SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democratic socialism
Bring Back the Square Deal
“Polarization” cannot keep excusing a government that fails working people.
Oct 02, 2026
I’m tired of hearing the word “polarization.” It’s being used so much by older people that it’s starting to feel like an excuse.
An excuse for retaliation. An excuse for doing nothing. An excuse for why we should expect less from the people who ask for our votes.
Recently, while talking with someone about getting involved with my podcast, With All Due Respect, I encountered exactly that attitude. He told me he disagreed with what I was doing but would participate for a paycheck. When I pressed him about bringing people from different sides together to discuss solutions, he said the country was too polarized for it to matter.
I want this administration judged by that standard: Can people earn enough to live, and do workers have a meaningful say in the conditions of their employment?
That pissed me off.
I told him he could perhaps come back another time. That day, the disagreement wasn’t the problem. Declaring the effort pointless before we had even begun was.
Polarization may explain why a meeting is stalling. It should never explain why the conversation is over.
When people’s livelihoods, healthcare, and futures are involved, walking away has consequences. Someone still has to live with the problem after you’ve decided discussing it is a waste of time.
I’m a member of Gen Z and an Army veteran. My breaking point came when I could not afford to keep going to school while using the GI Bill.
The jobs I could reliably land were full-time. Meanwhile, taking at least one class in person could qualify me for a higher housing allowance than an online-only schedule. But those classroom hours competed with the hours I needed to work.
If I built my schedule around school, I lost work time. If I built it around work, I lost part of the housing allowance. My housing costs in Phoenix did not shrink to match. Credit cards filled the gap; interest made it deeper.
If a veteran cannot afford to use his benefit effectively, what good is the benefit to him?
The fight wasn’t with my neighbor. It was with a system whose promises did not add up to a life I could afford.
I hear older Americans talk about responsibility. I want that conversation. I want it to include responsibility for the decisions that shaped the country my generation inherited.
If your measure of success is how much your house has appreciated, what happens when the next generation cannot afford to buy it? If you tell young people to work hard, what are you prepared to change when their work still leaves them struggling?
Those questions deserve answers. Instead, I hear commentators, including on Fox News, mock my generation’s efforts at inclusion. I see those efforts as attempts to build a more perfect union. Disagree with our language or proposals, but engage with what we are trying to achieve.
Age and experience do not exempt anyone from explaining the results of their leadership.
This is why I keep thinking about Theodore Roosevelt.
Republican bosses in New York wanted Roosevelt out of the governor’s office. They helped move him into the vice presidency, where they hoped his capacity to disrupt their interests would be contained. Instead, after President William McKinley’s assassination in 1901, Roosevelt became president. He subsequently won election in 1904.
I cannot prove he would never have reached the presidency another way. He had substantial public appeal. But his story makes me ask how many capable leaders are sidelined because they threaten the people who control access to power.
America cannot afford to leave those openings to chance.
Roosevelt’s Square Deal sought fairer treatment for workers and limits on corporate power. What I admire is his willingness to use public authority when powerful interests would have preferred that government stay out of their way.
I am a democratic socialist. Roosevelt opposed socialism. My argument is that his willingness to confront concentrated power offers something we can learn from, even where our politics differ.
Bring back the Square Deal—and make the promise broader.
For me, it has to start with work. Get people into jobs that pay enough to build a life. I want this administration judged by that standard: Can people earn enough to live, and do workers have a meaningful say in the conditions of their employment?
Add healthcare people can use without financial ruin and housing working people can afford. These are the terms of the deal I am demanding.
Who creates the value at work? Who decides how it is divided? How much bargaining power does the worker actually have?
Hard work should deliver more than permission to keep struggling.
My interest in democratic socialism begins with that question of power. I want people to have more control over their work and communities. We should debate how to achieve that, what it would cost, and what could go wrong. I need to keep studying, too.
But a label should begin a discussion, not shut it down.
The same standard applies to leadership. You probably know someone closer to home who listens, shows up, and takes responsibility. It may even be you. We should help people like that learn how to organize, run, and serve.
And we should make demands concrete enough to judge. How will you help people find good-paying work? What will you do about housing and healthcare? How will workers gain a stronger voice? What can voters check a year after you take office?
A new face means little without a different standard of accountability.
That work begins before the 2028 presidential election. It belongs in local meetings, workplaces, neighborhood conversations, and every election where we can influence who exercises power.
Call your representatives. Ask specific questions. Compare their answers with their votes. Support challengers when incumbents fail. Build organizations that can keep demanding results after Election Day.
This week, talk to a neighbor. Find an organization working on something that affects your life. Attend a meeting. Take on one task. If you disagree with my politics, bring an argument and a willingness to listen.
There are already people passing out flyers, organizing meetings, and trying to bring others into this work. They need company. They need people willing to turn frustration into participation.
Roosevelt wrote that “progress is accomplished by the man who does the things”.
Today, that invitation belongs to all of us.
We must stand for ourselves. We must organize and elect people who will fight for a fairer deal, then hold them to it.
Stop using polarization to tell us why we cannot begin.
Let us begin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Chamber of Commerce Tour Ignores 250 Years of Socialism
To the people of America: You have a people’s economy—much of it still intact—to preserve, strengthen, and bring up to date.
Sep 27, 2026
On September 18, the US Chamber of Commerce announced it is launching a six-week, 20-state “Free Enterprise Express Bus” tour to back Republican candidates and “fight for free enterprise.” This big business lobby ignores the fact that, just like “capitalism,” American “democratic socialism” (supported by the voters for generations) is everywhere in our mixed-economy country.
Here is an incomplete list of public goods, services, benefits, and institutions that Democratic candidates can invoke in asking their GOP opponents: “Which one of the following will you tell voters you want to get rid of?”
