Marshall for The Hill: Factory Jobs Aren’t the Future Working Americans Want

Undaunted by his predecessor’s failure to spark a manufacturing renaissance, President Trump also dreams of reindustrializing America. He won’t succeed either, because no president has the power to undo a half-century of post-industrial evolution.

Why have our two oldest presidents fixated on “bringing back” factory jobs? Both grew up in the ‘50s, when the United States bestrode a war-ravaged world like an industrial colossus. But the answer isn’t just nostalgia for a lost “golden age.”

There’s also a pervasive feeling that our country owes a promissory note to working families hit hard by deindustrialization. The disappearance of manufacturing jobs with decent pay and benefits — traditionally their ticket from high school to the middle class — has undermined their living standards and social standing.

Read more in The Hill. 

Marshall in Politico: ‘It’s a winner for him’: Dems work to turn LA debate from immigration to Trump’s executive powers

For Democrats, it’s a concern rooted in Trump’s historic strength on immigration with voters not in Los Angeles, but watching on social media and TV in swing states and districts across the country.

“There’s a background and a history, and so that limits the sympathy of lots of fair-minded Americans watching this spectacle unfold,” said Will Marshall, founder of Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank.

Read the full article in Politico.

Ainsley on The Spectator’s Coffee House Shots Podcast: Is Rachel Reeves’s Headroom Shrinking?

There were clear winners and losers in Rachel Reeves’s spending review yesterday but some of her announcements around capital spending and investment saw her dubbed the ‘Klarna Chancellor’ by LBC’s Nick Ferrari for her ‘buy now, pay later’ approach. Clearly trying to shake off the accusations of being ‘austerity-lite’, Labour point to longer term decisions made yesterday, such as over energy policy and infrastructure. But will voters see much benefit in the short-term? And, with the news today that Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.3% in April, will the decisions Rachel Reeves have to make only get harder before the October budget?

Lucy Dunn speaks to Michael Simmons and Claire Ainsley, former director of policy to Keir Starmer and now at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Listen to the full podcast episode.

Ryan for Newsweek: Trump Policies Hurt Workers in America’s Heartland. Democrats Have to Say So

The Democratic Party faces a whole mess of problems today. But if its post-2024 shortcomings could be reduced to any single thing, it would be this: We’ve become more concerned with those who shower before work than after. Many of the Biden administration’s priorities—forgiving student debt, banning exports of cleaner natural gas, placating protesters chanting about the “patriarchy”—made us look like tribunes of the nation’s liberal elite. No matter the pains we took to verbalize our love for the working class, our actions spoke louder than our words.

Now, I don’t doubt that many Democrats are eager to win back the working-class voters we’ve lost over the last decade. But, as many of my colleagues and friends agreed at a recent conference organized by the Progressive Policy Institute in Denver—titled “New Directions for Democrats”—our party’s failure to focus on issues that directly affect working-class voters opened the door for MAGAism. To win those voters back, we will need to focus anew on the guys who return home from work drenched in sweat, and the women who stagger back from their hospital shifts burdened by exhaustion. That means changes in both our style and our substance.

Too often, we try to skirt the hard work that entails by focusing exclusively on President Donald Trump. I don’t care for him any more than the next guy—but the hard truth is that we’ll never make inroads by ranting against the “oligarchy” alone. Instead, we need to make clear what the Trump administration is doing to undermine the working-class American Dream. The specters of fascism, racism, xenophobia, and transphobia might draw crowds to rallies, but if we’re going to reconnect with working-class voters, we need to make their cause our primary concern. And begins by highlighting how Donald Trump is affecting their communities directly.

Read more in Newsweek.

Kahlenberg for DC Journal: Counterpoint: Young Americans Would Not Rally Around Our Nation, But Don’t Blame Them

As we approach Memorial Day, it is sobering to recognize that today’s young people are unlikely to respond as enthusiastically to a call to serve their country as members of the World War II generation did 80 years ago. Young people do not exhibit the high levels of patriotism and commitment to democracy found among earlier generations. However, I don’t blame young people.

Each generation must be taught, by word and deed, the genius of American democracy, and those of us who are older have failed to do so.

