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
working class
Here's Why Ro Khanna and AOC Should Run for President in 2028
While there is a difference in how these two politicians label themselves, most voters will be much more interested in whether each will address the needs of the working class and fight the greed of the billionaires.
Sep 15, 2026
Fifteen years ago, during President Obama's first term, we co-founded RootsAction as an online progressive group challenging not only Republicans but also the corporatism and militarism of the Democratic Party. RootsAction supported Bernie Sanders for president in 2016 and 2020. Two years before the 2024 election disaster that returned Donald Trump to the White House, RootsAction launched the Don’t Run Joe campaign, with the warning that the renomination of Joe Biden by Democrats “would be a tragic mistake.”
Despite polls showing as early as 2022 that strong majorities of Democrats wanted a 2024 nominee other than Biden, the “Don’t Run Joe” message went unheeded until Biden’s debate debacle in June 2024. By then, it was too late for the open primary process needed to produce a ticket that could inspire activists—and defeat the fascistic faux-populism of Trump.
Like the 2024 victory of the twice-impeached, repeatedly indicted Trump, his 2016 win was avoidable. Tad Devine makes the case in his new book, “How the Democrats Screwed Bernie.” Devine had been a top strategist for mainstream Democrats for decades before he joined Bernie’s first presidential campaign.
One lesson we’ve learned over the last 15 years is that it’s a big mistake for activists to sit back and expect the Democratic Party establishment to serve up candidates who can mobilize voters and win elections. That establishment failed us in winnable presidential elections in 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2024. Devine, who knows the mechanisms inside and out, says the dollar-dominated process is often rigged against outsider “candidates who connect with voters, who understand voter anxieties”—and these genuinely populist candidates “are more likely to succeed in general elections than those who rely primarily on insider muscle.”
This week, RootsAction teamed up with Progressive Democrats of America to announce that we will jointly launch, just after the November midterm elections, a campaign urging Reps. Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. “The voices of Khanna and/or AOC are needed in the presidential campaign to ensure that voters hear serious solutions,” the campaign’s petition says. “Without a progressive populist advocate atop the ticket, the Democratic response would be woefully underwhelming—enabling right-wing demagoguery to push voter unrest in dangerous and divisive directions.”
The petition statement adds that the presence of Khanna and/or AOC in the presidential race “is crucial to foster debate on healthcare, jobs, AI, militarism and the U.S. relationship with Israel, along with many other issues important to a wide range of voters.”
Congressman Khanna—whose name recognition has grown recently because of his legislative battles to release the Epstein files and to end the Iran War, and his detention in the occupied West Bank by Israeli settlers—represents our country’s wealthiest district and much of Silicon Valley. He wants to increase taxes on the rich. He calls himself “a progressive capitalist.”
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez entered the House with great fanfare after a 2018 Democratic primary victory over one of the party’s top leaders on Capitol Hill (Joe Crowley, now a corporate lobbyist) representing a working-class, Latino-majority district in New York City. She led the effort to bring the jobs-creating Green New Deal proposal to Congress. She calls herself “a democratic socialist.”
While there is a difference in how these two politicians label themselves, most voters will be much more interested in whether each will address the needs of the working class and fight the greed of the billionaires. Both are direct political descendants of Bernie Sanders—AOC was active in the 2016 Bernie campaign, which inspired her to run for Congress, and she regularly joined Bernie last year at Fighting Oligarchy rallies; Khanna was a surrogate and national co-chair in Bernie’s 2020 presidential campaign.
RootsAction’s coalition partner in this initiative, Progressive Democrats of America, has a history of major success in candidate recruitment. In late 2013, PDA launched the “Run, Bernie, Run” movement, which drafted Sen. Sanders to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016—a campaign that elevated the national conversation and helped spark today’s progressive upsurge.
The RunRoRunAOC.org petition argues that either Khanna or Ocasio-Cortez—or both of them—need to be in the presidential race. If both enter it, the organizations behind this recruitment initiative are not worried that the two will somehow “split the progressive vote.” As shown by the historic wave of insurgent victories in this year’s Democratic primaries, the party’s electoral base is largely and increasingly progressive. It’s not a small sliver of voters. And a progressive bloc of delegates at the party’s national convention in August 2028 would be all to the good, pushing for popular policies such as taxing the rich, resisting Big Tech’s AI data centers, abolishing ICE, green jobs initiatives, enhanced Medicare for All, cutting the military budget and stopping the weapons flow to Israel.
During last year’s New York City mayoral campaign—which, thankfully, employed ranked-choice voting—two progressive candidates actually ran as a duo in the Democratic primary: Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander. Mamdani became mayor thanks significantly to Lander, and now Lander is heading to Congress thanks in part to Mamdani’s endorsement and support. In other races, progressives have run in tandem in crowded fields, maintaining a non-aggression strategy while bolstering each other’s positions.
We should remember that in the early months of the 2019-2020 Democratic presidential race—before a fraught personal split between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie—the presence of the two previously friendly candidates raising similar issues of inequality and corporate greed had actually moved the whole Democratic debate in a notably more progressive direction.
Despite millions of dollars flooding into the campaign coffers of corporatist Democratic candidates from special interests representing AI, crypto and Israel, and despite assists to those candidates from corporate media, the 2026 Democratic primaries have produced an unprecedented wave of victories by underfunded progressive candidates. These insurgent successes have occurred at local and statewide levels.
It will soon be time for progressives to focus on the national level.
