Recently, former President Barack Obama advised his political party to, in effect, ‘toughen up.’ James Carville, Bill Clinton’s campaign guru, suggested Dems run in 2026 on a ‘repeal the big beautiful bill’ platform. Put another way, the Dems are searching for direction, a theme. They have no proactive message other than to point out that the titular head of the Republican Party is the most disgusting and degenerate public figure since Vlad the Impaler, otherwise known as Dracula. Admittedly, that should be enough but apparently the high price of eggs at the time of the last Presidential election distracted voters. Incompetence and malfeasance weren’t enough to stop his reelection.

A driftless, uninspiring party message is both a negative judgement and a call to arms, an existential angst circulating widely through the liberal pundit world in recent months. It is, along with Biden’s inexcusable run for reelection, a consensus explanation for Trump’s resurrection last year (if you forget that egg price thing).

Apparently, a fear-driven population no longer wants to be governed from the safe center. No, they want a strong man to deliver an unambiguous message about what’s wrong with their lives and to deliver simple bromides about how to fix everything. Never mind that the strongman in question could not pass my Policy 101 course and cannot exceed the reading and speaking level of a 4th grader.

Critics presumably want two things from a resurgent opposition party to our governing authoritarian MAGA regime. They want the Dems to take off the gloves in the defense of both democratic principles and in support of those vulnerable populations threatened by the MAGA agenda. Second, they want those representing their political banner to stand for something, not just oppose what the other guy is or is doing.

Trump, in the eyes of his cult devotees, does just that. He appears to stand for something, even though that something is merely a rehash of Aryan nationalism that was favored by Hitler and his gang of thugs nearly a century ago. Until the past few days at least, he seemed firm and unapologetic in his (presumed) foundational beliefs … even if they were founded in a deep rejection of the nation’s democratic and participatory principles. He never backed away from advocating a disgusting form of Aryan-Nativist hegemony. In truth, though, his only bedrock belief is a narcissistic love of self.

Being proactive and assertive does not come easy to those of a Democratic persuasion, not in recent decades at least. Two problems come to mind. First, the core of the party today is found in the educated, urban elite (typically along the coasts). They tend to shy away from street fights, preferring the intellectual sparring and sophisticated arguments usually found in the academy and the high-brow salons where they tend to hibernate. They yet believe data and reason count. Moreover, they are less likely to see issues in stark, black and white, terms. Everything is nuanced to them, blurred with many shades of gray. The real world, on the other hand, seeks definitive responses to questions posed in simple terms.

I recall when I spent a year on leave from the University while working on welfare reform in Washington. David Ellwood, also on leave from his Harvard academic post, was leading the Clinton administration’s planning effort. Working rather close to him, I could see that he was repeatedly shocked that naked power and raw emotions counted more in DC than evidence and well-crafted argument. His evidence-focused perspective fell flat with the opposition led by Newt Gingrich, an early take no prisoners Republican leader. Ellwood’s public service role at the Department of Health and Human Services was the position he had always wanted. In my eyes, the realty of it turned out to be not what he expected. He would return to Harvard a chastened man.

Second, the political world revolves around money. With each passing day, real wealth aggregates more completely in the hands of the fortunate few. They increasingly make and break political fortunes. When one billionaire throws almost $300 million into a political campaign and $20 plus million into a race for a state Supreme Court position, you can easily identify who will exercise an outsized control over the political narrative. Hint … it won’t be the average Joe who throws $50 bucks into the campaign coffer.

Put aside the impediments for a moment, what would an aggressive, positive Democratic campaign focus upon. Three core, fundamental issues come to my mind …  our impending climate change disaster, the dark threat to humanity lurking behind the Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) revolution, and the ongoing societal disruptions due to escalating social and economic hyper-inequality. For the center-left, these could become an equivalent to what the fears of an alleged invasion at our southern border have delivered to the MAGA cause. Never forget, fear drives political passion, not data or compelling research.

In truth, climate change and AI may yet be several years off before they emerge as existential issues for the common man. They loom but may not quite be present enough to drive core attitudinal revisions nor behavioral change. But social and economic inequality are observable realities that the average Joe can sense and appreciate. Both extreme inequality and the loss of opportunity have been on the rise since the Reagan revolution of the 1980s. Today, these are realities hard to ignore.

Unfortunately, the hard-right has been very successful in misdirecting responsibility for increasing hardships among the working and middle classes. Namely, they have convinced white, working class folk to blame  minorities and immigrants for their pain. Divide and conquer tactics seldom fail, not when they rely upon deeply embedded traditional animosities.

So, let’s look at hyper–inequality in more depth. After all, this issue might sell in the political marketplace.

We might well start with the general sense of disatisfaction evident out there. In recent times, only 22% of Americans expect their public leaders, especially those in Washington, to do what is right most of the time. Only 34% have been satisfied with the recent direction of our economy.

