Support for an expansive “Project 2029” rests on a flawed theory of how to win back workers. Democrats instead should try a straightforward, muscular plan for change.
I think that ship sailed years ago. One single picture of the Ds in the SOTU or the vile, evil-looking Omar is enough to overwhelm any "policies." And health care? I thought Obamacare fixed that. Only Trump has actually lowered drug prices for anyone.
In short, Ds have a massive IMAGE problem, not a POLICIES problem. No one will trust the party until it can rid itself of all of these true haters, people who at every single opportunity tell the rest of us how wrong we are to love America. Until you can roll out hundreds of candidates who can say "I love America" WITHOUT adding a "but," the GOP will just sail along.
Well, I think Ds were very successful for years at having policies people didn't approve of, but had an image of "caring" that went a long way. The current crop doesn't care a whit about image. It's all about hate Trump.
"Instead of drawing up a panoply of progressive wish lists dubbed Project 2029, Democrats should ask themselves: can they fit the heart of their agenda on a one-page memo without resorting to vague platitudes?"
Justin, your talking points above are all well and good and I think even most Republicans would agree, but if you really want that permanent majority that Democrats have dreamed of, there's only two things the party needs to do:
1. Protect First and Second Amendment rights rather than attacking them. An informed and armed society prevents tyranny and are, as St. George Tucker once put it in Blackstone's Commentaries, the "Palladium of Liberty." Democrats have for decades been sending the message that they are the face of tyranny.
2. Keep boys and men out of girls and women's sports. What is the point of women's sports if men can compete with them? What do girls have to aspire to if they think that some smelly boy is going to crush them?
Now that Democrats have rediscovered secure borders, those two items are all it takes to win that permanent majority. It really is that simple.
"Now that Democrats have rediscovered secure borders...."
If only that were true. A solid majority of Democratic primary voters almost everywhere is now pro-open borders, although they don't use that term. They oppose all enforcement of immigration laws. If you enter the country or make a claim for asylum at the border, you get to stay forever - no deportations, period. I live in Minnesota, and this is the mindset of most Democratic voters here.
These aren't specific policies (other than "tax the rich"). Build 25 million homes? Where? How? With what money? Fix the health care system? How, specifically?
Just a progressive wish list -- government should cut pay for CEOs? Unionize everyone?
The Trump republicans have largely seized what for years WAS the democrat platform but with minimal government supervision. The pre-Trump gop consistently failed to make that shift and are of decreasing importance at an increasing rate.
What folk such this author fail to see is that Trump is an EFFECT. He’s not the CAUSE. You, or rather your substitution of marketing slogans for clear policies, are the cause.
I've been saying this for years. As odious as Trump is, normie Republicans and many independents vote for him as a reaction to the excesses of Democrats because he's willing to get down and dirty to fight those excesses.
If Democrats were to work on their policies rather than just tweaking the message, they would be much more likely to win back power.
There is more than one website which refers to Project 2029. I looked at Project2029.me to examine their proposals. One of these is titled "Make sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes." It repeats the myth of the 8% tax rate for billionaires, published by the Biden administration.
They cited Biden's claim "Billionaires on average pay about 8.2 percent in federal income tax—and many pay even less. " How did Biden get that number? By counting unrealized capital gains as current income while ignoring the future capital gains tax to be paid on it. It's Enron accounting.
I think this Nine Point list is a framework that can support successful candidacies. It's notable for what it omits, e.g.: gun control, social justice issues, abortion rights, and expansive trans rights. Basically, the culture war issues. These are the focus of many progressive activists, and I while I support some of these myself, I think it's time for progressives to step back and allow the New Deal economic priorities that defined the party become its electoral brand, while working on legislation to make incremental progress where necessary and possible on these other fronts.
Commenter 'Remember, remember' began this comment string by prioritizing the First and Second Amendments. I think that in the case of the First Amendment it's now easier to see how the Democratic Party was viewed by conservatives as undermining it, chiefly through well-intentioned social justice initiatives that had a chilling effect on those who were not aligned with a progressive agenda. MAGA has responded with massive institutionalization of anti-First Amendment orders that should have taught progressives and liberals what conservatives were experiencing. Unfortunate as it may seem, the ACLU's 1970s defense of the right of Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods is actually the model of Constitutional tolerance that we need to prevent the rise of Nazis in America -- we strayed from that and now we have a plainly fascist administration with elements that are openly National Socialist.