- Public Lands - Parks and National Forests
- Public Schools and Universities
- Public Transit
- U.S. Postal Service
- Public Drinking Water Departments
- Public Electric Utilities
- Public Fire Departments
- Public Libraries
- Public Roads and Highways
- VA hospitals
- Mandatory Minimum Wages
- SNAP Food Stamps
- Unemployment Compensation Payments
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Head Start
- Peace Corps and AmeriCorps
- Meals on Wheels
- Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
The list can go on. During the Vietnam War, the Pentagon begged the big drug companies to work on anti-malaria medicines. Malaria was the second leading cause of hospitalization for US soldiers in that undeclared war. Big Pharma refused, saying there was too little profit in one-time anti-malarial shots, compared with medicines soldiers were taking every day. So, the Pentagon chose socialism, setting up its own drug development entity in its two military hospitals. Pentagon scientists and doctors developed three of the four anti-malaria drugs in use and offered them to any country for use, without imposing patent monopolies.
Probably one of the nation’s earliest and foremost mixed-economy-minded civic founders was Ben Franklin. A successful businessman, he also knew the meaning of the phrase later coined by Amory Lovins: “Markets make a good servant, a bad master, and a worse religion.” Societies have many necessities that markets—meaning private companies—don’t supply when immediate profits are insufficient. Franklin helped create institutions to meet some of those needs: Philadelphia’s subscription Library Company, the volunteer Union Fire Company, and the Academy and College of Philadelphia, a precursor to the University of Pennsylvania. He also played an important role in colonial postal administration. These were not all government-operated public agencies, but they were civic institutions intended to serve broad public purposes.
Public works were crucial in enabling private business enterprises to flourish. Consider the Erie Canal, which opened in 1825 and linked the Hudson River at Albany to Lake Erie at Buffalo. It created a navigable commercial route between the Atlantic economy and the Great Lakes interior, reducing transportation costs and accelerating settlement and trade. The growth of the nation-building national post office is an example of a spectacular universal “democratic socialistic” public institution.
When these and other socialistic enterprises generated consumer or worker demand, private corporate usurpers moved to undermine them, seize a piece of this governmental success and their publicly created value, rip them off as vendors, or persistently disparage these services to get the public to lose confidence in them. This corporate propaganda never stops.
For years, health insurance companies have carved out or hollowed out parts of Medicare and Medicaid. For the former, it is called “Medicare Advantage” (we call it Medicare Disadvantage), a cleverly deceptive trap, heavily advertised for elderly beneficiaries, costing traditional Medicare many billions of dollars a year, going for profits to the likes of giant United Health Care Corp. and Aetna. Both the Biden and Trump Justice Departments have gone after these in-built long exposed corporate frauds.
For example, the Justice Department has pursued Medicare Advantage fraud and False Claims Act cases involving inflated risk scores, unsupported diagnosis codes, and other practices that increase taxpayer payments. Recent settlements include $556 million from Kaiser Permanente affiliates, $172.3 million from Cigna, and up to $98 million from Independent Health. Medicare and Medicaid are highly vulnerable to waste, overpayments, and fraud. Federal estimates placed combined improper payments in the two programs at more than $100 billion in fiscal year 2023 (See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Fiscal Year 2023 Improper Payments Fact Sheet).
For years, private freight companies have been undermining and restricting the Postal Service’s business—using Congress, for example, to ban the US Postal Service from transporting beer and wine, among other limitations while private carriers may transport alcohol.
The hyper-corporatists do not like to talk about the democratic socialist institutions listed above in taking today’s Democratic Socialists of America to task. So, they seize on some DSA apparatchiks’ media-grabbing declarations such as calls for closing down prisons or defunding the police. Like right-wing extremists, they have learned that to start getting media attention, they have to say off-the-wall or extreme things in absolutist language.
In contrast, elected democratic socialists or candidates generally focus on expanding the frayed “social safety net” for many millions of Americans, restoring taxes on the undertaxed giant companies that pay little or no US income tax or the superrich with their clever tax lawyers, and cracking down on corporate crooks ripping off hard-earned consumer dollars and savings.
To illustrate how modest these elected self-described democratic socialists are, consider New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He has never supported, even while a state assemblyman in Albany, repeal of an enormous daily electronic rebate of a tiny sales tax on stock sales. Under legislation signed by Gov. Hugh Carey in 1977 and fully phased in by 1981, Carey agreed to a deal with the stock market brokerage industry, that has rebated hundreds of billions of dollars back to Wall Street. Still, Mamdani, who needs money for his free childcare, free buses and other programs, is unwilling to demand a stop to the rebate. We’re also still waiting for Mayor Mamdani to call for greater enforcement against corporate crime, fraud, and abuses in the city. (See my columns: Mamdani’s Magnificent Primary Win—What Follows, June 27, 2025 and Open Letter to Zohran Mamdani – Political Moderate, December 5, 2025).
To the people of America: You have a people’s economy—much of it still intact—to preserve, strengthen, and bring up to date. Greet the Chamber’s Free Enterprise Bus when it comes to your state (check the Chamber’s website) with signs like: “Stop the Corporate Crime Wave,” or “Get the Rich Off Welfare.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The New Red Scare Is a Dangerous Distraction From the GOP's Failures
The attempt to revive the McCarthyist witch hunts of yesteryear is, at its core, a reaction to the working-class rightfully demanding its fair share of the economic pie.
Sep 07, 2026
A familiar spectre is haunting the nation—that of communism. Or so one might conclude from the Republican Party’s increasingly frantic rhetoric.
Following a string of wins by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in congressional primaries from New York to Colorado to Michigan, even reaching as far as Florida, the GOP is dusting off an old refrain.
“Communism is on the ballot this November,” warned House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) at a press conference. President Donald Trump has gone further still, calling communism “the biggest threat to our nation there is, maybe since our founding.”
At first glance, this reads like little more than election-year theatrics. The candidates provoking such alarm are, on the whole, hardly the revolutionaries their critics imagine.
But, try as they might, no amount of fearmongering, surveillance, or censorship will dampen the working person’s dream for a more dignified life, one where their labor is compensated fairly, their dollar stretches further, and their children inherit a secure future.
Many of the policies promoted by today’s democratic socialists fall comfortably within the lineage of the New Deal: strengthening labor protections, expanding access to healthcare, greater investment in public infrastructure, and so on.
That House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) would liken their ascendance to “a nightmare… a trail to certain death,” ought to strike any person of sound mind as patently absurd.