Leaving the 2028 presidential nominating process to the money-drenched party elites—with their record of electoral defeats, governance failures and betrayals—would be a recipe for disaster.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Game Changers: How to Build the Economy We Deserve
What's needed are bold yet realistic policies that break cleanly from the corruption of the Trump years and the free-market fundamentalist era that preceded them. Righting the rules means an end to game-rigging by ruling elites and instead crafting rules that first and foremost protect the well-being of working people.
Sep 15, 2026
Editor's Note: The following is part of new series for Common Dreams based on "Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America," a project spearheaded by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Game Changers is a collaborative initiative bringing together leading economists and policy experts to develop bold, new ideas to build a stronger, fairer, greener, and more inclusive economy for all Americans. Through dozens of policy briefs, supporting research papers, and online webinars, the project offers solutions designed to help working people thrive while preparing the country for the economic challenges ahead. ""People are looking for solutions that improve their daily lives—not just marginal changes around the edges," says economist Juliet Schor. "Our proposals make housing, care, and daily life more affordable."
The Economy We Deserve
When a system reaches the point of breakdown, it’s time for radical change. That was the lesson of the 1930s, when the Great Depression ignited transformative labor and social movements that reset national priorities. It was also the negative lesson of the 1980s, when elites responded to stagflation with a neoliberal turn to “free markets” and enhanced corporate power. The resulting intensification of income and wealth inequality has enabled state capture by a white supremacist authoritarian movement in alliance with tech and fossil fuel interests.
The antidote is increasingly clear: recognizing the equal dignity of every human being and working to guarantee their right to economic security, the opportunity to thrive, a livable planet, a world free of racism, and democratic governance of our lives, societies, and economies. Large majorities of the public understand that the current system is failing most of us and threatening democracy itself. They’re ready to begin building an economy that we deserve.
It’s time to “right the rules” to create an economy that meets individuals’ basic needs for food, shelter, care, education, health, and free time.
Social change, and especially major economic transformation, requires a compelling positive vision of the possible. The Game Changers project was formed to provide that vision. Rooted in new economic thinking and research to address the multiple dysfunctions of the current system, it offers far-reaching ideas that go beyond the failed policies of the past, both neoliberal and liberal, and the corrupt authoritarian practices of the present.
It’s time to “right the rules” to create an economy that meets individuals’ basic needs for food, shelter, care, education, health, and free time. We envision that happening in multiple ways: local public provisioning for health, child and long-term care; federal income supports; access to work with good wages and reasonable hours; raising wages at the bottom and the middle to address longstanding racial and other inequalities; and sensible and compassionate immigration policies. We lay out plans for new public infrastructures such as high-quality mixed-income public housing with renewable energy systems and a low-cost, efficient public payments system. We need to detoxify the natural environment, restore ecosystems, and stabilize the climate system.
Investments in individuals, communities, nations and the planet are key to prosperity. But we need more than that. Changing the game implies that the game is rigged. We offer policies that help working people build power, through collective organizations, in the workplace and the state. These organizing strategies address racial and other divisions that weaken communities. They’ll help redress the asymmetries of influence that plague this moment.
A new game also requires fundamental transformation of large-scale economic structures, such as the financial architecture, the international trading system, and the functioning of the macroeconomy. Our policies do that through breaking up concentrated power, penalizing rent-seeking, stabilizing the financial system, and forcing corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. These measures help fund the investments in people and planet that are required for a decent economy.
Game Changers: The Economy We Deserve
One throughline among the wide range of proposals we have developed is that they are based on strong economic research and reasoning, but they reject the economic story that has dominated policymaking. Conventional economic thinking has been shown to be misguided in area after area. Minimum wages don’t cause unemployment; rent control doesn’t reduce housing supply; and equality and efficiency are not opposed. Climate action is cheaper than inaction, worktime reduction and higher productivity go together, and investments in social goods can pay for themselves.
The economic logic of our approach is based on game theory, as well as common sense. Zero-sum, competitive games like the one the economy has been stuck in yield much worse outcomes than cooperative games. When we join together in communities, labor unions, civic associations, and business enterprises, outcomes are far better. This recognition is the basis of a powerful new economic paradigm: invest in each other, secure the future, and realize the promise of multi-racial democracy throughout society. It’s time to change the game.
Anatomy of the Crisis
The roots of our current predicament can be situated in the early 1970s, when the economic damage wrought by an earlier wrong-headed foreign adventure—the Vietnam War—coincided with an increase in oil prices resulting from conflict in the Middle East. The resulting economic crisis of inflation and recession brought to a head longstanding political, social and economic struggles. Workers mobilized and built power through militant trade union activities; African Americans gained voice and political influence via the Civil Rights movement; the women’s movement demanded equal treatment. These developments coincided with declining competitiveness of US business and a profit squeeze. Panic arose within the American business class as they feared they were losing control.
All the proposals share the goal of helping to build a positive-sum economy that works for all, rather than a zero-sum economy where the greed of the one percent trumps the well-being of the ninety-nine percent.
An additional factor was increased environmental awareness. The first Earth Day in 1970 attracted 20 million, the largest protest action in US history. Existential panic was especially present in the fossil fuel industries of oil, gas and coal. Fossil fuel interests, including Exxon and the Kochs, fought back, investing millions to capture politicians and state institutions. They joined with other business interests to support representatives of both parties who would break unions and negotiate trade agreements that undermined the power of US workers. They de-regulated banks and other financial institutions to allow them to grow bigger, more profitable and, as we were to discover in 2007 and 2008, more dangerous to our economy and livelihoods.
