Marshall in The New York Times: Trump’s Return Is a Civil Society Failure

A post-election YouGov poll commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, sent a clear message to party loyalists.

YouGov asked 5,098 working-class voters (defined as those without college degrees), including detailed analyses of voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and also asked 881 people in the national sample, to evaluate the political parties on measures of trust and commitment.

More significant, on two survey questions that previously favored Democrats — is the party “on my side or not” and which party do you trust “to fight for people like me” — the Democrats lost ground to Republicans. Fifty percent of all voters participating in this survey said that the Republican Party would fight for people “like me,” while 36 percent said the Democratic Party would.

In an essay accompanying the release of the poll, Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote:

The most lethal attack ad of the presidential campaign was a clip from a 2019 interview in which Kamala Harris explains her support for publicly funded sex-change surgery for prisoners, including detained immigrants. The kicker: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

Keep reading in The New York Times.

Remembering Another Date That Will Live in Infamy

Today marks the fourth anniversary of a shameful first in the 236-year old saga of American democracy — the Jan. 6, 2021 plot to overturn a U.S. presidential election and block the peaceful transition of power. 

As then-Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell told Congress and the nation, the author of this attempted coup was then-President Donald Trump, whom Biden had handily defeated in the 2020 election. 

Instead of accepting the voters’ verdict, Trump launched a campaign of lies and intimidation intended to nullify the election result and prevent Biden, the rightful winner, from taking his seat. When that failed, he summoned a mob of supporters to Washington and instigated a violent and destructive attack on the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s victory.

That insurrection likewise failed. But it claimed the lives of rioters and police officers alike, forced Congressional leaders to hide and flee and led to criminal prosecutions for more than 1500 Trump backers.

Trump’s obvious complicity in these criminal and treasonous acts should have disqualified him from ever serving in public office again. But Senate Republicans – led by McConnell – failed to rise to the defense of Constitutional government and impeach a president gone rogue.

Even worse, honest Republican election officials who withstood Trump’s attempts to corrupt them and political leaders who condemned his subversion of our electoral system have been hounded out of public life.

When U.S. voters last November elected Trump president, they set a baleful precedent in normalizing deviant political behavior. Our country has crossed a moral and legal Rubicon, and it’s essential that all patriotic Americans regardless of party resolve to repair the damage done to peoples’ confidence – at home and around the world – in the integrity of America’s democratic institutions and rules.

Here the people are sovereign, and Democrats and independents must accept their decisions even if we find them hard to understand or respect. That’s why Trump is now receiving from President Biden that which he refused to give him – a orderly and peaceful transfer of power.   

But as citizens, we should never forget or forgive what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. Instead, let’s stay vigilant and resolute in repelling further attacks on what remains the world’s foremost experiment in democratic self-government.

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats Must Make Working Americans a Better Offer

Americans voted for radical change in November, and judging by the chaos he’s already generated before taking office, Donald Trump might give them more than they bargained for. Can Democrats offer a saner alternative?

So far, the signs aren’t encouraging. Instead of taking a hard look at how they managed to lose to the most ethically tainted and unpopular presidential candidate in memory, many in the party seek refuge in self-exonerating excuses.

President Biden was too old. Kamala Harris didn’t have time to wage a real campaign. Republicans and Elon Musk dominated social media and flooded the campaign debate with lies and bigoted attacks on immigrants and transexual people. The high cost of living warped voters’ perception of the nation’s economic health.

Keep reading in The Hill.

PPI in The Free Press: Voters Sent Democrats a Clear Message. They Don’t Want to Hear It.

Voters clearly sense that the inmates are running the asylum. In an interesting finding from a Progressive Policy Institute postelection survey of working-class (noncollege) voters, just 34 percent of respondents said they trusted Harris to stand up to the extreme members of her party. By contrast, a majority said they thought Trump could do so.
But the issue goes deeper than fear. Far too many Democrats simply believe they are on the “right side of history” when it comes to policies around immigration, crime, race, and trans issues.

Read more in The Free Press.