As a lifelong opponent of generally unlimited arms (and a believer that the Second Amendment's language does not in any way license that interpretation), like many on the Left I'm now keenly aware of the threat that American fascism presents and understand the feeling, whether justified or not, that motivated the formation of gun rights and militia movements. My hope is that we can evolve away from a society where the perception of political danger prompts people on both sides of the political spectrum to arm up, but it's time for progressives and liberals to recognize that gun control is an issue that we need to treat with "benign neglect," looking toward an era of far lower crime rates (which we're actually well on the way to reaching) and far less dramatic social division and atomization (which are increasing at an alarming rate) -- if we get to such a relative utopia, purchasing arms will become a less compelling felt need and we can look for new compromises.
A quick response to the second point "Remember, remember" made: Supporting transgender rights cannot succeed if it extends beyond reasonable bounds to special treatment at the expense of others. Sex-separated sports at or above middle school level can't generally accommodate trans athletes in women's sports competitions because they are physically advantaged -- it's not gender discrimination, it's level-playing field fairness. (There are acceptable work-arounds in some cases.) The best way to ensure that trans individuals have robust social rights is to strengthen anti-discrimination enforcement where the law clearly calls for it, support more research so we better understand what transgender means and how we should respond to it socially and medically, and follow opportunities as social acceptance gradually broadens. In electoral terms, it means what Mr. Vassallo indicates -- it should not be part of the Democratic Party's platform, and only a part of its brand to the degree that the Party is and has been for almost a century a party that welcomes every type of person who supports its core principles of broadly shared prosperity, social welfare, and fairness.
While you and I will never agree on the Second Amendment, we largely agree on the First. However, you neglect to mention the Biden Administration actively using intimidation tactics to force social media companies to censor right-wing voices.
Your comment about the ACLU's work in Skokie, IL was absolutely spot on. It was a profile in courage, particularly in the case of the lead attorney who is Jewish, but placed a higher priority on liberty than on religion or ethnicity. Sadly, like the SPLC, the ACLU has abandoned the fight for liberty and succumbed to the lure of partisan sponsorship.
Hi Remember, Yes, we'll disagree on the Second Amendment and some other things, but the important point is that disagreement isn't enmity. My approach has always been to hope for Democratic liberal majorities with a Republican conservative minority strong enough to force caution and curb excesses to which the Left is naturally prone. (Second best for me is just the reverse.) It's healthy for both liberal and conservative people to have strong ideals and advocate for them, but when ideals meet practice in life the art of good governance requires flexibility, adaptation, and the ability to recognize when the "other side" has identified where ideals are working against improving people's lives and strengthening broad national consensus.
Mussolini made union membership compulsory for all workers. Has Trump done that? Mussolini boasted in 1934 that three-quarters of the Italian economy, both agriculture and industry was nationalized. Has Trump nationalized three-quarter of the American economy? Mussolini put Italy back on the gold standard. Has Trump put the USA back on the gold standard? Trump ran for re-election and when he lost, grudgingly vacated office. Did Mussolini ever run for re-election? No, and unlike Trump he wasn't elected the first place. If Trump is a "fascist", then he is the only fascist in history who reduced government employment. Your description of the Trump administration as "plainly fascist" is plainly preposterous.
The model of fascism that I feel best applies when the term is used seriously includes three major elements: (1) The coercion of private enterprise to act as an arm of the corporate state; (2) The use of blood and soil ethnically based nationalism to foster coherence through demonization of the outsider; (3) The celebration of militarization and a policy of demanding hegemonic expansion that integrates ethnically similar peoples under the hegemon's direct power and coerces other states to be subservient to the hegemonic power's demands.
I taught this model, derived from classical Fascist theory and the dominant policies of the Axis powers in World War II, to college students for many years as the essential hallmarks of Fascism. I thought I was teaching a model that was important historically but not as a future possibility. The Trump administration's coercion of corporate and non-profit institutions, increasingly open white nationalism, and imperial pronouncements, such as the "Donroe Doctrine," demand for Greenland, military actions, etc., have brought this model to life.
Democrats loudly and proudly tried to force their ideas on everyone. Now you think “let’s just not talk about all that” will convince normies that Democrats have changed?
Normies will not believe Democrats until they actively disavow the craziness they have pushed for more than a decade.
Let's assume that all of the economic/public assistance programs that this author recommends are adopted. Without severe restrictions on the immigration of low-skilled, low-income people to America those programs would quickly become unaffordable as new beneficiaries overwhelm tax resources. Here's the problem: the dominant faction in the Democratic party opposes ALL restrictions on immigration, ALL enforcement of immigration laws. A large majority of Democratic primary voters is effectively pro-open borders. We can't have an expanded welfare state and also have tens of millions of new beneficiaries for those programs.