In wave after wave, the state cut taxes for the rich and reduced government resources for investing in and supporting people and communities. The capture of politics and politicians by big capital directed even more money to the military industrial complex. The economic vision associated with neoliberalism was summed up most up memorably by Ronald Reagan in his First Inaugural Address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
By the 2000s, this neoliberal approach had been adopted by a significant portion of the economics profession, and “laissez-faire” became the baseline and even touchstone for economic policy. But in reality, the push for laissez-fare was a cover for state policy that boosted the rich at the expense of everyone else. This helps to explain how policy could evolve in just a few decades from the neoliberalism of Reagan to the authoritarian corruption of the Trump administration and its allies.
State capture has ensured that neither the economy nor the government works for most Americans. Naturally, and perhaps by design, this has led to general mistrust and even disdain by many Americans for the federal government, though there is less skepticism of state and local government. As a result, the potential for the public sector to act as a countervailing force against the power of big business is further undermined by angry and discouraged voters.
This top-heavy economic and political system is populated by corporations too often driven by short-term profit-seeking rather than long-term investments, and by a government that invests too little in people and communities and too much in fossil fuel interests and the military-industrial complex. The average worker’s standard of living has stagnated for decades despite large increases in productivity. Affordability may be a buzzword. It is also a pressing day-to-day issue for most American families.
The rise of billionaires and even one trillionaire, along with the enormous power of tech and fossil fuel capitalists in the Trump Administration, is in some ways the natural extension of this decades-long pattern. But we are also experiencing unprecedented perversions and pathologies, as reflected in the vast corruption exhibited by the Trump family and friends and the hyper-inequality of society, with a handful of billionaires striding over millions of Americans barely able to make ends meet. And now fossil fuel interests are redacting “climate change” from government’s—and possibly even society’s—to-do list.
It is long past time to break this destructive cycle and usher in a new economic structure, and a new paradigm to support it.
Changing the Game
The Game Changers are examples of bold yet realistic policies that break cleanly from the corruption of the Trump years and the free-market fundamentalist era that preceded them. The policies address how both markets and government work, based on the premise that the role of government is not merely to clean up after the messes when markets fail, but to ensure that markets work consistently on behalf of working people rather than being rigged against them.
Game Changer policies span a broad canvas of economic issues—health care, housing, immigration, care work, labor, the environment, trade, and finance. All the proposals share the goal of helping to build a positive-sum economy that works for all, rather than a zero-sum economy where the greed of the one percent trumps the well-being of the ninety-nine percent. They are based on a simple set of propositions.
- Changing the game means investing in each other.
Childcare, health care, and a clean and safe environment are not commodities to be sold to those with the most purchasing power, nor are they privileges to be granted to those with the most political power. These are universal rights that should be shared by all.
Something is deeply wrong with an economy where people who play by the rules must struggle to get by, while the wealthy flaunt their power with impunity.
Investing in each other means strengthening personal connections by making sure that working people have time and energy to invest in their families and communities. It means uniting with those by our side who are striving for a better life. It means spurning attempts to pit us against each other—white against non-white, native-born against recent immigrant, worker against worker—to divert attention from the abuses perpetrated by those on top.
In short, investing in each other means building an economy in which everyone is free to survive, strive, and thrive.
- Changing the game means securing our future.
Economic security should not be a privilege for the few. A secure economy must be resilient enough to safeguard present as well as future generations from workplace abuses, environmental destruction, and supply-chain fragility.
Securing our future means recognizing that there are things that all should be able to afford, like housing, education and care. It means recognizing that there are things we cannot afford, like the poisoning of our air and water and lavish tax breaks and handouts for the rich. And it means building an economy in which the lives of working people are not subjected to catastrophic disruptions that result from concentrated wealth and power in the hands of people who do not care.
Securing our future also means forging solidarity with others across the world with whom we share not only the same planet, but also the same struggle against transnational elites who seek to divide nations and peoples to pursue ever more wealth and power for themselves.
- Changing the game means righting the rules.
Today the rules for how markets and governments work are rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful. Something is deeply wrong with an economy where people who play by the rules must struggle to get by, while the wealthy flaunt their power with impunity.
Righting the rules means ending reckless and predatory financial practices that siphon wealth from working families into the hands of speculators and banksters. It means reorienting housing markets to provide affordable homes for all rather than to maximize profits for real-estate barons. And it means ending the tragic squandering of lives and wealth to shore up a military-industrial complex that offers empty promises of national security even as it undermines the security of families and communities by engaging in immoral and unnecessary wars.
Righting the rules means an end to game-rigging by ruling elites and instead crafting rules that first and foremost protect the well-being of working people.
The call for changing the rules highlights a key aspect of our approach. Many of the Game Changer policies involve redesigning how the market works rather than calling for major new public spending. They transform market outcomes, thereby reducing the need for post-market redistributions to achieve more fairness. And in calling for more public spending in some areas, we also propose new revenue sources and fiscal priorities to improve the functioning of the economy, as detailed in the Game Changer on funding the future.
Getting from Here to There
To animate the changes we are proposing, we need to restore people’s faith that change is possible. We’ve noted the existence of pervasive cynicism and disillusionment with government. In an age of state capture, when government has so frequently failed workers, communities of color, rural families, and distressed geographies, these feelings are warranted. Part of the difficulty of defending democracy against the current authoritarian threats is that the system has empowered elites while disempowering and discouraging working people.
As we’ve argued, changing the game requires far-reaching policies that offer improvements and are based on strong economic analysis. That’s a given. Overcoming cynicism and disillusionment requires something else as well: people’s actual lived experience fighting for and winning change. By being part of a truly democratic movement, and achieving victories, it’s possible to rebuild trust in government, businesses, and each other.