Yet dismissing such a frenzied reaction as mere campaign-season hyperbole risks overlooking what it actually reveals: staggering insecurity.
If the political establishment had any real confidence in their track record, they wouldn’t need to manufacture so much anxiety around their opposition.
It is precisely because they can feel their grip on the public’s trust slipping that they have resorted to reviving the McCarthyist witch hunts of yesteryear—an effort that extends well beyond incendiary speeches.
Last year, President Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), directing federal agencies to expand policing of social movements linked to “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” among other ideological strains, ostensibly to “identify and prevent potential violent activity.”
NSPM-7 has, in turn, become the legal backbone for an aggressive crackdown on dissent, seen in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issuing “warning notices” to those who have criticized the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whether that be through social media posts or email correspondence.
Recent reporting even uncovered a sweeping probe, dubbed “Operation Puppet Master” by DHS, into a number of left-wing groups in Minnesota after the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and Border Patrol agents, respectively, earlier this year.
The probe included, among other things, the subpoenaing of financial records from various labor unions and nonprofits, as well as “spying operations conducted by undercover agents who posed as activists and surveilled community activities.”
It is little wonder that such egregious actions have since been compared to COINTELPRO, J Edgar Hoover’s illegal pet project designed to infiltrate, surveil, and discredit civil rights and anti-war activists who caught the ire of the federal government.
This, paired with the White House creating its own blacklist of journalists and influencers on its official “Media Offenders” page, many of whom are cited for such severe transgressions as “Left-Wing Lunacy,” suggests that the hysterical talking points GOP leadership have taken to heart are the vehicle for a broader crusade of political repression.
Such heavy-handed surveillance is undoubtedly born out of a deep-seated panic among those in power. This latest Red Scare is, at its core, a reaction to the working-class rightfully demanding its fair share of the economic pie.
The rise of the DSA, and of the left-wing ideas it propagates, owes much to the fact that its members speak plainly about the financial woes of the everyday person.
Take, for instance, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has striven to take an honest accounting of the financial hardship faced by New Yorkers, and in turn offer tangible remedies like free childcare and a rent freeze.
In contrast, Trump administration officials are desperate to pull the wool over the eyes of the people, with Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, recently claiming that the economy “looks amazing,” despite nearly 80% of voters feeling otherwise.
In fact, public confidence in capitalism broadly has fallen to 54%, according to Gallup polling released last year, the lowest level since the organization began tracking the question. At the same time, socialism commands comparatively steady support, especially among Democratic voters, roughly two-thirds of whom view it favorably.
The generational divide is even more striking. A survey conducted by YouGov and the Cato Institute found that 62% of Americans under 30 hold a favorable view of socialism, while 34% say the same of communism. Of course, each of these labels mean different things to different respondents, but the overarching trend is difficult to ignore.
For many Americans, especially those on the younger side, capitalism is synonymous with constraint, and it’s not hard to see why.
While billionaires’ assets have surged to preposterous heights, the cascading inflationary shocks of war have steadily eroded workers’ purchasing power.
Cornerstones of the American Dream have been priced out of reach for working families, with 62% of Americans now viewing homeownership as unrealistic.
Meanwhile, more than 40% of American households have persistently struggled to cover the cost of basic necessities on their current income.
Yet, rather than confronting the economic frustrations driving millions of Americans to question the status quo, the Trump administration has chosen to paint a target on the backs of those who offer the public a meaningful alternative.
But, try as they might, no amount of fearmongering, surveillance, or censorship will dampen the working person’s dream for a more dignified life, one where their labor is compensated fairly, their dollar stretches further, and their children inherit a secure future.
And it is for this reason that yet another Red Scare is an altogether futile, albeit dangerous, distraction meant to blind us to the real struggle of our time: the fight against a rigged economy.
If those in power must conjure ghosts to terrify the people, it is surely because their earthly defenses are failing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Working People Must Recognize the Reform Limits of Our Economic Model
Our business model results in chronic exploitation, deprivation, and immiseration that cannot be eliminated by reform; the organization, production, and distribution of goods and services must be transformed into a democratic model.
Sep 07, 2026
Last March, I wrote an essay providing evidence of the inherent exploitation and undemocratic constructs in our economic model burdening working people.
This essay compliments that work and will show a fundamental reason why our economic model is structurally limited by attempts to reform it.
History
Our economic model is plagued with a history of periodic recessions and depressions.
That history is recorded by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Recessions and depressions are clinically presented as normal components of the “business cycle.” The NBER does not report the chronic instability and destruction of communities and working people’s lives by the “business cycle.”
Political democracy demands economic democracy. We have statutes, laws, regulations, and rules to protect the common good. Why not apply the same principles to the relations of production?
Many economists, psychologists, and journalists have attempted to rationalize the chronic crisis in our economic model. These fanciful assertions are thoroughly inadequate. As Leo Huberman chronicled in Man’s Worldly Goods, some experts actually attributed the chronic crises to radiation from the sun or the path of the planet Venus.
Despite rapid advances in technology and financial instruments, chronic crises remain inherent in our economic model.
Competition is a significant component that contributes to these crises despite the stifling dominance by a few giant corporations in most industries. That structure contains one essential component which plagues all businesses.
It is the tendency of the profit rate to fall.
Profit Rate Basis
The tendency of the profit rate to fall is the basis of why our economic model cannot be meaningfully reformed.
The owner of a business must convert the expenditures that initiate and maintain the business into a profit. Profits are what remains after a business pays all of its costs.
Simply, the profit rate shows how many cents of profits are retained from every dollar earned. It is more important than aggregate profits because it measures efficiency of a company in comparison with other businesses.
A decline in the profit rate forces businesses to close doors and decimate the lives of their employees across states and communities.
Business Basics
The following is a simplified explanation of why profit rates tend to fall:
The process begins by establishing a business. The owner must allocate resources for primary expenditures (CapEx) to acquire space, a plant, machinery, tools, hardware, software, technological advances, and raw materials. This includes legal registrations, licenses, permits, and financial services.
The business owner must then add another cost which are secondary expenditures.