You’re right that Democrats can’t win durable trust with a sprawling counter, Project 2025. Compression and discipline matter. But I’m not sure the problem is just a failure to summarize. Real prioritization requires answering harder questions first.
What is the root cause of the most pressing national breakdown we’re trying to fix? What is the governing vision that addresses it? Without that clarity, any “one-page memo” risks being just a shorter wish list.
From there, prioritization would mean naming three or four specific economic actions that clearly flow from that diagnosis, not twenty goals, but a small set that visibly change lived experience. And it would also require drawing a few clear lines on the most destabilizing cultural questions, defining where the practical center is and being willing to defend it.
That kind of compression is not just rhetorical. It requires real tradeoffs and a decision-making structure willing to subordinate some claims to others. When an organization repeatedly produces outcomes that undermine its own stated goals, it is worth asking, borrowing from David Hanna’s work on organizational design, whether the structure itself is perfectly delivering what it is designed to deliver. If the party consistently defaults to addition over prioritization, or to economics over cultural boundary-setting, that is design. Until there is clarity about how decisions are actually made and who has authority to rank priorities, even a well-crafted one-page agenda may struggle to translate into durable change.
Your proposal sounds like the 1994 Contract with America.
“Whatever the role of the contract, Republicans were elected to a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953, and some parts of the contract were enacted. Most elements did not pass Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton, who would sarcastically refer to it as the "Contract on America"[14][15] implying that the Republicans' legislative package was akin to an organized-crime "hit" on the American public.”
It had the virtue of being understandable by everyone, for example; “On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promise to bring up for vote, eight major reforms:[5][6]
1. Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;”
This is still a good promise today and would signal to Americans that the Democrats party is listening and is serious.
If you take the categories you proposed and identify the issue that 80% of voters support, you could have a dynamic campaign proposal to get all candidates to rally around.
It's a great list and, as you say, is still missing a lot which all speaks to the difficulty of creating a bold yet short & sweet platform that will inspire people before they bog down halfway through the list. Another key thing is to present the benefits of these things, not the mechanics -- "sell the brownie, not the recipe" as we say in the comms world.
I have an opportunity to offer your suggestions to the Democratic Party this weekend.
Saturday we have the precinct caucuses, and the week following the county caucuses, and I assume at some later time the state caucuses. Part of the purview of the caucuses is to offer up suggestions to be on the county platform etc. A small way the ideas percolate up to our betters.
I used to organise these things back when it was how we had our primaries, some fairly spirited caucuses. Now they are a way to get election judges and precinct coordinators. I'm there to listen for anything that might in any way benefit the working class, I'm skeptical but curious. We lose elections, usually it'a a 60/40 kind of thing. More Democrats here own pickups and guns than most coastal Republicans, but our party is might be a better fit in AOC's district.
I like the numbered suggestions of this essay but think we should concentrate on improving on things Trump started.
Take #1 for example. If you have 20 illegal workers for ever job opening wages won't increase, I think they call it "labor supply" or something. Likewise if you can make a widget in Asia for $1 labor costs or in Alabama for $15 labor cost, Alabama will never be able to compete. We need borders and tariffs. Waiting for things to improve generations from now won't cut it.
#2 Middle class? meaning who? is $200,000 middle class? Most people making that think it is. Can we make homes affordable for the $60,000 household? Whenever I hear affordable housing without actual real numbers. I don't believe. I figure we are talking about that beach house in Malibu for Ezra.
#3 and #4 Yup, get rid of 401Ks and IRAs and all those other tax loopholes that only help the few. Instead a pension people can actually live on, and I've heard socialist health care plans from conservative economists that make sense. We already pay for huge sectors of the population, might as well include everyone and force the medical industrial complex into bankruptcy.
#5 and #6 Republicans certainly have no monopoly on self dealing and rent seeking. How to cut it out when all politicians seem to be complicit?
I guess I'd also add a new bounty on wolves and some public long range shooting facilities, lower the cost of diesel.
The agenda is very w-rthy, but it shares,precisely the same,problems as a project 2029 would. No set of voters can keep,all this in mind. And no government can accomplish it.
By contemporary liberal standards, 'only' 9 points could be radically simple. But as a normies, I thought you were going to pick only one value to rule them all. I'd still like to hear what that is, because even Obama had political capital for one one major reform. If we can can only do one out of 9 on the list, which one?