We must reject the false tensions between collective strategies and individual dreams, between worker welfare and business health, between climate caution and economic prosperity.
A transformative agenda won’t be enacted in one stroke. It may start with smaller victories and incremental steps. Each successful campaign engages people who can then be part of the next, bigger effort. Or perhaps we notch an early win with a big, bold Game Changer. That can be followed by smaller steps to make sure it’s implemented fairly and successfully. Social and economic restructuring will come in the form of changes, big and small. And with each positive step, trust in government—and each other—increases.
We are optimistic about the possibilities for deep transformation. Our reasoning is based on the episodes we began with—the paradigm-shifting moments in which new economic models arise and stick. While such shifts can be connected to intellectual trends, they are often more rooted in social conditions and political coalitions: New Deal thinking and labor mobilization in the context of the Great Depression, or neoliberal economics and business opportunism in the context of the stagflation of the 1970s and early 1980s.
In this moment of crisis, we need both new perspectives and new coalitions. We must reject the false tensions between collective strategies and individual dreams, between worker welfare and business health, between climate caution and economic prosperity. We must build a broad movement that includes workers, communities of color, small businesses, professionals concerned about AI, community leaders sickened by division, and anyone and everyone who knows that democracy cannot stand when oligarchy thrives.
The traditional American motto, “out of many, one” is often used to refer to the power of our diversity. Forging a broad and unified force for a better future will be key for the many—movement builders, unionists, community organizers, civic leaders, and all who stand with them—to triumph against the one percent. A transformative policy package, like the Game Changers, is one part of the coalition-building needed for the future we deserve.
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
Want to Fix the Economy? Triple Union Membership
Tripling union membership would raise the pay of the median worker by more than $7,700 a year, or nearly $270,000 over a 35-year career. That’s enough to more than cover the cost of sending two children to a four-year public university.
Sep 07, 2026
This Labor Day, workers across the country are sending a clear message: They want a greater voice on the job. A near-record 71% of Americans approve of unions, and surveys show over 50 million nonunion workers would join a union if they could.
At a time when many are struggling to afford basic necessities, it’s easy to understand why. Through unions and collective bargaining, workers have more power to win higher wages, better benefits, safer working conditions, and a fairer share of the wealth they create. Unions help build a strong middle class, reduce inequality, narrow racial economic disparities, and boost participation in our democracy.
Yet only 1 in 10 US workers are in a union today—a sharp decline from the more than 1 in 3 workers who belonged to a union in the 1950s. That drop did not happen because workers stopped wanting or needing unions. It happened due to relentless attacks on unions and collective bargaining, and lawmakers’ failure to fix the broken labor laws that have allowed those attacks to succeed.
The consequences have been enormous. As union power has declined, workers have seen less of the gains from the economic growth they have helped create. Since 1979, productivity (how much average value workers produce in an hour of work) has grown 2.8 times as much as pay for typical workers.
This Labor Day, let’s recommit to putting more power in the hands of working people.
New Economic Policy Institute research makes clear just how much working people stand to gain by rebuilding union power to 1950s’ levels.
Tripling union membership would raise the pay of the median worker by more than $7,700 a year, or nearly $270,000 over a 35-year career. That’s enough to more than cover the cost of sending two children to a four-year public university, for example. Crucially, both union and nonunion workers would see these gains because stronger unions raise standards across the labor market.
Scaled across the workforce, tripling union membership would shift an estimated $1.2 trillion to the pockets of working people every year. This is enough to reverse roughly one-third of the increase in inequality since 1979.
Stronger unions are also good for businesses and the broader economy. When workers earn more, they have more money to spend in their communities, strengthening consumer demand. Businesses would benefit from lower worker turnover, higher productivity, and workers who have a greater stake in the success of their workplaces.
Tripling union membership won’t be easy, but it’s far from a nostalgic pipe dream. It will take continued nationwide organizing and decisive policy action that makes it easier for workers to unionize. Federal lawmakers can start by passing legislation that expands collective bargaining rights, closes loopholes in existing law that allows employers to suppress worker organizing, and holds employers accountable when they violate workers’ labor rights. Further, state lawmakers should provide all public-sector workers with collective bargaining rights and repeal so-called right-to-work laws that weaken workers’ ability to organize and bargain collectively.
This Labor Day, let’s recommit to putting more power in the hands of working people. That means giving more workers the freedom to organize. And it means setting an ambitious goal worthy of the moment: tripling union membership and building an economy that works for working people.
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
Cancel Thanksgiving? A Progressive Guide to Handling the Holidays
Matt Witt’s new book Make Holidays Your Own encourages creative rethinking of family gatherings and community practices on major holidays.
Sep 07, 2026
It’s a good thing that labor journalist and author Matt Witt was not running for governor of Wisconsin this year like Democratic Socialists of America candidate Francesca Hong.
Democratic primary rivals and Republican opposition researchers would have badly distorted the message of Witt’s new book Make Holidays Your Own (Common Ground Press). It encourages creative rethinking of family gatherings and community practices on major holidays.
In their effort to discredit Hong, her foes in both parties created what The New York Times called a “social media kerfuffle” over old posts dissing Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine’s Day, and Halloween.
The outspoken state legislator and former restaurant owner from Madison lost her August 11 primary despite polling very strongly beforehand. Given the annual sense of foreboding that overtakes millions of Americans when tense family reunions draw near in late November, Hong’s past call for Thanksgiving to be “canceled”—because of its connection to “colonialism”—probably had its local fans.