During World War II, Americans rallied around Franklin D. Roosevelt’s call to make America the “Arsenal of Democracy,” providing war materials to confront Adolf Hitler. Young men and women ultimately came forward to serve in U.S. military forces that would change history by defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Today, pride in America and belief in democracy are much lower among young people than among older Americans. In a 2023 Gallup poll, only 18 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds said they were “extremely proud to be American,” compared with 50 percent of adults over 55.

Read more in DC Journal. 

Marshall for The Hill: Economic Populism From Both Parties Fails Working Americans

President Trump’s startling win in 2016 ushered in a new era of economic populism. Ever since, both parties have been vying to offer a new economic deal to blue-collar Americans, whose earning power had been declining for decades.

They could use a new deal. According to the Federal Reserve, real median earnings for non-college workers fell 14 percent over the past 40 years, while those for workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher have grown by 14 percent.

Opportunity in America looks very different to people on opposite sides of the diploma divide. Whereas non-college workers contend with downward mobility, the highly educated rise into tonier precincts of upper-middle-class affluence.

This disparity disfigures our society, and populists across the political spectrum are right to want to redress it. Unfortunately, they have proved better at posturing as working-class tribunes than at tangibly improving their lives.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ainsley for Re:State: The Case for Remaking the State

PPI’s Claire Ainsley contributed to this essay collection on remaking the modern state for Re:State, a UK public services think tank.

The question of remaking the State is fundamental to the fight for democracy versus authoritarianism. Increasing numbers of citizens in developed democracies are starting to question the foundation of modern liberal democracy, as they continue to be expected to fund a state that they are becoming less sure is serving them.

This is particularly acute amongst younger people, the perhaps unexpected audience the right-wing populists are gaining traction with, who seek to exploit people’s discontent with a settlement
they are unconvinced works in their favour. If we are to inspire the next generation that this world is theirs and that we have to take shared responsibility for running it, then we have to think radically and urgently about what and who our State is for. Simply defending the status quo or proposing limited fixes just isn’t sufficient for the rupture that is occurring between those for whom the existing order works, and the many for Re:Think: Bold ideas to remake the State Re:Imagining the State whom it doesn’t.

We could start by fronting up what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. The only explanation I can find for how little we want to talk about it now, to address the failings and learn from them, is that it is easier to bury the memory of a trauma than to relive it. But like all traumas, they find a way to resurface. An emotional long Covid is present in our classrooms and care homes, in the public services that are the State’s frontline, and in the people who rely on them most.

Read the full essay on Page 7-8 of Re:State.

Ainsley in The New York Times: After 100 Years, Britain’s Two-Party Political System May Be Crumbling

Claire Ainsley, a former policy director for Mr. Starmer, said the results also reflected longer-term trends, including a breakdown of traditional class loyalties among voters, the increasing pull of nationalist politics and growing support for the centrist Liberal Democrats, the Greens and independent candidates.

“We have been seeing the fragmentation of society and that has flowed through to our politics,” said Ms. Ainsley, who now works in Britain for the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based research institute. “There is multiparty voting now.”

The upshot is that both main parties are struggling as they find themselves competing not just with each other, but also with opponents to their political left and right.

Read more in The New York Times.

Marshall for The Hill: Flailing Democrats Need to Build Coalitions, Not Primary Their Own Members

These are anxious times for our country. We are assailed hourly by a belligerent president who treats America’s laws, courts and civil liberties with utter contempt and imagines he can rule a free people by royal decree.

Are Democrats fighting hard enough against President Trump’s malicious policies and rampant abuses of power? Progressive activists say no, and they’re even threatening to unseat Democrats they claim are afraid to mix it up.

This is asinine — a return to the politics of subtraction that has locked the party out of power, effectively disarming it in the struggle with a rogue president.

The party’s left turn in reaction to Trump’s rise since 2016 has been a fiasco. It’s identified Democrats with soaring prices and living costs, sclerotic federal bureaucracies that can’t get things done, unrestricted illegal immigration, permissive attitudes toward crime and an illiberal politics of race and gender essentialism.

