born a Palestinian.
I have no hate in my heart for Israel or the people of Gaza. You can hate Hamas—I hate Hamas—and still care for both Israel and the innocent people of Gaza. Again, it’s not a Republican or Democratic issue. It’s a moral dilemma. The hostages whose bodies were just recovered under the rubble were killed by Netanyahu. They were there because of Hamas. But make no mistake, he dropped the missiles on them that ended their lives. You don’t have to choose between loving Israel, hating Hamas, and supporting the Palestinians who are caught in the middle.
I’m not an “Eat the Rich” Democrat. I believe in capitalism. Most of us moderates do—progressives maybe not so much. I don’t think the wealthy should be unfairly overtaxed, and corporations that supply jobs to a lot of people should receive the benefits of helping drive our economy. But I don’t think they are taxed fairly. I think there is a lot we could do to level that playing field. I’m not in agreement with Bernie Sanders that there should be a cap on personal wealth, but I do think there are companies that have taken advantage of loopholes that should not be legal. I agree with Bernie that if corporations were to pay their taxes, there would be enough money to provide universal healthcare to all Americans.
Our tax system favors the rich and we need to address that. Profitable corporations should have a responsibility to protect their employees’ jobs and not be allowed to have mass layoffs just to increase quarterly profits. There should be a penalty for sending thousands of working class people into the unemployment line when your huge corporation is already showing huge profits. There needs to be accountability. Admittedly, I don’t have a plan for that…yet.
Speaking as a lifelong Dem, I don’t and never have believed in big government. The government is not there to solve all the problems in our society. This is a much bigger, longer conversation, but let’s just agree that is not a value that most moderate Democrats hold. But I grew up in a community supported by government jobs. I don’t see the government as a boogey man. It’s made up of hundreds of independent agencies, and we should look it that way. It isn’t one big, giant thing; it’s lots of little things. I support a leaner system, but it shouldn’t be slashed according to a political agenda. There is a logical, rational, and more humane way to cut waste in government spending and the overall size of the agencies, but the Republicans are going about it in the worst way possible.
I am pro-choice. There is no medical precedent that allows for an arbitrary abortion of a child who can survive outside womb beyond 37 weeks. The only time that is or ever has been allowed is if the life of the mother were at risk or if the child would only survive for a very few minutes after being born. The choice to continue a pregnancy up to a certain point is between a woman, her doctor, and her family. There should not be government interference. If you want to make an argument for smaller government, then let’s just start there.
As a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and needed a procedure to abort a nonviable fetus, as a woman who has had a full-term pregnancy and delivered a child, I can tell you there is no woman who carries a baby to term and then just decides to abort it. That does not happen. The decision to have an abortion is one of the most painful, emotional, and psychologically difficult choices a woman could possibly make. You don’t have an abortion and then just forget about it for the rest of your life. It stays with a woman forever.
You may have feelings about it based on religious values, but it is and always should remain up to a woman and her doctor. No legislators should ever tell a victim of rape or incest she must bear a child. Having a child is something only a woman can do, it is something only a woman should be able to decide to do.
There are many things the Democratic Party can and should be doing better. Starting with addressing issues that directly affect working class Americans. For the last 20 years, working class Democrats have steadily moved in a more progressive direction culturally, while Republicans have become culturally more conservative. But economically we have abandoned the working class.
The party has been focused on ‘re-distributive’ values, such as earned income tax credits, taking money from the top for healthcare, education, and social welfare programs, rather than the ‘pre-distributive’ values of the labor market. Things that affect working class Americans’ bargaining power, like wage structure, job benefits, better working conditions, pensions, access to more jobs, protecting unions. Protections that insure workers can continue to work.
One example is the outcry for the higher minimum wage. Working class Americans fear that if this is pushed too high, those jobs will start to disappear. Raise the minimum wage, but not so high it pushes businesses to close or lay off employees. They have concerns about inflation and reining in the excesses of big corporations that have huge involuntary layoffs, forcing people into lower-paying jobs or the unemployment line, all while getting huge bonuses, stock payouts, and tax breaks. Where is the messaging on this?
Democrats need to tap into the working class values of what having a job means. Re-distribution is perceived as a handout, leading to vulnerability and a sense of victimhood where they lose their agency for their own future. Pre-distribution is about maintaining your social status and a means of providing for your family, having a sense of purpose and pride. There is no sense of pride in being compensated for losing your job to automation or AI for example. Working class voters want to work, and Democrats need to make sure that can.
This is where you come in. This is why the party needs you. This is why having moderate Democrats matters—because the tent is big enough for everyone, and it needs to be even bigger. We need to win back the working class, win back Latino and Black male voters. And we need to protect Black women voters who say they feel invisible in the party now too.
It is healthy to question your political views—it means you aren’t stuck in an echo chamber. I was never considered a liberal until Trump and MAGA came along. Now I fight to stand up for those ideals, because we need to protect them. That is the foundation of our Democracy. A two-party system is what we have. It’s what we will always have unless we lose this fight we’re in right now.
Anyway that was way more than just my two cents. I am a fan, I’m a Democrat, and you are too if you want to be. Best regards. —Terry G.
You don’t have to be a Democrat to support democracy.
You can be true to your libertarian, true conservative nature.
The problem is that Republican politicians pretend to be conservative, but they’re not.
If you’re a Republican because you’re a traditionalist, that’s fine (regressive, but fine). But then you can’t be for tech bros running the country for their own selfish, childish, unprincipled greed. You can’t be for a megalomaniacal, obnoxious, crooked, spoiled brat as dictator. You can’t have Republican judges appointed because they call corporations “people” and treat them like they’re the only people.
If you’re a Republican because you’re for small government, you can’t be for the tech bros spying on everyone all the time; you can’t be for a military junta to brutalize the masses.
If you’re a Republican because you’re for a strong military, you can’t gut the military to serve a egomaniacal clown.
If you’re a Republican because you’re for “law and order,” you can’t have a buffoonish would-be mob boss loot the government, pardon his fellow criminals in return for bribes, and staff the government with insatiably greedy billionaires.
If you’re a Republican because you’re fiscally conservative, you can’t have Republicans run up record deficit and record debt (with tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare).
If you’re a Republican because you feel patriotic towards the flag, you can’t fall in line to a traitor who wants to do away with the Constitution and incite Nazis to violently overthrow America. Be true, even if can’t be Blue! —Greg S.
You’re a Democrat, because you’re registered as a Democrat. One of my good friends, who’s as liberal as I am, is a registered Republican because she lives in New Hampshire and wants to be able to vote in the Republican primary—so she can try to make sure that whoever gets the nomination isn’t a lunatic. There’s a wide spectrum of views within both parties, and I honestly think we put too much emphasis on labels. I know a lot of people who insist that they don’t like labels, but the truth, I think, is that we really do; it’s a form of tribalism, which is sometimes benign and sometimes quite dangerous.
Personally, I’m a Democrat because my values align more closely with their platform. I used to be pretty rigid in my thinking, but lately—especially since October 7th—I find myself listening to more moderate voices, like yours and Adam Kinzinger’s.
I deplore Netanyahu, but I’m a Zionist. I’m also a proponent of free speech, so I support the protesters’ right to speak their opinions, but quite a lot of them have crossed the time/place/manner line. I work at a university, and pretty much all of them have revealed to me the depth of antisemitism on the Left. It’s on the Right too. My people just can’t win.
Can I see myself voting for a Republican ever? Maybe, at least on the local level. If another Teddy Roosevelt emerged; though in this day and age, he’d probably be a Democrat.
All of which is to say, while it’s nice to see people leaving the Republican Party in protest. I think labels are often overrated. A healthy political party recognizes multiple viewpoints, and I’m glad we’re on the same side. Best wishes. —Rachel S.
Your last discussion on “Whether I’m a Democrat” is a great example of your mind dealing with cognitive dissonance. To hold differing and opposing ideas in our mind is very uncomfortable at best and completely unacceptable at worst. In the latter, we often decide on which side/direction to take and then block any more information to convince us otherwise, that we might modify that decision.
You’re an exception, in that you present both sides and how honestly you deal and accept both of them without choosing to go with just one side only. This is a good example of personal honesty and authenticity and living up to your true values. I applaud you for this and having the courage to share it publicly. It demonstrates how unique and complicated we all are and how difficult and confusing it is to be labeled and categorized. I continue to appreciate your podcasts. —Alan H.
Because most of your policy positions are so conservative, I think you would have been better off becoming an Independent after leaving the Republican Party. You could have continued to support your former party in the areas in which you still agreed with their policy positions; you could have supported the Democrats in the areas in which you agreed with their policy positions; and you could have kept an independent streak when you disagreed with both parties.
I think as an Independent, it would be easier for you to be “your own man,” as the saying goes. And, maybe you could be re-elected on that basis, if you decide to run for office again! —ML
Hey, I want to hear from you! Want to send us a 600+-word op-ed? How about a video clip on how we can mend our frayed social contract and rebuild an America that works? Want to appear with Joe on Substack Live? Just need to vent? Send it our way!
Tell us your story and share your feedback about our Substack community by emailing our editor at [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]. We look forward to hearing from you!
The Social Contract with Joe Walsh is a citizen-supported movement resisting authoritarianism and restoring classic American values like civic engagement, tolerance, and mutual respect. To join our community, sign up to be a free subscriber. To support our mission, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you!

Unsubscribe [link removed]?