Sometimes the development of alternative celebrations—such as the reclaiming of May Day by the modern day, more immigrant-influenced US labor movement--can lead to two opportunities to picnic, protest, and march, rather than just one!
Under fire on the campaign trail, Hong did concede that bringing people together around a table can be “a good thing.” But, according to the Times, she also courted controversy by “questioning the value of Valentine’s Day and Christmas trees.” So not only Wisconsin turkey farmers, but gift card sellers and Christmas tree growers—if sufficiently miffed—might have voted instead for the moderate Democrat from Milwaukee, David Crowley, who won the primary.
And even if Hong had prevailed, according to the Times, she faced the challenge of winning over voters like John Wilson, a 61-year old pharmacist from Platteville, Wisconsin, who usually “leans Democratic.” However, when asked whether he favored Hong or US Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican running for governor, Wilson chose the latter because “you have to take people at their word” about serious matters like Thanksgiving.
Tiffany has strong views on holidays too; in 2021, he was one of 14 House members who voted against making Juneteenth Day a federal holiday, which won’t be popular with African-American voters statewide.
Just A Few Days Off
In the future, left-leaning candidates can avoid even momentarily distracting flaps like this by reading Matt Witt’s book—hopefully, before pulling the trigger on Twitter, in a moment of pique. The few paid days off that most Americans get to enjoy should not be cancel culture targets, when, as the author argues, they can be celebrated in ways “more historically accurate, meaningful, inclusive, and fun,”
In Make Holidays Your Own, Witt offers much creative advice about dealing with Turkey Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July, and eight others; his focus is on countering their crass commercialization, historical baggage, stultifying traditionalism, or exploitation by the right.
See, for example, the garish 250th birthday party staged on July 4 of this year in Washington, DC by the White House and its corporate funders. While no doubt critical of that, Abdul El-Sayed, the successful Democratic Senate primary winner in Michigan is definitely tip-toeing around the issue of fireworks on the Fourth.
As the Times notes, “He has deleted a number of videos and posts where he floated the idea of abandoning fireworks on Independence Day.” El-Sayed’s press spokesperson is now reminding voters that he “is the former captain of his high school football team, loves Michigan football on Saturdays, and celebrates the Fourth of July with fireworks like the next Michigander.”
In other words, he’s an all-American guy! As Witt explains: “In every culture, holidays matter. They come with a message and symbols—with a story that reinforces a certain way of looking at society and passes on certain values to the next generation.” According to the author, what’s good about remaking holidays, in ways that send a different message, “is that you don’t have to convince everyone in your community who doesn’t agree. They can celebrate however they want and so can you.”
A Labor Day History Lesson
And sometimes the development of alternative celebrations—such as the reclaiming of May Day by the modern day, more immigrant-influenced US labor movement--can lead to two opportunities to picnic, protest, and march, rather than just one!
As a former communications director for the United Mine Workers, Teamsters, and Service Employees International Union, the author delves, most informatively, into the political agenda behind the creation of Labor Day, as a counter to nascent working-class internationalism in the late 19th century.
Readers will learn that it was a corporate Democrat president—rather than any anti-union Republican—who first tried to erase the memory of May 1, as an international workers holiday born in the USA, and replace it with an end of summer day off out of step with the rest of the world.
To add insult to injury, May 1 then got officially rebranded, during the McCarthy era, as Law Day—although nobody, even corporate lawyers, get time off for that. Yet, thanks to multiple MAGA threats to the “rule of law” since President Donald Trump got reelected, more than 1,000 California bar members used their lunch hour to stage a first-time ever May Day-style protest in downtown San Francisco.)
As Witt recounts, massive demonstrations seeking shorter working hours occurred in Chicago and other US cities on May 1, 1886; when repeated on May Day four years later, workers in “dozens of countries in Europe and Latin America also held rallies and marches to support the eight-hour day demand.”
Thereafter, much to the alarm of “robber barons” here and abroad, May 1 protests became “an annual event for workers all around the world” and an expression of cross-border solidarity between labor radicals of varying stripes.
Forget May Day?
By 1896, however, a business-backed resident of the White House named Grover Cleveland needed a “sop to unions.” He had, after all, just called out federal troops to crush the Pullman strike organized by the American Railway Union, a pioneering alternative to craft unionism led by future Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Victor Debs (who was jailed for his role in the strike).
At Cleveland’s request, Congress declared that workers should be given a day off, every year, on the first Monday in September so, as Witt notes, “Actions taken by US unions would not be coordinated with their counterparts in the rest of the world.”
“Today, Labor Day is a paid holiday for about 3 in 4 workers in the US. Ironically, the lowest paid workers are the least likely to have the day off with pay. That includes non-union workers in food service, retail, hotels, agriculture, delivery, and janitorial services, as well as part-time workers, or those whose companies claim are ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees.”
On the holiday counterprogramming front, the good news is that May Day (as noted above) has made a major comeback over the last two decades. There is also “the shining example of the transformation of Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day as now observed in many cities and states.”
Thanks to the efforts of progressive veterans’ groups like Veterans for Peace and Common Defense, at least some commemorative events on Memorial Day and Veterans Day now focus on peace and justice issues, rather than uncritical celebration of past wars.
In his chapter on Martin Luther King Day, the author suggests a range of activities that “can be about the movement and not just the man.” (This is advice that venerators of Cesar Chavez are taking, but only belatedly, after recent revelations about his history of sexual abuse while president of the United Farm Workers.)
Witt reports that all proceeds from his book are going to Rethinking Schools, a “national nonprofit organization that supports social, economic, and environmental justice teaching at a time when the very idea of public education is under attack. Rethinking Schools’ materials have been used by tens of thousands of educators and have reached millions of students.”