I think that ship sailed years ago. One single picture of the Ds in the SOTU or the vile, evil-looking Omar is enough to overwhelm any "policies." And health care? I thought Obamacare fixed that. Only Trump has actually lowered drug prices for anyone.
In short, Ds have a massive IMAGE problem, not a POLICIES problem. No one will trust the party until it can rid itself of all of these true haters, people who at every single opportunity tell the rest of us how wrong we are to love America. Until you can roll out hundreds of candidates who can say "I love America" WITHOUT adding a "but," the GOP will just sail along.
How do you change the image without changing the policies?
Well, I think Ds were very successful for years at having policies people didn't approve of, but had an image of "caring" that went a long way. The current crop doesn't care a whit about image. It's all about hate Trump.
"Instead of drawing up a panoply of progressive wish lists dubbed Project 2029, Democrats should ask themselves: can they fit the heart of their agenda on a one-page memo without resorting to vague platitudes?"
Justin, your talking points above are all well and good and I think even most Republicans would agree, but if you really want that permanent majority that Democrats have dreamed of, there's only two things the party needs to do:
1. Protect First and Second Amendment rights rather than attacking them. An informed and armed society prevents tyranny and are, as St. George Tucker once put it in Blackstone's Commentaries, the "Palladium of Liberty." Democrats have for decades been sending the message that they are the face of tyranny.
2. Keep boys and men out of girls and women's sports. What is the point of women's sports if men can compete with them? What do girls have to aspire to if they think that some smelly boy is going to crush them?
Now that Democrats have rediscovered secure borders, those two items are all it takes to win that permanent majority. It really is that simple.
"Now that Democrats have rediscovered secure borders...."
If only that were true. A solid majority of Democratic primary voters almost everywhere is now pro-open borders, although they don't use that term. They oppose all enforcement of immigration laws. If you enter the country or make a claim for asylum at the border, you get to stay forever - no deportations, period. I live in Minnesota, and this is the mindset of most Democratic voters here.
These aren't specific policies (other than "tax the rich"). Build 25 million homes? Where? How? With what money? Fix the health care system? How, specifically?
Just a progressive wish list -- government should cut pay for CEOs? Unionize everyone?
The Trump republicans have largely seized what for years WAS the democrat platform but with minimal government supervision. The pre-Trump gop consistently failed to make that shift and are of decreasing importance at an increasing rate.
What folk such this author fail to see is that Trump is an EFFECT. He’s not the CAUSE. You, or rather your substitution of marketing slogans for clear policies, are the cause.
Not gonna get better till you do.
I've been saying this for years. As odious as Trump is, normie Republicans and many independents vote for him as a reaction to the excesses of Democrats because he's willing to get down and dirty to fight those excesses.
If Democrats were to work on their policies rather than just tweaking the message, they would be much more likely to win back power.
There is more than one website which refers to Project 2029. I looked at Project2029.me to examine their proposals. One of these is titled "Make sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes." It repeats the myth of the 8% tax rate for billionaires, published by the Biden administration.
They cited Biden's claim "Billionaires on average pay about 8.2 percent in federal income tax—and many pay even less. " How did Biden get that number? By counting unrealized capital gains as current income while ignoring the future capital gains tax to be paid on it. It's Enron accounting.
I think this Nine Point list is a framework that can support successful candidacies. It's notable for what it omits, e.g.: gun control, social justice issues, abortion rights, and expansive trans rights. Basically, the culture war issues. These are the focus of many progressive activists, and I while I support some of these myself, I think it's time for progressives to step back and allow the New Deal economic priorities that defined the party become its electoral brand, while working on legislation to make incremental progress where necessary and possible on these other fronts.
Commenter 'Remember, remember' began this comment string by prioritizing the First and Second Amendments. I think that in the case of the First Amendment it's now easier to see how the Democratic Party was viewed by conservatives as undermining it, chiefly through well-intentioned social justice initiatives that had a chilling effect on those who were not aligned with a progressive agenda. MAGA has responded with massive institutionalization of anti-First Amendment orders that should have taught progressives and liberals what conservatives were experiencing. Unfortunate as it may seem, the ACLU's 1970s defense of the right of Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods is actually the model of Constitutional tolerance that we need to prevent the rise of Nazis in America -- we strayed from that and now we have a plainly fascist administration with elements that are openly National Socialist.