Secondary expenditures (OpEx) consist of wages or salaries paid to the employees who do the mental or physical work with their labor power. This creates profits for the owner including extra profits. Extra profits are what remains for the owner once wages or salaries are paid to the employees.
It is imperative that the owner continually spend more resources in primary expenditures for the business. This is due to competition with other business owners.
Primary Expenditures Increase
For the owner, the cost of primary expenditures usually increases as costs for goods and services increase. These increases can be the result of monetary policy, growth of the economy (GDP), corporate price gouging, misplaced tariffs, or a scarcity of certain goods.
Some products may even see a temporary drop in prices due to technological advances.
However, the supply of goods and services that comprise primary expenditures invariably rises to the dismay of business owners.
Cost of living calculations also present data that strongly supports the assertion that primary expenditures for owners will never decrease in our economic model.
Primary expenditures are required to increase the amount of the product or service created by the employees.
The owner might consider borrowing funds from a financial institution to pay for primary expenditures. This can be problematic because financial institutions may decline to lend the money or advance at a glacial pace to finalize a loan.
The reason why the owner must continually increase spending on primary expenditures is directly related to the profit rate.
Profit Rate
The profit rate is obtained by dividing the total primary and secondary expenditures by the extra profit. (Multiplying by 100 converts a decimal into a percentage).
Example: Suppose the employees created $100 worth of total profit and are paid $40 in wages. That means the extra profit is $60.
Add the primary expenditures to the secondary expenditures and divide by the extra profit. In this example, the profit rate is 60%.
Now to show the tendency of the profit rate to fall, increase the primary expenditure to $60. Suppose there was a sale on tools at Home Depot and the owner purchased $10 worth of tools by transferring funds from the secondary expenditures to the primary expenditures.
The profit rate is now 55%. This is a significant drop despite the profit amount remaining the same. The owner increased the primary expenditures by transferring funds from the secondary expenditures.
The owner’s increased spending on primary expenditures in the form of new tools or machines may maintain the extra profits. They may even increase the production of each employee. The product or service may then be sold as less expensive. This is wonderful for the owner, but the crisis remains driven by competition.
Temporary Remedy
Other business owners are captured in this business model. Competition from other businesses drives the accumulation of primary expenditures and a decrease of secondary expenditures. This decrease results in cuts to employees’ wages, salaries, or job losses. A falling rate of profit means outside investment is less likely to occur signaling a crisis for the owner.
The owner must either increase primary expenditures to increase profit rates to compete with other businesses or increase secondary expenditures to allow employees to maintain themselves and their families.
The owner cannot do both. It is an inherent contradiction.
The remedy for the owner is to freeze or offer insufficient wages or salaries in order to maintain extra profits for the business. Without a militant union to fight with the employees, owners will deny employees’ requests for fair compensation and benefits.
The tendency of a profit rate to fall leads to the eventual closing of the business or the business moving to a location without employee rights, union rights, or environmental regulations.
Real Remedy
Thus, our business model results in chronic exploitation, deprivation, and immiseration that cannot be eliminated by reform. Working people's lives and their families are severely damaged, often forever.
The organization, production, and distribution of goods and services must be transformed into a democratic model.
One version of this model can be seen in the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. It is a highly successful conglomerate created in 1956 by a Roman Catholic priest. It is based on democratic principles that are agreed on by the employees.
Economist Richard Wolff wrote that the important questions of what and how we produce are fundamental to the economy of any country. “Where” to produce as also a question within the organization of an economy. The employees who create the profits must have a voice in the production process. A democratic construct can vary according to the model selected but must begin at the ground level.
Transition to a Democratic Economic Model
There are several methods that might serve as a guide to how such a transition may be realized in our economic model:
New companies may be based on the principles of worker cooperatives. Also, when a company fails, it must first offer the employees an option to purchase it. Lastly, owners who are retiring must offer the employees the first opportunity to purchase the business.
A transition to a democratic economic model must begin by political parties actually representing working peoples’ interests. Many progressives assert that democratic socialists must win elections as the way to dominate governments at local, state, and federal levels. They assert that democratic socialism may be realized by means of evolution, not necessarily revolution.
If progressive critics are able to dominate the government, it could pave the way for a transition to a democratic socialist model with American characteristics. Since our history is replete with democratic goals and objectives; a transition would be less problematic.
Political democracy demands economic democracy. We have statutes, laws, regulations, and rules to protect the common good. Why not apply the same principles to the relations of production?
Implementing a democratic model will be met with an avalanche of ruthless, corporate lies to deceive and frighten working people.
Progressives have historical lessons to learn from the failures of countries that attempted a form of socialism to replace the miserable economic conditions inherent and inevitable in our economic model.
There are many forms of socialism that can be realized.
The former USSR is a petri dish of such failures. Government must work to organize economic production democratically from the ground up, not from the top down that doomed the Soviet model to largely failure.
The government under democratic socialist control will transition to a new economic model that will facilitate the positive development of various components of our culture. The voice of working people will make the economic decisions rather than a handful of spiritually vapid, wealthy oligarchs. These oligarchs ignore Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Buddhist literature that advocates for various forms of democratic socialism.
Polls from The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Gallup, and Fox News demonstrate that Americans are increasingly discontented with our economic model.
Working people can and must do better for themselves and their families. Recognizing the limits of economic reform is a beginning.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'So Afraid of Working-Class People': Delia Ramirez Rips Supporters of 'Stupid' Anti-Socialism Resolution
"They're afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It's not working people."
Sep 02, 2026
Rep. Delia Ramirez on Tuesday hit back at colleagues in the US House of Representatives who voted for a resolution condemning socialism "in all its forms."
During a speech on the House floor, Ramirez (D-Ill.) slammed the anti-socialism resolution, which passed with the support of eight Democrats joining all Republicans, as a meaningless distraction.
"Today my colleagues thought it was a good use of people's time... to come after a working people's platform and the people working to make that platform a reality," Ramirez said. "You know why? Because they're afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It's not working people."
Whether it’s “socialism”, a Twitch streamer, working-class candidates, or immigrants, my colleagues always have a boogeyman to condemn… Why? They're afraid to be honest about who they really work for and spoiler alert: it's not working people.