Let’s hope that Make Holidays Your Own also gets into the hands of many educators who have to come up with fresh ideas for in-school celebrations of holidays, that cannot be cancelled even in blue states. But, of course, don’t want their personal creativity in the classroom (or pet peeves) unleashing a conservative backlash of the sort that did not help Hong.
Keep ReadingShow Less
I Spent 32 Years Caring for Children and I Still Can't Afford to Retire—I'm Not Alone
The work that our families run on often happens where no one can see it. This Labor Day, as midterms near, I'm thinking about what it will take for the people who do that work—and the people who depend on it—to finally be counted.
Sep 07, 2026
What does it say about this country when you can work for more than 40 years and still can’t afford to stop?
I am 66 years old and have spent over 30 years caring for children across the South. When 2024 drew to a close, I tried to retire. I thought I had put in enough time to set myself free from the labor of surviving this economy.
But, as I worried, I couldn't afford it. The price of everything was increasing, including bread, and I realized I had no choice but to return to work within six months of my retirement.
You can tell workers like me that we should have saved more, planned better, chosen a better path toward our retirement. But here’s the problem many domestic and care workers encounter: You cannot save money you never had. When wages barely cover housing, groceries, medicine, and everything else life throws at you, retirement is less like a plan and more like a luxury. In 2025 (the year I was supposed to be retired), early educators had a median wage of $34,980. Other domestic workers, like house cleaners make an estimated median wage of $34,650, and home care workers in 2025 had a median annual income of $22,429. These wages reflect the reality that domestic workers overall are three times as likely to live in poverty as other workers.
With seven children and 18 grandchildren, I do not want another generation of women in my family to inherit a country’s economy where caring for others means giving up their own security.
I come from a legacy of domestic workers. My grandmother, Big Momma, was a Certified Nursing Assistant. My mother was a housekeeper. I became a childcare worker. Three generations of Black women in my family have cared for other people.
We are part of a much longer history, and that is why this work has never paid what it should.
In 1881, 20 Black laundresses organized a movement that grew to nearly 3,000 members and won better wages after striking. Nearly a century later, Dorothy Bolden organized domestic workers across this same city and founded the National Domestic Workers Union of America. Bolden understood that better working conditions and civic power went hand in hand and even made voter registration part of the strategy to organize domestic workers.
When this country finally wrote basic protections into law, such as the right to organize, a minimum wage, and a path to retirement, domestic workers and farmworkers were left out of these protections. That was intentional. Much of that work was done by Black women in the South; leaving it unprotected was no accident. A multigenerational legacy later, we are still living with the consequences these gaps created.
It’s why a person can care for children for over 32 years and still not be able to afford to retire. We didn’t fail to plan; our work was just kept out of sight and out of the protections other workers won.
For most of my career as a childcare worker, children knew me as Miss Cathy. If one of them came to me crying because they were being bullied or something was wrong, I would tell them, "Miss Cathy is going to get to the bottom of it." And trust that Miss Cathy always did.
I adore my work and the children I care for. But loving your work should not require sacrificing your own security.
Or your health.
I have Graves’ disease—a disease that is twice as likely to impact Black women—and often, we face delayed diagnoses and advanced symptoms because of healthcare disparities. For years, I managed it by going to quick clinics when I could afford them and, most of the time, went without care when I couldn't. It was ironic: I was spending my days making sure other people's children were cared for while struggling to afford consistent care for myself. It was not until I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare that I finally had access to health coverage. And even that coverage is at risk.
But this essay is not meant to share all of the challenges I face in care work. No, I am writing this to emphasize that I am no longer the exception. We, as working-class people, have become the rule.
Across the United States, retirement is slipping out of reach for working people of every kind. Wages have not kept up with the cost of the roof over our heads, a simple doctor's visit, a full grocery cart, or care of any kind. More and more people are working into their late 60s, 70s, even 80s, not because they want to, but because stopping simply is not an option. For me, I work until God tells me to stop. The insecurity I’ve referenced has always shadowed domestic workers, and now it’s reaching the rest of the working class. My story reflects the lives of so many working people.
But domestic workers are building a constituency around care: domestic workers, family caregivers, parents, and everyone who understands that care is not some niche issue. It is part of whether a family can afford to live and whether the people who provide that care can afford to grow old, in my case, preferably with a crisp beverage on a beautiful beach.
The economy and affordability are on people's minds. It’s the only thing that’s on my mind. My bank account tells me that things are expensive.
For Black women like me, the right to be heard was never simple. Our grandmothers cleaned other people's homes and were told their voice did not matter in their own country. My father, who raised my siblings and me in 1960s Memphis, taught us that sitting out of the civic process was not optional; he refused to be invisible, and engaging with elected officials was a way to ensure that.
And it is not only domestic workers who have a stake in this. Every family with childcare needs, every person with an aging parent or disabled loved one at home, all of us who will need care someday—we all deeply depend on this work. When we make that care visible, when we insist that it be counted and prioritized, we are looking out for one another.
I want the people in elected office to hear that childcare lets parents go to work, that home care lets people live with dignity, and that we, the people who do that work, should be able to retire from it one day.
Domestic workers are more than our labor. We are neighbors, parents, and grandparents.
With seven children and 18 grandchildren, I do not want another generation of women in my family to inherit a country’s economy where caring for others means giving up their own security.
My grandmother cared for people. My mother cared for people. I spent 32 years caring for children. We have done our part.
This Labor Day, I want the people who represent us—and the country we have spent our lives caring for—to show us they will do theirs.