Now, that might be attributable to the gotcha approach prevalent in our fractious media. However, part of this angst and cynicism could be attributed to longer term macro-economic trends. Namely, since the late 1970s, some $50 plus trillion dollars has been transferred from average folks to those at the top of the wealth pyramid … a galactic reallocation of our national treasure that has been abetted by Republican orthodoxy for the past five decades. This rape of the working class has been turned into an art form by Trump and his MAGA allies. If sold properly, that economic reality should anger some folk, a lot of folks in fact.

Herein lies the basic narrative (or story) that must be told. There have been two Americas since World War II. For several decades after the war, we had what economists called the Great Compression. Income and wealth inequality fell while the middle class grew. It was a period of high marginal tax rates, strong unions, and public investments in infrastructure and people … especially in science, and education. Fear of Communism drove some of these internal investments but the salutary effect was positive for all to see.

Every quintile across the income distribution saw tangible progress. Not surprisingly, poverty and inequality fell. We became a society where social opportunity and individual possibility exanded. The famous GI Bill is one excellent policy example. Even I, a totally average kid from a typical working class family, work his way to a Ph.D and could rise to a respected position at a world class university. It just wasn’t that hard to do. Now?

Even Republican Presidents bought into the Dominant Keynsian philosophy of the times, refusing to scale back the New Deal while embarking on massive infrastructure projects like the interstate highway act. Richard Nixon expanded public spending, announcing at one point that we are all Keynsians now. Some experts predicted that we would eliminate poverty in the U.S. by our Bicentennial celebration of 1976. America became the economic envy of the world while pursuing liberal economic policies that the right argued would destroy it.

Then, the hard right reorganized to the point that the Reagan revolution became possible by 1980. Thus, while the share of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) going to workers rose 12% from 1947 into the 1970s, it fell by 14% from 1980 to 2023. Corporate profits outpaced economic growth by 193% since the 1970s. Had Anerica’s workers kept their existing share of the economic largess (prior to 1980), they would have earned at least $1.7 trillion more than they have. Since 1979, the top 10% of the pyramid saw their economic fortunes grow by an astounding 326%. The broad swarth of middle America (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quintiles) grew only marginally over the same period.

Why the shift in fortunes? From the 1940s through most of the 1970s, wage growth mimicked productivity growth while corporate profits remained sensible and the egregious accruing of extreme wealth was constrained by high marginal tax rates. Labor had the institutional means to bargain for their share of the pie. All participated in the American dream.

Starting with the Reagan revolution, we entered a period of extreme income and wealth inequality. For example, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from less than 10% in 1979 to almost 25% in recent years. Now, the top 10% control 69% of all wealth, while the bottom half has a measly 3%. Not since the guilded age of the late 19th century have we seen such immense private fortunes.

Back then, there were few taxes on private incomes while government routinely sided with the corporate elite over workers. First Teddy Roosevelt, and later his cousin Franklin, were assailed as traitors to their class for helping labor to seize their fair share of the economic pie. A growing middle class did not threaten capital, it provided more consumers to further drive economic growth.

Have those days returned when the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Astors, and Morgans accrued unheard of fortunes while millions went hungry every day? Today, we have Bezos, Zuckerberg, Theil, Musk, and the like who have amassed fortunes that exceed the treasures of long ago titans in real dollars. And like those robber barons of that former age, they easily avoid paying their fair share for the common good. That is why Jeff Bezos can arrive at his recent Venice wedding in a $500 million dollar yacht for an event that cost some $250,000 per guest. (Some contemporary titans, like Gates and Buffet, are reinvesting much of their wealth back into the public good, as Andrew Carnegie once did).

Now, like then, our public officials often are complicit in both creating and sustaining this highly unequal society. Take the MAGA big beautiful bill that recently became law … according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), it will add some $3.4 trillion to our nation’s suffocating debt. At the same time, the act cuts some $1 billion from PBS and another $8 billion from foreign assistance, piddling amounts in some respects but having enormous impacts. Billions more will be cut from programs aimed at our most vulnerable … the poor, children, and the aged as Medicaid and SNAP benefits are slashed. The number of those without health insurance will rise by at least 40%. Millions more will suffer cuts to food benefits. Cui bono  … by some estimates, those at the bottom will lose $1,200 in decreased benefits (on average) while those at the very top (0.1%) get an additional $43 billion in tax cuts they don’t need.

In the 1960s, as we reduced suffering and expanded the middle class, there emerged a litmus test for policy makers. What does it do for the poor? Now we have come full circle. In the MAGA world, we are in George Orwell’s dystopia of a fictional 1984 where all is reversed … up is down, black is white, war is peace. Policy now pursues a reverse Robin Hood morality where we steal from the poor to help the rich. These are not the actions of a moral nation nor a compassionate society.