A Transatlantic Dialogue on the Industrial Heartlands

For a generation, people living in the traditional industrial heartlands all over the world have been buffeted by a technological and services revolution, the decline of manufacturing, and the rise of a borderless global digital economy. The result is deepening inequality, ongoing political support for right-wing populists and a hollowing out of the middle class.

With this three-year project together with our partners from the U.S. and Germany we aim to create new opportunities in old industrial heartlands in both countries by forging a transatlantic dialogue, exchanging best practices and developing political strategies and policy solutions for a better, greener and more democratic future. The main goal is to deliver increased living standards and opportunities, while also working towards rebuilding trust in democracy in the U.S. and Germany.

Neel Brown talks with two of the program fellows, Colleen Dougherty⁠ and ⁠Friedrich Opitz⁠, about their reflections on the fellowship’s October trip to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

Learn more about the program: https://www.industrial-heartlands.com/

Ryan for Newsweek: DNC should move D.C. Headquarters to Youngstown, Ohio

Democrats are out of touch and disconnected from working class voters of all races, genders, and backgrounds. That isn’t exactly breaking news. It is obvious. For many of us in the industrial Midwest, this has been like watching a decades-long train wreck in slow motion. Many of us have been screaming this from the rooftops, and no one, and I mean no one, in Washington wanted to listen. Now here we are with a brand new Trump presidency and an even further damaged Democratic brand. My suggestion as a first step on the road to recovery: Move the Democratic National Committee headquarters out of Washington, D.C. to Youngstown, Ohio.

Democrats need to get the hell out of the D.C. bubble. It’s killed our party. Force the overpaid consultants and contractors who give really bad advice to get immersed into the culture of an old mill town trying to make its way in the new economy. Make them and the staffers who work for the DNC drink coffee, eat lunch and dinner, drink beer, bowl, play bocce, go to concerts and watch sports with normal everyday working people. And they should spend their time mostly listening—not talking or tweeting.

The Democrats have, whether we like it or not, become an arrogant, preachy, coastal, inside-the-beltway, Twitter Party. We’ve become an organization of loosely tied, self interested groups who make a lot of money pitching outrage so they can raise more money for their own self preservation. Then, if any fellow Democrat has an honest, fact based disagreement, they scream and yell and call you corrupt.

It’s pretty pathetic. Our party has no clear unifying vision for America. The Party has taken extreme positions that are not connected to reality generally and do not resonate with the sensibilities of working class voters. We’ve lost touch with the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans. And we won’t reconnect with those hopes and dreams by having all of our operatives living and working just blocks from the stupid echo chamber that has become Washington, D.C.

Read more in Newsweek.

PPI 2024 Election Review And the Way Ahead for Democrats

Introduction

WILL MARSHALL, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF PPI

President-elect Donald Trump believes Americans have given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate to govern.” Like so much of what he says, this claim blurs the line between hyperbole and fantasy. His Nov. 5 victory was solid, but no landslide.

Trump won just under half the popular vote, only 1.6% more than Vice President Kamala Harris received. With a public disapproval rating of 50%, he is the least popular presidential winner in modern times.

It’s certainly possible to look at Trump’s return to power as reflecting the new norm in U.S. elections of small and unstable majorities. Since Barack Obama’s departure, U.S. voters have tossed out the incumbents in one “change” election after another.

But such an interpretation might tempt Democrats, who were shut out of power in Congress as well as the White House, to do little but wait for their chance two and four years hence. That would be a colossal mistake.

Instead, Democrats must face a hard truth: their coalition is inexorably shrinking as non-college voters continue to defect. It’s time for honest answers to three vexing questions:

How did they lose again to the deeply flawed Trump? Does their loss signal a U.S. political realignment? And why are Democrats — and indeed center-left parties across Europe — alienating the working-class voters they once championed?

The sweep of Trump’s victory — both demographically and geographically — came as a shock. He shaved his losing margins in Democratic regions and made large gains among Democratic-leaning voter groups — young voters, Blacks, and especially Latinos.

Despite spending a half-billion dollars more than Trump, Harris won not one of the seven battleground states. In the brief time allotted her (107 days), she ran a competent campaign but could not avoid being sucked into the undertow of President Biden’s unpopularity.