I call on my colleagues to put… pic.twitter.com/r4k4KWZg2S
— Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (@repdeliaramirez) September 1, 2026
The Illinois Democrat rattled off a list of Republican policies that benefit big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of working people, including cuts to Medicaid and support for President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
Ramirez then accused Republicans of pushing the resolution "because you're so afraid of working-class people coming into the next Congress" after the 2026 midterm elections.
"So let me be clear," she concluded. "Not only do I call on my colleagues to vote against this stupid resolution... but also to put this much energy into creating a world, a system that actually works for working people."
Ramirez was far from the only Democrat to rip the anti-socialism resolution.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) likewise condemned the "stupid resolution," which he said "ignores Americans who are more concerned about the cost of living than obsessing about socialism."
Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) suggested that a better use of Congress' time would be to "condemn the 34-count felon in the White House, not a bunch of people who just want universal healthcare."
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for the US House seat in New York's 13th congressional district, slammed the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the resolution.
"Democrats love talking about a 'big tent,' but then they vote in line with Republicans hell-bent on destroying our democracy," she wrote. "This resolution was aimed squarely at democratic socialists like me."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can DSA's Brand of Socialism Attract the Broader Working Class?
There are a few key reasons why many working class people likely won't embrace the vision put forth by the Democratic Socialists of America.
Aug 31, 2026
Members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are proud to wear their socialism on their sleeves (and on their hats.) It lets everyone know they are serious about changing capitalism into something far more humane, transforming the system into one in which working people rather than plutocrats run the economy.
Their embrace of socialism also gives its members a sense of community. It signals a commonality in opposition to the status quo, on behalf of all working people. It’s a righteous identity that signals us against them, right against wrong, justice against injustice—a moral, almost religious bonding.
However, it also pushes people away. It creates a demarcation line between in and out. It’s not just the capitalists who are excluded, but anyone who doesn’t buy into DSA’s vision of socialism.
But why wouldn’t all working people readily embrace DSA’s socialist vision?
Let’s look at how the DSA defines its socialism:
- Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit.
- We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system in which ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
- The people should collectively own key economic drivers, such as energy production and transportation, that are used by all.
- We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear.
- We want reforms, such as Medicare for All, community-centered public safety, and the Green New Deal, that the current establishment considers radical but we think are essential for a fairer system.
So far, that sounds within the realm of progressive economic populism. Even doable, I hope, but then they go further:
- Work as much as you are able and no more than needed. Control your own labor and see it going to good use. Work is not just a job to pay the bills.
- You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, no rent, because comfortable housing is a human right.
- Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
- A socialist’s day off could be like any good day now. But you should be free to spend your time how you like without worrying about cost or dreading going back to work.
- And college, as well as groceries, should be free.
When DSA candidates take to the field, they focus almost entirely on populist economic demands—housing and food affordability, fair taxes on billionaires, and Medicare for All. These are socialist in the sense that Social Security, libraries, fire departments, and our current Medicare are socialist, and yet they are also firmly embedded in our capitalist system.
I have yet to encounter a DSA candidate who discusses truly socialist reforms, like the elimination of large private enterprises and workers’ control of the corporations that employ them.
We have the word “socialism” and significant portions of the DSA platform that do not have significant working-class support, yet DSA doesn’t seem bothered by being out of touch with large segments of the working class they claim to be fighting for.
Then why does DSA use the word “socialist” if it does not involve their day-to-day political debates? And why use it when it is sure to turn off many of the very working people DSA claims to represent?
The Education Class Divide
There is a significant disparity among educational groups when it comes to having positive or negative views toward socialism.
Gallup’s 2025 polling found that:
- 31 percent of people with some college, but no four-year degree, viewed socialism positively, compared with 66 percent who viewed it negatively.
- Among people with a high-school education or less, the split was 38 percent positive to 57 percent negative.
- College graduates were the most favorable educational group, with 47 percent viewing socialism positively, and 51 percent negatively.
- Among independents, only 38 percent viewed socialism positively, compared with 57 percent who viewed it negatively.
This doesn’t mean working people oppose the policies associated with democratic socialism, like taxing billionaires. But it does mean that DSA’s use of the word “socialism” itself is likely to trigger a negative response and undermine its effectiveness among working-class voters, especially in red America.
Why use the word “socialism” when it’s going to turn off the very voters you hope to attract?
Because it doesn’t turn off DSA college-educated members. The reality is that despite their “Workers Deserve More” platform, DSA is a political organization by and for college graduates, especially disenchanted Democrats in blue areas. That demographic seems to have no problem with the idea of socialism. In fact, 66 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of socialism, with just 32 percent feeling negatively.
Which fits with several of the policies DSA supports that also are likely to turn off non-college working-class voters.
For example, the DSA platform calls for legalizing migration, granting amnesty to all immigrants regardless of status, providing a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and ending visa caps and quotas.
Some elements of this position have considerable popular support. Pew Research found that 64 percent of Americans believe undocumented immigrants should have some way to stay legally in the United States, and 60 percent favor allowing them to apply for citizenship.
But that support generally comes with conditions: 79 percent favor security background checks, and 52 percent favor requiring immigrants to have a job.
The broader DSA position is another matter. The Pew Research Center conducted in August 2024 found that 48 percent of U.S. adults wanted legal immigration kept at its present level; 24 percent wanted it increased and 26 percent wanted it decreased.
There is little evidence that working-class Americans want to eliminate visa caps and quotas altogether. In fact, non-college voters are more likely than college graduates to see large-scale migration as contributing to crime.
The distinction is important: working people can support a path to citizenship for immigrants already here while also wanting secure borders and limits on future immigration. DSA’s position largely erases that distinction.
Abolish the Police?
DSA calls for demilitarizing police departments, disempowering police unions, redirecting police funding to public services, and ultimately abolishing the police and prison system.
Here again, polling reveals a sharp divide between progressive reforms and the more sweeping DSA position. A 2020 Gallup poll taken after the George Floyd murder found that 58 percent said policing needed major changes and vast majorities supported changing police management practices so that officer abuses are punished. However, there was little to no support for abolishing police departments.