As a lifelong opponent of generally unlimited arms (and a believer that the Second Amendment's language does not in any way license that interpretation), like many on the Left I'm now keenly aware of the threat that American fascism presents and understand the feeling, whether justified or not, that motivated the formation of gun rights and militia movements. My hope is that we can evolve away from a society where the perception of political danger prompts people on both sides of the political spectrum to arm up, but it's time for progressives and liberals to recognize that gun control is an issue that we need to treat with "benign neglect," looking toward an era of far lower crime rates (which we're actually well on the way to reaching) and far less dramatic social division and atomization (which are increasing at an alarming rate) -- if we get to such a relative utopia, purchasing arms will become a less compelling felt need and we can look for new compromises.
A quick response to the second point "Remember, remember" made: Supporting transgender rights cannot succeed if it extends beyond reasonable bounds to special treatment at the expense of others. Sex-separated sports at or above middle school level can't generally accommodate trans athletes in women's sports competitions because they are physically advantaged -- it's not gender discrimination, it's level-playing field fairness. (There are acceptable work-arounds in some cases.) The best way to ensure that trans individuals have robust social rights is to strengthen anti-discrimination enforcement where the law clearly calls for it, support more research so we better understand what transgender means and how we should respond to it socially and medically, and follow opportunities as social acceptance gradually broadens. In electoral terms, it means what Mr. Vassallo indicates -- it should not be part of the Democratic Party's platform, and only a part of its brand to the degree that the Party is and has been for almost a century a party that welcomes every type of person who supports its core principles of broadly shared prosperity, social welfare, and fairness.
Bob,
While you and I will never agree on the Second Amendment, we largely agree on the First. However, you neglect to mention the Biden Administration actively using intimidation tactics to force social media companies to censor right-wing voices.
Your comment about the ACLU's work in Skokie, IL was absolutely spot on. It was a profile in courage, particularly in the case of the lead attorney who is Jewish, but placed a higher priority on liberty than on religion or ethnicity. Sadly, like the SPLC, the ACLU has abandoned the fight for liberty and succumbed to the lure of partisan sponsorship.
Hi Remember, Yes, we'll disagree on the Second Amendment and some other things, but the important point is that disagreement isn't enmity. My approach has always been to hope for Democratic liberal majorities with a Republican conservative minority strong enough to force caution and curb excesses to which the Left is naturally prone. (Second best for me is just the reverse.) It's healthy for both liberal and conservative people to have strong ideals and advocate for them, but when ideals meet practice in life the art of good governance requires flexibility, adaptation, and the ability to recognize when the "other side" has identified where ideals are working against improving people's lives and strengthening broad national consensus.
Well said, Bob. :-)
Mussolini made union membership compulsory for all workers. Has Trump done that? Mussolini boasted in 1934 that three-quarters of the Italian economy, both agriculture and industry was nationalized. Has Trump nationalized three-quarter of the American economy? Mussolini put Italy back on the gold standard. Has Trump put the USA back on the gold standard? Trump ran for re-election and when he lost, grudgingly vacated office. Did Mussolini ever run for re-election? No, and unlike Trump he wasn't elected the first place. If Trump is a "fascist", then he is the only fascist in history who reduced government employment. Your description of the Trump administration as "plainly fascist" is plainly preposterous.
The model of fascism that I feel best applies when the term is used seriously includes three major elements: (1) The coercion of private enterprise to act as an arm of the corporate state; (2) The use of blood and soil ethnically based nationalism to foster coherence through demonization of the outsider; (3) The celebration of militarization and a policy of demanding hegemonic expansion that integrates ethnically similar peoples under the hegemon's direct power and coerces other states to be subservient to the hegemonic power's demands.
I taught this model, derived from classical Fascist theory and the dominant policies of the Axis powers in World War II, to college students for many years as the essential hallmarks of Fascism. I thought I was teaching a model that was important historically but not as a future possibility. The Trump administration's coercion of corporate and non-profit institutions, increasingly open white nationalism, and imperial pronouncements, such as the "Donroe Doctrine," demand for Greenland, military actions, etc., have brought this model to life.
Democrats loudly and proudly tried to force their ideas on everyone. Now you think “let’s just not talk about all that” will convince normies that Democrats have changed?
Normies will not believe Democrats until they actively disavow the craziness they have pushed for more than a decade.
Let's assume that all of the economic/public assistance programs that this author recommends are adopted. Without severe restrictions on the immigration of low-skilled, low-income people to America those programs would quickly become unaffordable as new beneficiaries overwhelm tax resources. Here's the problem: the dominant faction in the Democratic party opposes ALL restrictions on immigration, ALL enforcement of immigration laws. A large majority of Democratic primary voters is effectively pro-open borders. We can't have an expanded welfare state and also have tens of millions of new beneficiaries for those programs.