Tactics aside, however, the defeat highlighted Democrats’ strategic political failure under Biden-Harris to stop hemorrhaging working-class voters.

Biden talked incessantly about fighting for working people, but his policies did not align with their interests.

Instead, he and his advisors fell victim to the fallacy of “deliverism” — the notion that passing big, multitrillion-dollar bills in Washington would impress working families and show them the “system” at last was working for them.

Instead, they got blindsided by inflation. Forty percent of these voters identified the high cost of living as their top concern. Economists differ as to its causes, but working-class voters link inflation to high government spending.

Immigration ranked second for these voters. Here again, they blamed the Biden administration for liberalizing asylum policy and presiding over a surge of over 7 million illegal migrants over the past four years. In fact, on almost all the key issues except for abortion, non-college voters expressed far higher levels of trust in Republicans than Democrats. They also were more likely to say Democrats had moved too far to the left than Republicans had to the right.

The aftershocks of Trump’s victory and U.S. voters’ rightward shift are felt across the Atlantic. Like his populist-right counterparts in Europe, Trump is riding a working-class revolt against governing elites. First confined to white Americans without college degrees, it’s now spreading to the non-white working class.

In fact, social class, now defined chiefly by education level, is replacing race and ethnicity as America’s deepest political fault line.

Since the high-water mark of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats have experienced a 30-point drop in non-white working-class support. That’s shattered a cherished progressive myth that “voters of color” think and vote alike along reliably Democratic lines. Harris improved on Biden’s 2020 performance with only one group — white college graduates. Yet that only underscored the strange inversion of America’s partisan loyalties: Democrats have become the party of the highly educated and professionals, while Republicans represent a multiethnic working class.

For the first time in memory, Harris won Americans making more than $100,000, while Trump won those making less than $50,000.The blue-collar exodus from the Democratic Party has been decades in the making. It won’t be fixed by minor tweaks. Democrats need to make dramatic course correction to head off a U.S. political realignment around a new populist right majority.

Voters without college degrees constitute roughly two-thirds of the U.S. electorate. Mathematically, there’s no way to build durable governing majorities with college-educated voters alone.

Morally, if Democrats hope to resume their historical role as the “party of the people,” they’ll need to reflect the mainstream values of middle-class America rather than the rarefied “luxury beliefs” of upper-class elites.

According to a post-election analysis by More in Common, Americans overwhelmingly believe that Democrats care more about advancing progressive social causes than the economic interests of average working families.

Asked to describe the party’s highest priorities, they picked “LGBT/transgender policy” second, after abortion. Actually, Democrats, like all other voter groups, picked the cost of living first, followed by health care and abortion. Transgender issues were 13th on their priority list.

Why are public perceptions so skewed? A big reason is that U.S. political discourse is mainly driven by progressive activists and right-wing populists. This leads members of both parties to assume the other party holds more extreme views that it actually does.

The outsized influence of progressive activists associates Democrats with a raft of unpopular positions on race/gender, immigration, crime and education. Trump exploited that to devastating effect against Harris.

The most lethal attack ad of the presidential campaign was a clip from a 2019 interview in which Harris explains her support for publicly-funded sex change surgery for prisoners, including detained immigrants. The kicker: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

After watching the ad, 2.7% of voters shifted to Trump. That’s a stunning result. And even if most Democrats hold more moderate views on culturally fraught issues, they pay the opportunity costs that come with the progressive left’s fixation on race, gender, police brutality, fossil abolitionism and other “social justice” issues. The amount of time Democrats spend talking about such issues diverts their focus from the kitchen table struggles of working-class families.

It is the kitchen table struggles of working-class families that now need to become the fixation for Democrats. PPI has been working with Deborah Mattinson, most recently director of strategy to U.K. Labour leader and now Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to understand how those crucial voters experienced the U.S. election. In this report, PPI presents insight and analysis of the election, and draws on our learning from the center-left around the world to set out the way ahead for Democrats.

Only by re-connecting with the working-class Americans we have lost, and providing them with a credible alternative for change, can we hope to win the next Presidential election. That work has to start now.

Read the full report. 