The lesson here isn’t that working people oppose police reform. Quite the contrary: there is overwhelming support for holding abusive officers accountable, improving police-community relations, and expanding community-based alternatives.
But there is a huge difference between reforming policing and abolishing it. DSA’s position goes far beyond what polling shows most working people are prepared to support.
It’s not that working people necessarily disagree with DSA’s concern for Palestinian lives or even with major elements of its policy. Polling shows substantial support across the electorate for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, Palestinian self-determination, and conditioning or reducing U.S. military aid to Israel.
The problem is that DSA bundles those broadly popular positions with a much more sweeping ideological program—open-ended opposition to Israel as a state, the right of return to Israel for Palestinians and their decedents who lived within its border but fled during various wars, unrestricted immigration, and prosecution of U.S. and Israeli leaders for genocide—that has not been adequately tested among working-class voters.
While justice for Palestine is a major issue for DSA members, it’s not at all clear that it is a major issue for working people without college degrees. We have no indication from polling that it ranks anywhere near as important as economic issues, nor that it influences the votes of non-college graduates. Also, it seems to rank about the same as the Russia-Ukraine war, which is not even mentioned in the DSA platform. The distinction? Palestine, not Ukraine, is a very big issue among college-educated young people and hence essential to the DSA platform.
Why would an organization that purports to be fighting on behalf of the working class develop a platform with many elements that a majority of working people do not support?
Again, the answer is that those positions do have strong support among college graduates, the real base of DSA. And those college graduates hope that most working people will support those positions, if not now, eventually.
So, we have the word “socialism” and significant portions of the DSA platform that do not have significant working-class support, yet DSA doesn’t seem bothered by being out of touch with large segments of the working class they claim to be fighting for.
That’s socialist identity politics. It lets the world know that DSA members, mostly college educated, have a vision to eliminate capitalism and the many problems it poses. While DSA would like to have broad working-class support, it is not about to give up its socialist vision and its more radical policies to get it.
And it’s doubtful to change because DSA is on a roll as it gains more and more members and support among disenchanted college graduates who they see as the new working class, or at least a large part of it. Afterall, DSA already is the largest, most active political organization in the country.
So, DSA and its members do not feel any pressure to change their political identity. They wear it proudly as the oligarchy limits opportunities for recent college graduates and drives them towards DSA.
That’s why it is highly unlikely that DSA will become a political organization of workers without college degrees. And that’s exactly why those unrepresented workers need a party of their own that reflects what they believe in and what they want from our economy and political system. (Please see my latest book for a fuller account.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the Word 'Socialism' Scare You, Progressives Just Want a Country That Works for All
When someone brandishes the word “socialism” like it’s a stink bomb, take a courageous look at the actual ideas—higher taxes on the rich; Medicare for All; or a raise for working people—being proposed.
Aug 28, 2026
The debate over capitalism vs. socialism often looks like a battle of cartoon caricatures: Monopoly Man versus the Marx Monster.
Across the planet there are countless flavors of capitalism and socialism, unique mashups of free markets and government policies. Into this muddle wade the right-wing ideologues who fear the red “socialist” demon hiding in every corner.
If Fox News existed in the 1950s, they would’ve labeled Republican President Dwight Eisenhower a socialist for taxing the wealthy and making broad public investments to expand homeownership, enable debt-free higher education, and build infrastructure and technology that expanded the modern middle class.
Yet, what do these labelers call modern-day China, a country that mints hundreds of billionaires a year and dominates global markets with private production? Is it socialist or capitalist?
All generations now understand that the old American Dream has expired, with 7 in 10 experiencing economic insecurity.
Meanwhile, social democracies, like Canada and the northern European countries, have progressive tax systems and strong social safety nets. Sweden, with its generous welfare state, has higher rates of entrepreneurship than the United States.
These countries also have higher rates of social mobility than the United States—meaning it’s easier for lower-income people to escape poverty and become stable. The American Dream, apparently, has moved offshore.
These welfare states, with their higher taxes on the wealthy, exist comfortably alongside healthy market economies. However, in the United States, whenever a politician proposes that billionaires pay their fair share of taxes so we make public investments in opportunities for everyone else, they are labeled socialist or even communist.
These criticisms conflate a set of policy proposals, most of them quite popular, with an economic system where the government owns the means of production. However, this well-trod attack doesn’t seem to be working anymore, especially for younger generations.
Younger voters see the grotesque inequalities of wealth and power that distort the economy and block opportunity for the non-rich. They witness how large corporations have captured Congress and blocked popular reforms to defend consumers and counter monopolies.
They watch with alarm as billionaire-backed private equity firms buy up healthcare facilities and squeeze consumers in every corner of the economy. They see how both major political parties have been captured by the billionaire donor class and failed to address stagnant wages and rising basic costs.
All generations now understand that the old American Dream has expired, with 7 in 10 experiencing economic insecurity. These folks still hope hard work could lead to a decent life—to own a home, take a vacation, pass opportunities to their children, and retire before they die. They feel the constant stress of knowing they’re one job loss, illness, disability, or divorce away from living in their car.
Without a strong party representing working people’s concerns, political realignments are happening in both parties. A new generation of progressives and a handful of self-described democratic socialists argue the economy should work for everyone, not just the billionaire class.
They believe new technologies—such as AI—should serve everyone, not just billionaire tech bros and their global conglomerates. They believe the government has an important role in expanding healthcare, blocking oligarchy, and breaking up big corporations.
They advocate for expanding affordable housing to aid people struggling to find decent housing in a hyper-speculative market. Instead of subsidizing private developers, they advocate for housing owned by nonprofit organizations, resident cooperatives, and—egads!—government entities, like housing authorities.
These progressives believe we should stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and end tax breaks to the Jeffrey Epstein class. They support investments to help us transition to sustainable energy, lower energy costs, and reduce climate disruption.
The right-wing pundits—and some so-called moderates, too—are hoping that when they trot out the “socialist” bugaboo, your mind will freeze and you’ll start frothing at the mouth. They’re afraid that you will ask why the current system isn’t working and wonder if there are alternatives. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
When someone brandishes the word “socialism” like it’s a stink bomb, take a courageous look at the actual ideas—higher taxes on the rich? Medicare for All? A raise for working people?—being proposed. There might be more common sense than you thought.