You’re right that Democrats can’t win durable trust with a sprawling counter, Project 2025. Compression and discipline matter. But I’m not sure the problem is just a failure to summarize. Real prioritization requires answering harder questions first.
What is the root cause of the most pressing national breakdown we’re trying to fix? What is the governing vision that addresses it? Without that clarity, any “one-page memo” risks being just a shorter wish list.
From there, prioritization would mean naming three or four specific economic actions that clearly flow from that diagnosis, not twenty goals, but a small set that visibly change lived experience. And it would also require drawing a few clear lines on the most destabilizing cultural questions, defining where the practical center is and being willing to defend it.
That kind of compression is not just rhetorical. It requires real tradeoffs and a decision-making structure willing to subordinate some claims to others. When an organization repeatedly produces outcomes that undermine its own stated goals, it is worth asking, borrowing from David Hanna’s work on organizational design, whether the structure itself is perfectly delivering what it is designed to deliver. If the party consistently defaults to addition over prioritization, or to economics over cultural boundary-setting, that is design. Until there is clarity about how decisions are actually made and who has authority to rank priorities, even a well-crafted one-page agenda may struggle to translate into durable change.
Your proposal sounds like the 1994 Contract with America.
“Whatever the role of the contract, Republicans were elected to a majority of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1953, and some parts of the contract were enacted. Most elements did not pass Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton, who would sarcastically refer to it as the "Contract on America"[14][15] implying that the Republicans' legislative package was akin to an organized-crime "hit" on the American public.”
It had the virtue of being understandable by everyone, for example; “On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promise to bring up for vote, eight major reforms:[5][6]
1. Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;”
This is still a good promise today and would signal to Americans that the Democrats party is listening and is serious.
If you take the categories you proposed and identify the issue that 80% of voters support, you could have a dynamic campaign proposal to get all candidates to rally around.
It's a great list and, as you say, is still missing a lot which all speaks to the difficulty of creating a bold yet short & sweet platform that will inspire people before they bog down halfway through the list. Another key thing is to present the benefits of these things, not the mechanics -- "sell the brownie, not the recipe" as we say in the comms world.
I have an opportunity to offer your suggestions to the Democratic Party this weekend.
Saturday we have the precinct caucuses, and the week following the county caucuses, and I assume at some later time the state caucuses. Part of the purview of the caucuses is to offer up suggestions to be on the county platform etc. A small way the ideas percolate up to our betters.
I used to organise these things back when it was how we had our primaries, some fairly spirited caucuses. Now they are a way to get election judges and precinct coordinators. I'm there to listen for anything that might in any way benefit the working class, I'm skeptical but curious. We lose elections, usually it'a a 60/40 kind of thing. More Democrats here own pickups and guns than most coastal Republicans, but our party is might be a better fit in AOC's district.
I like the numbered suggestions of this essay but think we should concentrate on improving on things Trump started.
Take #1 for example. If you have 20 illegal workers for ever job opening wages won't increase, I think they call it "labor supply" or something. Likewise if you can make a widget in Asia for $1 labor costs or in Alabama for $15 labor cost, Alabama will never be able to compete. We need borders and tariffs. Waiting for things to improve generations from now won't cut it.
#2 Middle class? meaning who? is $200,000 middle class? Most people making that think it is. Can we make homes affordable for the $60,000 household? Whenever I hear affordable housing without actual real numbers. I don't believe. I figure we are talking about that beach house in Malibu for Ezra.
#3 and #4 Yup, get rid of 401Ks and IRAs and all those other tax loopholes that only help the few. Instead a pension people can actually live on, and I've heard socialist health care plans from conservative economists that make sense. We already pay for huge sectors of the population, might as well include everyone and force the medical industrial complex into bankruptcy.
#5 and #6 Republicans certainly have no monopoly on self dealing and rent seeking. How to cut it out when all politicians seem to be complicit?
I guess I'd also add a new bounty on wolves and some public long range shooting facilities, lower the cost of diesel.
The agenda is very w-rthy, but it shares,precisely the same,problems as a project 2029 would. No set of voters can keep,all this in mind. And no government can accomplish it.
By contemporary liberal standards, 'only' 9 points could be radically simple. But as a normies, I thought you were going to pick only one value to rule them all. I'd still like to hear what that is, because even Obama had political capital for one one major reform. If we can can only do one out of 9 on the list, which one?