That has left the Democratic brand badly tarnished. Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the party.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Marshall in The New York Times: How Four Democrats Who Saved the Party Before Would Do It Again

Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation about the future of the Democratic Party with four veteran strategists and reformers who spearheaded the New Democrat movement that helped elect Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992.

Will Marshall: Everything was mediated through the desires and demands of 100 worthy interest groups. What we said was: Look, we were not winning these elections for a reason. So the first thing is to let the public know you’ve heard their message. Then: What are the new ideas?

Marshall: We got a lot of mileage out of just the simple idea that there was a brain-dead politics of left and right that we had to get beyond, and that we needed generational change. Something fresh. Ending welfare as we know it. National service. Public school choice. Reinventing government. All that generated energy and excitement, and it helped that we had a next-generation team with Clinton and Al Gore. To redefine a failing party you need to capture imagination, and it’s got to be with a new offer, and it’s got to be with creative ideas.

Marshall: Through four years of President Joe Biden, we spoke to white college graduates incessantly on almost every dimension: economic, cultural, foreign policy. We stopped talking to the 62 percent of the electorate that doesn’t have a college degree. I think this is the hardest cultural challenge for the party right now. We don’t know how to address their economic aspirations in a way that doesn’t sort of throw government benefits at them. We’re terrified if we do we’ll somehow be crossing the line, becoming racist or nativist or xenophobic. We are now in this class configuration that was mercilessly revealed by this election. We have lost the knack of hearing, listening, going to working-class people and speaking the language that they understand. So you see the party retracting geographically, demographically. We’re a shrunken party now.

Read the entire conversation in The New York Times. 

Ainsley for The Spectator’s Coffee House Shots Podcast: St George’s Day: Who is the Most Patriotic Leader?

Happy St George’s Day! To celebrate, we thought we would discuss who is the most patriotic political leader — and why some struggle to communicate their love of country.

Keir Starmer declared in an interview with the Mirror this morning that Labour is ‘the patriotic party’. This follows a more concerted effort from those within the party to become more comfortable with the flag. But is Keir Starmer actually a patriot? How will the ‘battle of the Union Jack’ play out at the local elections? And does Reform have a point to prove when it comes to patriotism?

Oscar Edmondson speaks to James Heale and Claire Ainsley, former executive director of policy for the Labour party, now at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Listen here.

Marshall for The Hill: Trump 2.0 is a Runaway Dump Truck Only Voters Can Stop

President Trump is having a grand time playing chicken with the U.S. economy, risking our prosperity to force other countries to submit to his protectionist diktats. It’s put him right where he wants to be — at the center of world attention.

But his vendetta against trade is alarming U.S. consumers, businesses and investors, and reawakening public doubts that he knows what he’s doing.

Most Americans don’t see the point in picking fights with friendly trade partners like Canada. Private sector leaders are aghast at Trump’s on-again, off-again threats to impose suffocating “reciprocal” duties on all imported goods.

While pausing those tariffs to stop the U.S. bond market from melting down, Trump has imposed an equally arbitrary 10 percent tariff on most of our trading partners. He’s also gone nuclear on China, raising tariffs to an absurd 245 percent and goading Beijing into levying massive retaliatory duties on U.S. exports.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

Malec for The Hill: There Should Be More Tough Talk Under the Democrats’ Big Tent

Most Democratic operatives will tell you today that the Democratic Party thrives as a “big tent.” And truth be told, ours remains a remarkably diverse institution, with constituent elements from every part of the country that span a broad swath of ideological viewpoints.

In many cases, that diversity is the key to Democrats winning in conservative-leaning districts. For example, this past cycle, we saw 13 Democratic congressional candidates, nearly all of whom were backed by New Dems or Blue Dogs, elected in districts that supported Trump at the presidential level. Without being able to field candidates who differ ideologically from their more progressive peers, those seats would almost certainly have been lost.

But you wouldn’t necessarily know this listening to Democrats talk at the national level, including those enamored of the large crowds drawn by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). That’s because, in Washington, Democrats often cede too much political ground to the loudest and most organized fringes of our large coalition.

Keep reading in The Hill.