Keep ReadingShow Less
California Voters Prefer 'Progressives' and 'Democratic Socialists' to 'Mainstream Democrats': Poll
As progressives nationwide seek to prove their politics can beat Republicans, California is still a battleground between the left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.
Aug 20, 2026
A new poll in California may offer a window into the national struggle to define the Democratic Party. In a state that’s often thought of as the capital of blue America, voters are now more likely to say they’re turned off by candidates who align themselves with the Democratic Party.
But that’s not because they’re moving right. The survey, published Wednesday by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, found that voters are “more inclined” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a “progressive” or a “democratic socialist,” compared with those who call themselves “mainstream Democrats.”
Identifying as any sort of Republican, "MAGA" or otherwise, made voters say they were overwhelmingly "less inclined" to give their support.
(Poll by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies)
That California voters lean left of the country at large is hardly shocking news, but the poll does provide yet another striking data point in the broader trend of Democratic voters revolting against the establishment of their own party, which has culminated in a surge of left victories nationwide.
Among self-identified Democratic voters in the state, just 48% said they would be "more inclined" to vote for someone who self-identifies with the mainstream of the party, compared with 58% who said they were inclined to vote for a "democratic socialist" and 60% who said they were inclined to vote for a "progressive."
What precisely these terms mean is not defined by the pollster, and in mainstream discourse, "progressives" like Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and "democratic socialists" like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are often spoken of in the same breath, largely because their platforms overlap significantly and both defeated better-funded Democratic opponents with greater institutional backing.
Whatever term is used to describe such candidates, pundits in establishment-friendly media have struggled to make sense of their recent wins.
But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—a long-time critic of corporate influence over the US political system who ran for president in 2016 and 2020 and is arguably more responsible than any other single figure for kicking off this shift in the Democratic electorate—wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Wednesday that the reason behind it “is not complicated.”
"We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93%, and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households," he wrote. "Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change—and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change."
That is why, he argues, candidates who have run on campaign finance reform, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, stronger union protections, higher taxes on the rich, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions in countries like Iran and military support for Israel are seeing success.
In November, progressives like El-Sayed, as well as Minnesota Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan, Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon, Michigan House candidate William Lawrence, Pennsylvania House candidate Bob Brooks, and others, will try to prove that their politics can win in competitive races against Republicans. So will Randy Villegas, who is aiming to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao in California's 22nd district.
But California's "jungle primary" system, which lets the top two candidates across all parties face off in the general election, will continue for the next several months to be a front in the Democratic Party's internal war.
One closely watched race is in California’s 14th District, near Oakland, where a special election for the seat vacated by the disgraced former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has come down to the wire between the progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-10) and the centrist-leaning transportation official Melissa Hernandez (D).
The two are starkly divided on Israel; while Wahab has called its actions in Gaza" genocide" and called for an end to weapons aid, Hernandez has been noncommittal.
Wahab has also taken stronger stances against corporate abuses and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and called for significant police reforms, while Hernandez has run on public safety and business-friendly policies.
After steamrolling her opponents in the June primary, with a 25-point lead over Hernandez, Wahab was hit with a $6.3 million spending blitz from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the months leading up to this past Tuesday's general election. As of Thursday, the race is too close to call, with Wahab ahead by just over 1,300 votes as 62% of ballots have been counted.
Whoever wins this race will hold the seat for the remainder of Swalwell's term. But the two will face each other again in November with new district lines approved by voters last year as part of a Democratic redistricting effort.
In the 7th district, Sacramento City Council member Mai Vang (D), who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, unexpectedly finished with more votes in the June primary than 11-term Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui.
The 40-year-old Vang outflanked Matsui, who is more than twice her age, on the left by aggressively championing the abolition of ICE, Medicare for All, and a wealth tax proposal by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The two will face off again one-on-one in November's runoff.
The mayor's race in Los Angeles, between incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Council member Nithya Raman, will be another test for the left.
Bass, a former member of Congress, has strong institutional support from the Democratic Party, including endorsements from former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Raman is challenging her less on ideological grounds and more on the question of competent governance, seeking to overhaul the city's homelessness bureaucracy and construct more affordable housing. She has also pushed back against Bass' call to hire more police officers and advocated instead for investing in more unarmed civilian first responders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Serious Question: Would Hakeem Jeffries Prefer Republicans Retain Congress?
The so-called "party leader" is failing fantastically when it comes to building a United Front to defeat Donald Trump's fascism.
Aug 20, 2026
In the almost-over primary season, Democratic voters chose a mix of progressive nominees like Abdul El Sayed, Peggy Flanagan and Angie Nixon and moderates like David Crowley and Jared Moscowitz, often by slim margins. These candidates often disagreed on issues like Medicare For All and military aide for Israel.
But in the 11 weeks between now and the general election, Democrats progressives and moderates need to form a United Front to take back the Senate and House and have checks and balances on an increasingly unhinged fascistic Donald Trump. As I pointed out in Common Dreams last week, in 1930s Germany moderately left and far left parties fought against each other as hard as they fought against the Nazis and ended up with Hitler in power who outlawed them both and sent them to prisons and eventually concentration camps.
Until Election Day, Democratic leaders need to encourage a United Front against fascism.
But that's the opposite of what House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is doing. He squarely took the side of the so-called moderates and attacked the progressives.
On Meet The Press, host Kristen Welker mentioned that Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare For All legislation for ten years from 2013-2021 but hasn't co-sponsored it since he became Democratic House leader. She asked him if he would even put Medicare For All up for a vote if he became speaker.
Jeffries repeatedly evaded answering the question, but then finally declared: “It's not legislation that I currently am cosponsoring or that I support.” He would not even promise to put it up for a vote. At least 104 current Democratic House members are co-sponsors of Medicare For All legislations and Jeffries won't even promise to give them a chance to vote on it.
This despite the fact that recent polls show that 65% of voters, including 78% of Democrats, 71% of independents and even 49% of Republicans support Medicare For All. And even after respondents were told that Medicare for All would eliminate most private insurance and require higher taxes, support remained above 60 percent.