And if they don't, Miss Cathy is going to get to the bottom of it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Tariffs Ended Up Being Yet Another Regressive Tax on the Working Class
Counter to what he promised on the campaign trail, the president's tariffs have played out as a straightforward redistribution of income from ordinary Americans to corporations, much like the two other major tax cuts he’s pushed through as president.
Sep 05, 2026
After pushing through one of the more regressive tax cuts in history back in 2017, President Donald Trump promised, on taking office in January 2025, that his new regime of onerous tariffs would be different. Foreigners would pay them, American consumers would be held harmless, and American manufacturing would bloom anew.
In the real world, of course, companies routinely pass tariffs on to American consumers in the form of higher retail prices, and it’s generally agreed that this is what happened when Trump’s tariff regime took effect. But after the Supreme Court found most of Trump’s tariffs to be illegal and ordered that they be refunded to importing companies, those refunds have not generally been passed onto consumers, as a series of candid corporate earnings calls in recent months have demonstrated.
In other words, working Americans, who make up most of the nation’s consumers, paid for checks that are now being written to corporations and that will enrich their (mostly wealthy) shareholders. Trump’s tariffs have played out as a straightforward redistribution of income from ordinary Americans to corporations, much like the two other major tax cuts he’s pushed through as president.
Of course, this is not how Trump marketed his trade policies.
Because he chose instead to levy these tariffs using authority the law simply doesn’t give him, the Trump tariff experiment now amounts to a multibillion-dollar transfer of cash from working families to shareholders.
The administration promised, at various points, that the new tariff revenue would be enough to replace the entire federal income tax, boost military spending by 50%, pay a $2,000 dividend to every American, and somehow simultaneously reduce the national debt.
The court’s February decision ruled that the tariffs—imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—were illegal and must be refunded to the companies that had initially paid them. This was no surprise—the IEEPA was enacted in 1977 to restrict presidential power, not expand it. The decision meant that fully $166 billion, well over half of the additional tariffs collected to date by the Trump administration, must be refunded.
For the millions of Americans who saw the prices of almost everything they buy increased by tariffs, the obvious question was how—if at all—these companies would pass through their tariff refunds to consumers. But as a series of corporate earnings calls have made clear over the past several weeks, in general these corporations are treating the tariff refunds—which often come with interest paid on top—not as something they should duly pass on to consumers, but a way of padding their bottom line. And this is true even of companies that acknowledged raising prices last year to offset the tariffs.
For example, in an earnings call back in summer 2025, a Nike executive estimated the company would see a tariff impact of around $1 billion, and announced that it “intend[s] to fully mitigate the impact” of the tariffs with a series of steps including “surgical price increase in the United States.” The $5 to $10 price increases introduced by the company that summer were transparently Nike’s “surgical” way of passing the buck to consumers.
Yet when Nike announced earlier this summer that it would see close to a $1 billion tariff refund, company officials simply noted that this “unplanned benefit” would boost the company’s earnings for the quarter. As a result, consumers have filed a class-action suit against Nike for extracting a double benefit from the Trump tariffs—first boosting shoe prices to offset the cost of the tariffs and then pocketing the tariff refunds.
Some companies claim that part of their refunds will lower prices for consumers going forward, but this is meaningless spin that is divorced from how prices are set. Receiving unexpected cash from the government does not create an incentive for a company to charge customers less for its products than the market will bear. But several corporations are making this claim to distract the public from their windfall.
For example, Dollar Tree recently reported it will receive $383 million in tariff refunds and said that $22 million of that $383 million in refunds will go toward “higher markdowns… related to our tariff reinvestment initiative.” While some of the remaining refund will go toward “customer messaging and marketing, and incremental improvements in store conditions and operations,” Dollar Tree has not said how much more it will devote to price markdowns. But the company’s leaders were far less squishy about announcing a $605 million stock buyback for the quarter—more than 27 times the $22 million it recorded for tariff-related markdowns.
Other big companies have vaguely promised that consumers will benefit from the giant refund checks without saying how much. Walmart says it is using refunds to support “price leadership.” Target says it will “invest in price.” Lowe’s initially promised “customer-facing actions” that will “reinforce our value proposition,” although the company subsequently pivoted toward saying its leaders “feel strongly that we want to deliver strong profitability for our shareholders.” But none have said what share of their tariff refund will actually make its way back to consumers. Levi Strauss, having previously admitted it would be taking “thoughtful, targeted pricing actions” in response to the tariffs, tops them all by saying of its $80 million tariff refund windfall only that “we haven’t figured out what to do with it.” (Levi Strauss now also faces a proposed class-action suit for not returning tariffs to consumers.)
Some companies aren’t even bothering to pretend they’re interested in offering relief to their customers. Shoe maker Steve Madden, which previously acknowledged “adjusting pricing” in response to the tariffs and subsequently noted it was “pleased overall with consumer acceptance of the price increases,” now says it will use its $92 million in tariff refunds to “pay down debt.”
This unmistakable shift of cash away from consumers and into the pockets of corporations and their shareholders is, on one level, not the companies’ fault. Once companies incorporated their tariffs into price increases across all the items they sell, there was no practical way to identify exactly which consumers bore which portion of those tariffs, or to reverse those price increases dollar for dollar: That egg can’t be unscrambled.
The ultimate responsibility for this regressive tax shift falls on the Trump administration, which chose to impose these tariffs unilaterally, without seeking the congressional authorization the law required. If Trump had gotten the approval he needed from Congress to levy these tariffs, this whole episode would merely have been an economically catastrophic, regressive tax hike on consumers.
