kalm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2026 7:16 am
When MAGA and progressives want many of the same things...
I have liberal friends that think populism on a global scale is only represented by the far right. But movements come and go.
True populism transcends party and the political spectrum. It is said that independents decide elections. I’d also in include low information voters and late deciders who are often working class and lack the time to research candidates or have become apathetic. This diminishes party loyalty (not a bad thing) and makes marketing, advertising, and money key factors rather than which candidates or parties actually deliver. Selling “Hope and change” (Obama) or Making America Great Again can swing these undecideds from cycle to cycle. Marketing and campaigning matter more than delivering on promises and good governance.
When both parties are controlled by the same monied interests, each election becomes an exercise in holding your nose and hoping that even a small amount of campaign promises are kept.
Democratic primary elections, in particular, are showing us America is both in the midst of a deep crisis and is on the verge of what could be transformational, positive, life-altering political and economic change comparable to FDR’s New Deal.
It became obvious, really, in the first minute of New Year’s Day this year, when two things happened at once vividly showing us all the contrast and the crises around where America stands right now.
In a long-abandoned subway station deep under lower Manhattan, progressive Democrat Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as mayor of New York City, largely on the simple promise that New York could once again become “a city we can afford.”
And at that very same midnight — because Republicans refused to extend them — the enhanced Obamacare subsidies expired for more than twenty million Americans, jacking their health insurance prices overnight into stratospheric amounts that are now pushing families to skip pills, skip meals, and skip the doctor entirely.
One honest man took office swearing that he’d help ordinary people afford to live, and at that same moment, millions of working class people lost the ability to afford their insurance because Republican politicians consistently put their morbidly rich individual and corporate donors above all else.
Even Newsweek, no one’s idea of a radical rag, noticed the thing our media generally misses: the same cost-of-living fury that carried Donald Trump back into the White House in 2024 was the same fury Mamdani rode to City Hall a year later.
When Louise and I lived in a boat in a marina in Washington, DC back during the 2016 election year, we knew quite a few people retired from the Navy and Coast Guard who generally called themselves Republicans, but were split between Trump and Bernie for their vote. Why? Because both were promising real, meaningful change.
I’ve told you before about my dad. Carl came home from the Second World War, finally got a good union job in a tool-and-die shop in Lansing, and on that one paycheck he raised us four boys, bought a house, put a new car in the driveway every couple of years, sent us toward college, took my mom on vacation, and retired with a pension that let the two of them travel the world.
That wasn’t wealth: that was the ordinary American middle class, and in 1981 — the year Reagan decided to destroy our unions, cut those “socialist benefits,” and freeze the minimum wage — two-thirds of us Americans lived in that middle class on a single income. Today it’s closer to only 40 percent of us, and it takes two full paychecks to reach what one paycheck used to buy.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... medium=ios
This is such trash. It's amazing how this guy and Heather Cox-Richardson are able to garner such large grossly uninformed audiences.
While not quite a myth, the claim that middle class Americans could comfortably live on a single income was an anomaly created by the post WWII economic boom. It was a brief and artificial time in our history. Living 'comfortably' is relative when you compare it to today. Living comfortably in this time meant surviving with much less. One car, one phone, one TV, and a house that averaged about 1,000 sq. ft. (just to name a few). Just imagine how many families could "live off one income" today if those were still the metrics.
Another outright lie in this "article" is the author's claim that the middle class has been shrinking since 1981. He claims 2/3 of Americans were middle class then. Not very accurate. The actual number is 59%. He is also claiming that the middle class now is "closer to only 40%". The fact is 51% of households are considered middle class. An actual 8% drop.
However, this author failed to mention the undeniable explosion of the upper middle class. In 1981, only 10% of households were considered upper middle class. Today, over 1/3 (31%) of households are considered upper middle class. Upward mobility in action...
This guy should be ashamed of himself.