As the poor and destitute are raped to further advantage the uber-wealthy, where will the MAGA nation devote its attention and energy … immigration. They will continue to employ ICE personnel in Gestapo-like actions to sweep those who don’t look like them (white, Christian, native born) up off the streets. Some of these unfortunates will be shipped off to other countries. Others will be warehoused in what only can be described as modern day concentration camps like alligator alcatraz.

No matter the rationale employed, the purpose seems clear. Trump, and his inner circle, wish to turn America into a white, nativist ‘paradise.’  Never mind that the nation was built on immigrants. Never mind that parts of our economy will falter when they are ripped away and discarded. The MAGA crowd passionately seeks a mythical vision of a pure and simple America, one that spurns inclusion and diversity … thus repudiating the very core of Christ’s message of love and acceptance of all. It is a dark vision.

But forget morality, in 2025 we face a net decrease in population. This mania to purify America can lead to negative economic growth. Migrants make up 20% of the labor force, though this has shrunk by some 700,000 workers  recently. These often are the irreplaceable farm workers, dairy workers, and those who labor at the hardest physical tasks that native Americans will not do. Overall, it is estimated that 2025 will see a net population loss of some 400,000 people, the first such loss in memory.

A declining population can prove quite problematic. Immigrants alone brought some $300 billion in spending power. If immigration declines as expected, our economy is likely to shrink by some 0.3 to 0.4%. That may sound trivial. But that amounts to $70 to $94 billion in a $23.5 trillion dollar economy. .

The reality of MAGA’s deeply racist and xenophobic perspective is slowly being realized. Today, only 30% feel immigration should be lowered. That metric was 55% just a year ago. Overall, people have developed a positive view on Immigration, 79% approval in recent surveys. Such a positive response is 64% even among Republicans, a proportion that is up an astounding 25 percentage points in a single year. At present, only 35% support Trump’s handling of the immigration issue. On the other hand, a reasonable path to citizenship path to citizenship easily beats the policy of mass deportations by 78 to 38%.

Policy decisions and budgets are forms of morality plays. In addition, they have irrevocable consequences. As suggested above, the new budget bill will slash domestic spending largely to further enrich our richest citizens. It will continue to ‘purify’ the nation by deporting undesirables and marginalizing other minorities.

Cuts to the least advantaged and most vulnerable risk a deterioration in an already shaky domestic situation. For example, anywhere from 10 to 17 million could lose health coverage in the coming months and years. Rural hospitals, in particular, may fail due to rising cost pressures.

Even today, without such draconian cuts, the U.S. is a laggard in protecting its citizens. The life span in America is about 4 years lower than in our typical peer nation, some 7 years lower than excellent peers such as Japan and Switzerland. Experts estimate that 600,000 each year would be alive if we were able to match the life expectancy of our peers, a figure that reached 1 million during Covid. As hyper-inequality increases in the U.S., so does our comparative mortality rate. The richest 1% live, on average, 12 years longer than our poorest citizens. Life choices play a role, but so do the risks associated with policy neglect and obscene environmental conditions faced by those with distinctly separate economic fortunes. The moral outrage is this … why does one of the richest countries in the world permit so many amenable deaths to occur?

Of course, Trump et. al. will claim that the cuts are justified on the basis of excising waste and fraud, of reducing our bloated federal bureaucracy. Sure, and I will win the Nobel Prize in Physics. Recently, even before any cuts, there were 2.96 million federal employees, about a third of those in national defense positions. That represents about 1.9% of all non-farm jobs in the U. S. Is that bloated? Well, that percentage,in fact, is low by all historical and comparative standards. It is much lower than the high water mark of 7.5% in 1944. All in all, our federal government over time has delivered more with less.

So, there is a theme that the Dems can embrace. Let us return to the past but not to some mythical period of white supremacy where all worshipped the same God in the same manner. That halcyon period didn’t even exist in colonial times, nor did our founding fathers ever propose that a theocracy replace constitutional guarantees.

No, let us go back to a mere 70 or 80 years, though without restoring the apartheid and misogyny that legally crippled many of our citizens by virtue of gender or skin color. But let the Dems fully advocate for the opportunity society that existed for many in that time, a place where even a kid like me could realize big dreams … without even having them in the first instance.

Absent larger corrective mechanisms, the forces driving inequality will continue unabated, accelerate even. And those with the riches will further tilt the game in their favor. The temptations of greed, the lure of power, are irresistible (except for the empathetic few). As the distance between those with unimaginable riches and those struggling to survive increases, the integrity of the bonds that keep us civil likely will stretch. Might those bonds ultimately break. They have in the past.

I had a colleague at UW who once wrote a book titled Starting Even. His theme is that poverty policy should not try so much to equalize social and economic outcomes but to provide all with an equal shot at the beginning of life’s race. Of course, it is foolish to promise full equality at either end of the contest. At the same time, we can at least give everyone a shot. And that, I suspect, is what is missing for many today … some hope for the future.

That theme worked for Obama … hope. It should yet resonate today. It is what I had in my youth despite all the problems back then. It is what we desperately require in such uncertain times.