But because he chose instead to levy these tariffs using authority the law simply doesn’t give him, the Trump tariff experiment now amounts to a multibillion-dollar transfer of cash from working families to shareholders. In that sense, Trump’s illegal tariffs are beginning to look a lot like his much-ballyhooed tax cuts of 2017 and 2025: Working families were promised big tax cuts, but corporations and their shareholders ultimately made out best.
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
How DSA and Democrats Can Win the Working Class (and How Not To)
If both DSA and the Democratic Party want to be of and not just for the working class, broadly defined, they have a long way to go. But the work is vital.
Aug 28, 2026
The Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America share a problem. As organizations largely run by and involved with college-educated voters, they are physically and psychically removed from working people without four-year degrees. Both the Democrats and DSA claim they are speaking for the working class, but they are not, at present, political organizations of the working class.
The Democrats have tried to avoid their working-class problem by embracing suburban Republicans and independents who have been repulsed by the GOP’s extremism. The Democrats’ embrace of Wall Street and Hollywood big money—and NAFTA—has pushed working people out of the coalition.
For DSA, on the other hand, the easiest way to address the problem is to define it away. DSA uses a broad definition of the working class that includes underpaid college-educated graduate students, unemployed and underemployed college graduates, and a host of other college-educated workers who suffer from insecure jobs and the high cost of living. While these educated workers are sometimes financially akin to the working class, the majority of working people—nearly 60 percent—do not have four-year college degrees.
And that’s the way the 2024 vote went. Trump had a 14-point advantage among voters without college degrees, while Harris carried college graduates, 56 percent to 43 percent. If DSA and the Democrats remain organizations largely of the highly educated, they will lose.
Racial Silos?
Looking at voters as racial groups is another way to avoid dealing with the working-class issues the Democrats and DSA face.
The Democrats have historically done well with Black and Hispanic voters, and the working class is increasingly multiracial. The idea is that if we stop viewing the working class as dominated by white workers, people of color will lead to stronger vote totals for the Democrats.
Alas, ethnicity is no longer a sure sign of voting Democratic because working-class Black and Hispanic voters have been leaving the party. Twenty percent of Black voters without four-year degrees and 48 percent of Hispanic voters without four-year degrees supported Trump in 2024.
White voters without four-year college degrees made up 42 percent of the 2024 electorate nationally. In seven states where Democrats have largely abandoned the political field—Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho—they constituted a majority of voters, ranging from 51 percent in Kansas to 58 percent in Montana and Idaho.
No significant progressive political movement can succeed without attracting large numbers of working-class voters of all colors. (Please see my latest book for the development of this argument.)
The Fox News Strategy?
Perhaps a good way to reach the working class is through conservative media. Some in DSA believe that their base can be extended by appearing on Fox News and making their case.
According to Pew Research, the median age of Fox viewers is 55, and most are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has been making Fox News appearances lately that have drawn attention, but it’s not at all clear that Fox News reaches deeply into younger working-class communities, especially those independents who are open to progressive economic populism. A good case could be made that progressives are wasting their time on conservative media, though El-Sayed’s performance this November could change my mind.
Electoral Canvassing?
DSA has done a remarkable job of fielding large numbers of door knockers during its political campaigns. The one-on-one conversations that take place are key to getting out the vote and sharing information about progressive policies such as taxing billionaires and Medicare for All. When thousands of DSA activists hit the streets during an election, public education certainly takes place.
But where and with whom?
Most DSA canvassing to date takes place in blue districts. And within those districts, it’s not clear whether working-class areas have been targeted. Often in political campaigns, the goal of canvassing is to find those voters most likely to support your candidate and make sure they vote. Harvesting the most likely supporters usually means targeting the areas where they live. Since DSA candidates thrive among college-educated voters, there is likely to be a tendency to concentrate canvassing in gentrified and upper-middle-class areas. Working-class urban areas will also be reached, but the balance is likely to tilt toward where the most likely supporters live.
More importantly, to date, most of the canvassing has taken place in urban areas and in and around college towns. Maybe I’m missing something, but reaching deeply into red working-class communities has not yet become a significant part of DSA’s ground game.
Long-Term Engagement with Working-Class Union People?
Unless and until DSA—and the Democrats, for that matter—set up precinct-level organizations in working-class neighborhoods, electioneering will be episodic and superficial. Door-to-door conversations are worthwhile, but they are no substitute for continual engagement within local organizations.
In my opinion, the best way to reach the working class is to engage with people through their labor organizations. The labor movement is much smaller than it was a generation ago, but there are still thousands of union meetings taking place each month, ranging from small local union gatherings to larger regional and national conferences. Political activists need to show up and listen to what union members care about.
It takes work, often hard work, to get in the door. That’s something the Labor Institute, which I cofounded, had to do a half century ago when we started our work. To get educational opportunities, we reached out to countless labor leaders and activists, gradually gaining their trust and finding venues to show our wares.
It takes lots of time and lots of trust-building, but the conversations that emerge through ongoing educational engagement taught us as much as we taught others, greatly enriching what we were able to offer. DSA would broaden its support and deepen its connections with working people if it engaged with large numbers of blue-collar and service workers in trade unions.
If DSA wants to be of and not just for the working class, broadly defined, it will have to get in the labor door. It will need to learn how to have a dialogue with working-class groups who might be progressive populists but are also likely to have concerns about socialism and whether DSA really can advance the cause of non-college-educated working people.
DSA, more than the Democrats, has the troops and the energy to do that work. The jury is out, however, on whether it can deploy that passion, and commitment to engage with working people who don’t already agree with them.
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