(It's worth noting that in the current election cycle, Jeffries has received $391,000 of campaign cash from the healthcare sector’s political action committees.)
Jeffries then went on to attack the Democratic Socialists of America telling Meet The Press, "I don't support the DSA agenda as has been articulated by the DSA itself." But his attacks on the DSA focused just on three positions which may have been taken in the past by small factions of the DSA, like defunding the police, open border, and abolishing the Senate. None of these positions are backed by actual DSA candidates who have won Democratic primaries.
Jeffries deciding to put his thumbs on the scale and back one sector of the Democratic Party is directly contrary to the role of a party leader whose job should be to unite the party to win the House and Senate in the General Election.
As Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff to the late Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid wrote in The New York Times, "It is not up to party leaders or the Democratic National Committee to litigate whether a candidate’s views are acceptable; the voters of a state or district decide. The coalition that passed the New Deal included everyone from a Communist sympathizer to self-avowed white supremacists, putting the compromises asked of us today in perspective."
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Simple: Progressives Are Winning Because What They Support Is Extremely Popular
It’s time for the political establishment to stop telling the American people what they should believe and start listening to what they actually want.
Aug 19, 2026
The media pundits have written article after article desperately trying to understand why progressive candidates, despite being heavily outspent, keep defeating establishment Democrats in primaries around the country. Well, the answer is not complicated.
Whether it is a corrupt campaign finance system, unprecedented income and wealth inequality, a broken and wildly expensive healthcare system, the enormous threats posed by AI or an immoral and destructive foreign policy, progressives are talking about the real issues facing working families. And they are providing real solutions. Establishment Democrats are not.
Poll after poll shows the same thing. The American people know that the current economic system is rigged. The very rich get richer, while working families struggle. Today, while 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, the billionaire class has never ever had it so good.
Let me take this opportunity to share with you some of the major proposals that most progressives support. And you tell me how “extreme” they are.
We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93% and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households.
Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change – and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change.
In the richest country in the history of the world, Americans do not want to have to struggle every single day just to pay the bills. Working-class people do not want to die years younger than they should because of illnesses caused by the never-ending stress they experience just to survive. And, like past generations, they do not want their kids to have a lower standard of living than they do.
Establishment politicians and the establishment media have described the agenda that progressive candidates are winning elections on as “radical,” “far left,” “extremist” or, in the words of Donald Trump, “communist.” All that is nonsense. On major issue after major issue, the progressive agenda is reflecting exactly what a strong majority of the American people need and want.
Let me take this opportunity to share with you some of the major proposals that most progressives support. And you tell me how “extreme” they are.
Campaign finance reform
Progressives believe that our current campaign finance system is corrupt and is undermining democracy. It is absurd that one man, Mr Musk, can spend $290m to help elect Donald Trump as president and that billionaires in both parties can spend unlimited amounts of money in campaigns through their Super PACs.
We believe that we must end the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, ban Super Pacs and move to the public funding of elections. We believe that democracy means one person one vote, not billionaires buying elections.
Healthcare
Progressives believe that our current healthcare system is broken, dysfunctional and wildly expensive. We believe that it is immoral and fiscally irresponsible for us to spend roughly twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of other major countries, while 85 million Americans remain uninsured or underinsured.
At the same time, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Progressives believe that healthcare is a human right and that we should do what all other major countries on Earth do, guarantee healthcare to all people. We agree with the 64% of Americans who want a Medicare for all single payer system.
Protecting American workers
Progressives believe that all Americans are entitled to a decent standard of living. We regard it as outrageous that in the year 2026 millions of workers continue to earn starvation wages and that the federal minimum wage remains at a disgraceful $7.25 an hour. We believe that the federal minimum wage should be raised to a living wage of at least $20 per hour.
We also believe that employers should no longer be able to deny workers their constitutional right to join unions through illegal actions. Progressives support the passage of the Pro Act which will make it easier for workers to join unions and negotiate contracts that will provide them with better wages, benefits and working conditions.
Tax the rich
Progressives believe that, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the wealthiest people in this country must start paying their fair share of taxes. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth and when one-third of our senior citizens are struggling economically, it is absurd that billionaires have an effective tax rate lower than truck drivers or nurses.
The wealthiest people in this country and large profitable corporations must start paying their fair share of taxes so that we can adequately fund the needs of working families, the children and the elderly.
Regulation of AI
Progressives believe that AI and robotics, developed and pushed by the wealthiest people on Earth, are the most transformational technologies in the history of humanity and that they will impact every man, woman and child in our country.
At a time when AI is threatening to displace millions of workers, eviscerate our privacy, harm our environment, undermine our democracy and negatively impact the mental health of our children, we believe that the government must play a decisive role in making sure that these revolutionary technologies are used to benefit all Americans, and not just make the big tech oligarchs even richer.
Climate change
Progressives believe that Trump’s assertion that climate change is a “hoax” is not only extraordinarily ignorant, but is a real danger to the planet. The last 11 years have been the hottest 11 years on record and the last three years have been the hottest three years on record.
This past year the United States and countries throughout the world have seen major heatwaves, flash floods, increased drought and horrific forest fires – and scientists tell us the worst is yet to come.
Progressives believe that we must forcefully take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry. The truth is that we can create millions of good-paying union jobs by transforming our energy systems away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. For the sake of our kids, future generations and the habitability of the planet that is what we must do.
Foreign policy
Progressives believe that we need to fundamentally reform our foreign and military policies. The war in Vietnam was based on a lie. The war in Iraq was based on a lie. The current war in Iran is based on a lie. We do not need to spend $1.5tn a year on the Pentagon fighting endless wars and propping up dictatorships around the world.
We certainly do not have to invest tens of billions supporting the extremist Netanyahu government in Israel, which has killed 73,000 Palestinians and wounded over 173,000 more – the vast majority of them women, children and the elderly.
Despite what the media will have you believe, progressives are winning across this country for a simple reason: the ideas they are running on are extremely popular. It’s time for the political establishment to stop telling the American people what they should believe and start listening to what they actually want.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy