The Guardian hand-picked five "leading thinkers" to write the Democrats' post-midterm playbook under the banner "How We Win" — proving that when the press scripts the opposition party's strategy, the media isn't reporting on power, it is power.
This isn't analysis. It's operations. A British-owned newspaper is curating a policy and investigation agenda for an American political party and packaging it as a "special edition" opinion series. The stake for ordinary Americans is simple: the institutions telling you how to vote are the same ones telling the party how to govern.
The Guardian names its thinkers. Three are visible in the published piece:
Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary and a paid Guardian US columnist, calls for a wealth tax on billionaires, campaign finance overhaul, pro-union labor law reforms, and tough anti-monopoly laws — especially targeting tech. That last bit means Elon Musk's companies. Reich is literally on the Guardian's payroll while advising Democrats through a Guardian-branded series. The revolving door between the party and the press doesn't get more obvious.
Wajahat Ali, editor of The Left Hook and co-host of The Democracy-ish Podcast, wants Democrats to "vanquish the Maga spirit" and "unleash hell in the name of justice." His target list: investigations into what he calls "the Jeffrey Epstein class," plus Elon Musk, Pete Hegseth, Jared Kushner, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Stephen Miller. He also wants an end to the Iran war and Medicare for All.
Katie Phang, described as an independent journalist, trial lawyer, and political analyst, demands investigations into Trump's lawyers — Alina Habba, Lindsey Halligan, Jeanine Pirro, and Attorney General Todd Blanche — with televised public hearings modeled on the January 6 committee. Her rationale: Trump's "weaponization" of the DOJ. Whether you trust that claim or not, notice what's missing from all three prescriptions: any acknowledgment that the public voted on affordability and war fatigue, not on a wish list of reprisals.
NPR, covering the same post-midterm landscape, reported the facts straight: Republicans have weeks left in control, government funding runs out December 11, the Iran war drove the GOP out of power, and Republican Thomas Massie has introduced an impeachment measure against Hegseth over failure to consult Congress on the military campaign. NPR framed the story as a lame-duck Congress managing unfinished business. The Guardian framed it as a launchpad for partisan warfare.
The framing difference is the story. NPR tells you what's happening. The Guardian tells Democrats what to do about it — and names the targets. One is journalism. The other is party consulting with a press pass.
The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust Limited. Its U.S. opinion operation pays former Democratic cabinet officials to write strategy memos under the heading "How We Win." If a right-leaning outlet ran a series called "How We Win" and staffed it with Trump alums, every newsroom in America would call it propaganda. They'd be right. The standard doesn't change because the party does.
The question isn't whether Democrats have a plan for January. It's whether Americans can trust a press corps that can't tell the difference between covering a party and running one.