Ainsley and Mattinson for The Observer: On Wokeness, Patriotism and Change, Kamala Harris’s Defeat has Lessons for Starmer

Given how events unfolded, it was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris. Many Democrats are ­convinced her ­campaign saved the party from an even worse result. To be fair, it achieved some real highs: she won the debate. But she never won the argument, at least not with the ­voters who mattered most.

The US election triggered a scary deja vu moment for those of us who had watched the 2019 UK ­general ­election from behind our sofas, hands over our eyes. The Democrats lost votes with almost everyone, almost everywhere, but, like Labour in the “red wall”, most ­dramatically with traditional heartland ­voters: working-class, low-paid, non-­graduates. And, like Labour back in 2019, that lost connection with core voters had not happened overnight.

Working with the DC-based Progressive Policy Institute, we ­conducted post-election polling and focus groups with past Democrat voters who voted for Trump on 5 November. The work laid bare an anxious nation desperate for change. Be in no doubt, this was a change election: any candidate failing to offer the change the electorate craved had become a risky choice. Asking how voters felt about the results on 6 November, “relieved was the word we heard most often.

Overwhelmingly, change focused on two issues: inflation and ­immigration. Trump enjoyed a clear lead on both. Sure, Harris had some popular policies (anti price-­gouging, tax cuts, help for first-time ­buyers and small businesses), but these seemed sidelined in an overcrowded campaign, with voters concluding that she was not on their side and was too focused on “woke” issues.

Among working-class ­voters, 53% agreed the Dems had gone “too far in pushing a woke ­ideology”. They’ve “gone in a weird ­direction”, said one, “lost touch with our ­priorities”, said another. Worse still was the sense that any voter who disagreed with them was “a bad person”.

Read more in The Observer.

Why the U.S. Senate Should Reject RFK Jr.

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services comes at a pivotal moment for public health policy. Americans’ trust in public health institutions is at an all-time low, while the promise of rapidly advancing biotechnology is at an all-time high. 

It is unfortunate that Kennedy seems a poor steward of both. His vaccine skepticism seems designed to relitigate public health battles of the past, while his distrust of the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies could imperil new drug discovery and approval. While the right has long questioned federal health initiatives, Kennedy’s nomination — alongside a slate of other science skeptics in key health roles — augurs a more consequential change than a reshuffling of political appointees: the Republican Party has rejected modern science. The Senate should reject this nomination due to the clear harm Kennedy would do to the nation’s health.

Rapid advancements in biotechnology promise exciting innovation in pharmaceuticals, alongside enormous potential risks. This is especially true with the development of artificial intelligence tools for drug discovery.  This will be a pivotal time for the Food and Drug Administration, as the number of new drugs and novel therapeutics they have to approve dramatically increases. For example, the FDA made history in 2023 by approving the first CRISPR-based gene-edited drugs to treat sickle cell anemia. The agency will have to innovate and modernize to keep up with scientific developments.

It’s also an important moment for public health. In the wake of the COVID pandemic, trust in government health agencies has eroded. Partisanship has infected discussions of public health as climate change and dual-use technologies exacerbate the risk of future pandemics. Other than some modest internal reform at the Centers for Disease Control, the Biden administration did not give priority to fixing the structural issues that led to a shaky initial federal government response to COVID.  Rebuilding public trust while balancing future pandemic risk would be a challenge for any incoming administration. 

Unfortunately, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is ill-suited to fulfill his department’s critical dual mandate to advance biomedical innovation while protecting Americans from disease. Kennedy’s unfounded skepticism of vaccines leaves America in danger of missing out on breakthrough drugs and treatments while leaving us vulnerable to diseases of the past. His strong opposition to the weight loss drug Ozempic also betrays a reflexive anti-progress attitude poorly suited to the coming acceleration of drug development.  Kennedy also seems uninterested in future pandemic prevention, reportedly saying,  “We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years.”  

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine activism warrants particular attention, given its grave real-world consequences. During a 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa that left 83 people dead, Kennedy’s organization, Children’s Health Defense, helped spread misinformation that contributed to vaccination rates dropping from 60% to 31%. Though Kennedy later claimed he “had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa,” he had visited the country months before the outbreak, supporting local anti-vaccine activists and suggesting the vaccine itself might be responsible for the deaths.  Children’s Health Defense also funded the viral conspiracy film “Plandemic,” which falsely claims that influenza vaccines can cause COVID, and that the virus was somehow “manipulated.” That’s in line with his musings that COVID may have been deliberately engineered to target “Caucasians and Black people” while sparing “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

Kennedy may have a public health crisis waiting for him if he is confirmed.  The United States currently faces its largest-ever outbreak of H5N1 bird flu:57 people and 689 herds of cows have tested positive for the virus. The most troubling news from the ongoing outbreak is the two patients, a man in Missouri and a child in California,  who tested positive without any known ties to infected animals. A bird flu pandemic could cause catastrophic harm, and the speed and transparency of the current response do not induce confidence.  Kennedy is poorly suited to lead this response given his promotion of raw milk consumption, which is currently being recalled for contamination with extremely high levels of bird flu virus.  

Some of Trump’s other health nominations have similar involvements with pseudoscience.  Like Kennedy, Dr. David Weldon, Trump’s nominee for CDC director, believes the measles vaccine causes autism.  Dr. Mehmet Oz, the president-elect’s nominee for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has a well-documented history of promoting questionable medical treatments and products on his television show. A 2014 study in the British Medical Journal found that nearly half of his medical recommendations either lacked evidence or contradicted medical research.

Anti-vaccine paranoia on the right predates Trump. State legislatures, particularly in Republican-governed states, have already expanded vaccine exemptions and limited public health powers over the past decade, while Project 2025 proposed paying damages to all medical professionals who were dismissed due to the CMS vaccine mandate, effectively undermining established public health protocols and potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future health crises. It also calls for expanding federal religious exemptions for both taking and administering vaccines.

 Trump has proved reluctant to tout the main health policy success of his first term: Operation Warp Speed. A Progressive Policy Institute report found that the COVID vaccines saved 2.9 million lives, avoided 12.5 million hospitalizations, and saved $500 billion in hospitalization costs. This was an enormous success of government collaboration with the private sector, and it is very telling that the former president is shying away from claiming this victory. 

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn’t just a concerning personnel decision — it represents a dangerous turning point in American politics. While vaccine skepticism and distrust of medical institutions have long simmered on the fringes, their embrace by a major political party marks a stark departure from evidence-based public health policy. This rejection of scientific consensus comes at a particularly perilous moment: as we face evolving threats from bird flu, climate change, and emerging pathogens, while simultaneously standing on the cusp of revolutionary biotechnology breakthroughs. The Senate must reject this nomination to protect our public health institutions at this critical moment for America’s scientific future.

Ainsley for The Power Test Podcast: Can you feel it? Labour’s big task

Recorded live at the Centre for Progressive Policy’s Inclusive Growth Conference on 28th November, this special episode The Power Test looks at where we are six months into the new Labour government and what it needs to do to deliver its promise of a decade of national renewal.

Following the Budget, the reelection of Donald Trump in the US, farmer protests, and a rumoured government ‘relaunch’, Sam and Ayesha, together with Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, CPP’s Director of Place and Practice Annabel Smith, and Power Test regular and Director of the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute Claire Ainsley, look at what Labour needs to do to deliver, restore trust in politics and survive.

Juul on Medium: The Senate Should Reject These Two Dangerous Nominations

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a pair of unqualified and unacceptable individuals to fill two critical national security posts in his upcoming administration: Fox News personality Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Neither nominee possesses any experience managing organizations the size, scope, and scale of the Defense Department or America’s intelligence community. Both hold extreme views that ought to disqualify them from holding any senior national security position, much less ones with the duties and responsibilities they have been nominated for.

The Senate must exercise its Constitutional responsibility of advice and consent to reject these two presidential nominees. If confirmed, both Hegseth and Gabbard would do grave harm to American national security — primarily via the damage they would inflict on the institutions they have been nominated to lead.

Keep reading in Medium.

Marshall for The Hill: Who Will Turn the Democrats Around?

Donald Trump’s sweeping presidential victory this month proved that his 2016 win was no fluke.  Like his populist-right counterparts in Europe, Trump is riding a working-class revolt against governing elites — a spreading brushfire the Biden-Harris administration failed to comprehend and effectively counter.

After losing the national popular vote in his two previous White House runs, Trump won it this time by about 2.5 million votes this time and is right on the borderline between winning an outright majority and a plurality. He made inroads in blue cities, suburbs and states while scoring substantial gains among independents and traditionally Democratic-leaning groups: young voters as well as Black and especially Latino voters without college degrees.

This convergence in the voting behavior of the white and non-white working class punctures the progressive myth that “voters of color” think and vote alike along reliably Democratic lines. Class, now defined chiefly by education level, appears to be eclipsing ethnicity as the nation’s deepest political fault line.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Juul for Space News: Don’t Let Trump and Musk Gut NASA

If President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk get their way, NASA may become a glorified contracting agency. 

As Musk promises the American public “temporary hardship” as he looks to cut some $2 trillion from the federal budget — the equivalent of all spending outside Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt — Trump’s top space advisers talk openly about funneling even more public money to Musk’s SpaceX. If actually implemented, such proposals would give Musk a de facto monopoly over America’s commercial space industry, stifle healthy competition that fuels technological innovation and demoralize an already overtaxed NASA workforce.

Never mind that SpaceX remains well behind schedule when it comes to delivering a lunar lander derived from its Starship vehicle, or that it’ll need an as-yet untried on-orbit refueling method to reach the moon.

This reality makes it ludicrous to suggest, as Trump space adviser Greg Autry has done, that NASA simply contract out a human Mars mission to SpaceX. To put it bluntly, the company has not demonstrated the technical competence required to execute even less demanding missions.

NASA remains an irreplaceable and indispensable public agency. If Trump and Musk hollow it out, however, the United States will quickly find itself without any viable space program.

Keep reading in Space News.

Brown for RealClearPolitics: Bernie Sanders Screams, ‘More Cowbell!’

As Americans voted decisively for a candidate who explicitly rejects nearly everything that Bernie Sanders advocates, Vermont’s senior senator insists that the Democratic Party just wasn’t liberal enough. The mindset of the far left seems to be that the working class just needs more of what they just voted against. For Bernie, the answer is always, “more cowbell.

Four years ago, the United States elected “Scranton Joe,” a pragmatic with a long record of achievement in the Senate and the Obama administration attained through compromise and common sense. On economic issues, Joe Biden presented himself as a pro-energy, pro-growth, pro-worker – old-school Democrat. He made a point of eschewing the left’s “defund the police” fever and ended his speeches by saying, “May God bless our troops.” Americans were yearning for what he offered and elected him as a serious and pragmatic alternative to a chaotic Trump.

Then came the Elizabeth Warren camp. From day one, the Biden administration was flooded with operatives from the Bernie/Liz left wing of the Democratic Party. What ensued was an overt shift from Scranton Joe’s campaign promises to policies for and by the liberal elite. Like those annoying clothing labels that are itchy and unnecessary, the Sanders/Warren brand was sewn into nearly every policy that came out of the White House.

Keep reading in RealClearPolitics.

Brown for Progressive Post: Learn to Listen

US working-class voters have sent a clear message to Democrats. Running as a centrist and governing as a leftist is not acceptable. Will Democrats listen and learn?

There are many lessons to be learned from this most recent US election and many contributing factors for the Democratic loss: the communication ecosystems are thriving on the right; misinformation through social media platforms is rampant; there was a lack of vigour in pursuing accountability at the Department of Justice; and perhaps some minor but cumulatively important tactical missteps in a very well-run Democratic campaign. All of these issues and more led to a decisive loss for the Democratic Party.

The most important lesson, however, is the one that working-class voters are teaching us. There is a real danger that the Democratic Party will misunderstand the lesson and fail the test in future elections. We have already heard from very loud voices on the far left that Democrats were not far left enough. Bernie Sanders has made his case for this perspective and is getting some traction for this opinion. Working-class voters decisively voted for Trump, a man who explicitly rejects almost everything that Senator Sanders stands for. Somehow, Sanders now argues that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class by not giving them more of what they just voted against.

Keep reading in Progressive Post.