Across months of focus groups and online qualitative research, voters express admiration and respect for wealth and work – they just want things to be fairer.
See this post on my Substack, "Elections: Advice for Potential Candidates (Determine Your Policy Positions 2)." Here I highlight a long list of pro-worker, pro-middle class policy positions that Dems should support. Many they generally do but they DON"T TALK ABOUT THEM. https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/elections-advice-for-potential-candidates-95e. Focus on the policy issues - not the politics or personalities.
~~~~~~~
The overarching need, however, is for an easily understandable statement of value/governance philosophy. I suggest this:
Partnership for America’s Future
Government isn't Them. Or some scary Deep State set out to destroy our way of life. It is US. It is US working together to make life better for us individually and collectively. Core building blocks of that effort are:
An Educational System Second to None
Jobs to Build a Life On
Justice and Respect for All
Communities to Feel Safe In
A Helping Hand in Times of Need
Preservation of Our Constitutional Freedoms & the Rule of Law
An Economic System That Fosters Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Jobs for All
My beef with the Democratic Party --- look at all the jobs available with campaigns. They are all for organizers, fund raisers, event planners, social media managers, and the like. They HIRE NO ONE WITH A POLICY BACKGROUND ... and it shows.
Look at the DNC's Rapid Response Team,https://bsky.app/profile/factpostnews.bsky.social. All they do is repost clips of Trump officials/Republicans. It's just attack, attack, attack. How is this remotely appealing to anyone except Democrats who want red meat attacks on Republicans?
This does NOTHING to bring the 45 percent of Americans who are independents into the fold. It does nothing to combat disinformation, misinformation, lies and lack of information. It does NOTHING to help find solutions to the many problems that really aren't partisan. It just turns everyone but the rabid partisans off.
1. I agree with no ad hominem attacks on billionaires (we have a few too). However, I don't see how you decouple explaining the root causes of a broken system, from the positive messaging to support opportunity, wealth accumulation, and a system course correction.
2. Not all billionaires are bad; they had a good idea, the right infrastructure and they ran with it. Equally, not all Dems are elites. They shouldn't be accused of being out of touch just because they went to a university or live in an urban city. Many of us had humble beginnings and those stories should be told.
3. I believe that you can refer to the historical conditions of a broken system and how it was tackled in the past (i.e.,Teddy Roosevelt's antitrust "Square Deal" or FDR's "New Deal"). I believe that story telling, based on facts, can be effective and engaging, if used strategically.
4. Trump's opening salvo in
2016 was that he knew how to 'use the system' and that it was rigged against the working class. (Remember he spoke a lot about being on construction sites and using equipment.) He later suggested that he could help them have a piece of it (the grift), while also suggesting that 'others' were keeping them from their prosperity (i.e. immigrants, DEI, and extraneous foreign priorities). This messaging had universal appeal because anyone could see themselves in it and it gave them an explanation -- beyond their personal efforts --of why they weren't getting ahead. For these voters, his messaging was validation of their discontentment.
5. Trump, nevertheless, is emblematic of the broken system. He doesn't want to pay his fair share (tax avoidance or evasion), he wants to shift the fiscal burden to working class Americans (regressive taxes, tariffs, removing tax credits), eliminate services and environmental protections and further skew the system towards the corporations of the uberwealthy; a complete reversal of historical conditions receiving correction under prior administrations and, an abandonment of his campaign promises.
6. Acknowledgement should be given that Trump surrounds himself with like-minded transactional billionaires that are enabling him to carry out an agenda antithetical to the Democrats' pro-worker and pro-business principles. I dont see it as a misrepresentation to establish them as a grouping, owing to their outsized administrative and lobbying influence to further entrench disparities rather than reforming the system for fairness.
7. Since Ronald Reagan's embrace of the Heritage Foundation, the unions and, in turn, the Democrats' structural powers have been eroded to counter messaging on worker's rights.
8. Dems have a track record on entrepreneurship and multinational trade. We are not out of step with the desire for advancement and opportunity.
9. Joe Biden said it well when he explained that he's all for billionaires and millionaires; they just need to pay their fair share -- [as they have historically].
Here are some facts from 1950os to 2020os on the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of U.S. households:
1950 - 68% effective tax rate
1960 - 55% " " "
1970 - 54% " " "
1980 - 46% " " "
2020 - 25.99% " " "
?2026 - +/- 15% " " "
This represents a continual decline in contributions to the fiscal budget by the wealthiest households.
Arguments need to be reframed to show that the 'others' are not taking more of your pie -- with all other things remaining constant -- but rather, that 'others' (the uberwealthy) are reducing their portion of the pie -- making it smaller and making it increasingly necessary to fight over. (They may effectively be paying more than someone making 40K but they are suggesting to reduce their portion by another 10 percent. How is that sustainable?)
10. This is an opportunity to take back the mantle; reestablish the Democratic brand and take a comprehensive approach to the issues. Our game theory goal should be a 'Nash Equilibrium', not a winner-take-all scenario. As you've rightly shown, most people are in the middle.
If we are pro-business, we need to speak to businesses while supporting the working class.
1. Dems could explain to the working class how the corporate class doesn't understand that it's hurting its long-term interests for short-term gain. This occurs because reducing federal fiscal revenue and shifting the tax burden limits the government's 'general use' ability to fund projects like the internet, which many companies have built thier business models on. Equally, it hampers further technological expansion in areas such as research, development and standardization.
2.This will make businesses less competitive, internationally and foreign competitors such as those in China will outpace them owing to their progressive industrial policy and the state's deep-funding pockets.
3. The undermining of an equitable tax system would lower the pool of available funds for contracts, subsidies, grants and infrastructure -- putting businesses at a disadvantage. And the over taxation of a smaller wealth pool wouldn't allow for the types of funds needed for public works maintenance and/or growth.
4. A fair tax system helps businesses, both domestically and internationally.
5. Fair taxation is not regulatory overreach.
6. I would develop numbers on the additional costs corporations would have had to assume, if they had to supply the public works infrastructure themselves.
7. The Dems see government as a means to provide a balance between business growth and workers rights.
This conversational method could possibly draw businesses attention to the downside of the Republican approach on this issue.
Without having read the report, does that mean that we can absorb the additional fiscal cuts without shifting the tax burden? If so... what are we doing here, lets have lunch.
I think the point is that it's VERY hard to get federal revenue to get much higher. Unless of course you do something like a VAT (which is how Europe gets so much revenue). IE they tax the middle class a LOT (because that's where the money is).
Basically our level of entitlements promised is WAY WAY to high for the amount of taxation we currently have, and you won't close that gap by taxing the "rich".
We have to talk about the debt which will $684 billion in interest payments this year. Our overall debt is 36.2 trillion or $106,000 per person (Investopedia). This is not sustainable. And while the Tax Foundation may hold that the tax rate is progressive (I have doubts) I would like to see more information on companies that pay very little in taxes. There is a lot of offshoring and it is wrong. Trump’s last tax cuts were so bogus. Major corporations were not paying anywhere near the tax rated rate that was touted.
I don't necessarily agree that the Democrats demonize people with money/billionaires given that many of their donors come from that class. I'd also note that the Clintons and the Obamas, who are wildly popular with the Democratic base, went from people with credit card debt to $15 million Martha's Vineyard homes and a net worth of well north of $100 million. So clearly many Democrats admire that upward mobility.
What the Democrats do, however, is focus all of their attention on identity politics and helping the super poor. I have been FURIOUS with my Democratic elected officials because of their failure to acknowledge my lengthy letters on landlord - tenant issues (despite the fact that 45 - 60 percent of their constituents are renters). See my detailed issue brief, https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/issues-and-answers-11-a-bill-of-rights.
The Democratic focus on landlord-tenant issues is on those facing evictions - and little else. Only lately have a few leading Dems (i.e., the attorneys general) come to the party to go after Real Page and other issues that all renters have.
See this post on my Substack, "Elections: Advice for Potential Candidates (Determine Your Policy Positions 2)." Here I highlight a long list of pro-worker, pro-middle class policy positions that Dems should support. Many they generally do but they DON"T TALK ABOUT THEM. https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/elections-advice-for-potential-candidates-95e. Focus on the policy issues - not the politics or personalities.
~~~~~~~
The overarching need, however, is for an easily understandable statement of value/governance philosophy. I suggest this:
Partnership for America’s Future
Government isn't Them. Or some scary Deep State set out to destroy our way of life. It is US. It is US working together to make life better for us individually and collectively. Core building blocks of that effort are:
An Educational System Second to None
Jobs to Build a Life On
Justice and Respect for All
Communities to Feel Safe In
A Helping Hand in Times of Need
Preservation of Our Constitutional Freedoms & the Rule of Law
An Economic System That Fosters Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Jobs for All
Stewardship of Our Precious Natural Resources
Global Leadership to Promote Peace and Prosperity
We still believe in the power of the American Dream and know that you do too. Let’s work together to make certain that dream becomes a reality for each and every one of us. (https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/elections-advice-to-anyone-willing)
I wrote about the issues of economic mobility on my Substack MONTHS ago, https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/elections-issue-insights-economic. So where's the Democratic Party's thoughtful discussion of such issues?
My beef with the Democratic Party --- look at all the jobs available with campaigns. They are all for organizers, fund raisers, event planners, social media managers, and the like. They HIRE NO ONE WITH A POLICY BACKGROUND ... and it shows.
Look at the DNC's Rapid Response Team,https://bsky.app/profile/factpostnews.bsky.social. All they do is repost clips of Trump officials/Republicans. It's just attack, attack, attack. How is this remotely appealing to anyone except Democrats who want red meat attacks on Republicans?
This does NOTHING to bring the 45 percent of Americans who are independents into the fold. It does nothing to combat disinformation, misinformation, lies and lack of information. It does NOTHING to help find solutions to the many problems that really aren't partisan. It just turns everyone but the rabid partisans off.
Thanks for your comment. We hope you keep following along to learn more as we’re listening to working class voters to help inform future policies.
1. I agree with no ad hominem attacks on billionaires (we have a few too). However, I don't see how you decouple explaining the root causes of a broken system, from the positive messaging to support opportunity, wealth accumulation, and a system course correction.
2. Not all billionaires are bad; they had a good idea, the right infrastructure and they ran with it. Equally, not all Dems are elites. They shouldn't be accused of being out of touch just because they went to a university or live in an urban city. Many of us had humble beginnings and those stories should be told.
3. I believe that you can refer to the historical conditions of a broken system and how it was tackled in the past (i.e.,Teddy Roosevelt's antitrust "Square Deal" or FDR's "New Deal"). I believe that story telling, based on facts, can be effective and engaging, if used strategically.
4. Trump's opening salvo in
2016 was that he knew how to 'use the system' and that it was rigged against the working class. (Remember he spoke a lot about being on construction sites and using equipment.) He later suggested that he could help them have a piece of it (the grift), while also suggesting that 'others' were keeping them from their prosperity (i.e. immigrants, DEI, and extraneous foreign priorities). This messaging had universal appeal because anyone could see themselves in it and it gave them an explanation -- beyond their personal efforts --of why they weren't getting ahead. For these voters, his messaging was validation of their discontentment.
5. Trump, nevertheless, is emblematic of the broken system. He doesn't want to pay his fair share (tax avoidance or evasion), he wants to shift the fiscal burden to working class Americans (regressive taxes, tariffs, removing tax credits), eliminate services and environmental protections and further skew the system towards the corporations of the uberwealthy; a complete reversal of historical conditions receiving correction under prior administrations and, an abandonment of his campaign promises.
6. Acknowledgement should be given that Trump surrounds himself with like-minded transactional billionaires that are enabling him to carry out an agenda antithetical to the Democrats' pro-worker and pro-business principles. I dont see it as a misrepresentation to establish them as a grouping, owing to their outsized administrative and lobbying influence to further entrench disparities rather than reforming the system for fairness.
7. Since Ronald Reagan's embrace of the Heritage Foundation, the unions and, in turn, the Democrats' structural powers have been eroded to counter messaging on worker's rights.
8. Dems have a track record on entrepreneurship and multinational trade. We are not out of step with the desire for advancement and opportunity.
9. Joe Biden said it well when he explained that he's all for billionaires and millionaires; they just need to pay their fair share -- [as they have historically].
Here are some facts from 1950os to 2020os on the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of U.S. households:
1950 - 68% effective tax rate
1960 - 55% " " "
1970 - 54% " " "
1980 - 46% " " "
2020 - 25.99% " " "
?2026 - +/- 15% " " "
This represents a continual decline in contributions to the fiscal budget by the wealthiest households.
Arguments need to be reframed to show that the 'others' are not taking more of your pie -- with all other things remaining constant -- but rather, that 'others' (the uberwealthy) are reducing their portion of the pie -- making it smaller and making it increasingly necessary to fight over. (They may effectively be paying more than someone making 40K but they are suggesting to reduce their portion by another 10 percent. How is that sustainable?)
10. This is an opportunity to take back the mantle; reestablish the Democratic brand and take a comprehensive approach to the issues. Our game theory goal should be a 'Nash Equilibrium', not a winner-take-all scenario. As you've rightly shown, most people are in the middle.
Thank you for your perspective and continued engagement!
Food for thought...
If we are pro-business, we need to speak to businesses while supporting the working class.
1. Dems could explain to the working class how the corporate class doesn't understand that it's hurting its long-term interests for short-term gain. This occurs because reducing federal fiscal revenue and shifting the tax burden limits the government's 'general use' ability to fund projects like the internet, which many companies have built thier business models on. Equally, it hampers further technological expansion in areas such as research, development and standardization.
2.This will make businesses less competitive, internationally and foreign competitors such as those in China will outpace them owing to their progressive industrial policy and the state's deep-funding pockets.
3. The undermining of an equitable tax system would lower the pool of available funds for contracts, subsidies, grants and infrastructure -- putting businesses at a disadvantage. And the over taxation of a smaller wealth pool wouldn't allow for the types of funds needed for public works maintenance and/or growth.
4. A fair tax system helps businesses, both domestically and internationally.
5. Fair taxation is not regulatory overreach.
6. I would develop numbers on the additional costs corporations would have had to assume, if they had to supply the public works infrastructure themselves.
7. The Dems see government as a means to provide a balance between business growth and workers rights.
This conversational method could possibly draw businesses attention to the downside of the Republican approach on this issue.
Again, my two cents.
While marginal tax rates have changed a lot, the actual amount of revenue has been very stable (as measured as a percent of GDP)
And if you look at percent of taxes paid versus percent of income earned, we do have a very progressive tax system.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/
Without having read the report, does that mean that we can absorb the additional fiscal cuts without shifting the tax burden? If so... what are we doing here, lets have lunch.
I think the point is that it's VERY hard to get federal revenue to get much higher. Unless of course you do something like a VAT (which is how Europe gets so much revenue). IE they tax the middle class a LOT (because that's where the money is).
Basically our level of entitlements promised is WAY WAY to high for the amount of taxation we currently have, and you won't close that gap by taxing the "rich".
We’re cooked.
We have to talk about the debt which will $684 billion in interest payments this year. Our overall debt is 36.2 trillion or $106,000 per person (Investopedia). This is not sustainable. And while the Tax Foundation may hold that the tax rate is progressive (I have doubts) I would like to see more information on companies that pay very little in taxes. There is a lot of offshoring and it is wrong. Trump’s last tax cuts were so bogus. Major corporations were not paying anywhere near the tax rated rate that was touted.
Thank you for your perspective! We hope you keep following along to learn more about this project.
I don't necessarily agree that the Democrats demonize people with money/billionaires given that many of their donors come from that class. I'd also note that the Clintons and the Obamas, who are wildly popular with the Democratic base, went from people with credit card debt to $15 million Martha's Vineyard homes and a net worth of well north of $100 million. So clearly many Democrats admire that upward mobility.
What the Democrats do, however, is focus all of their attention on identity politics and helping the super poor. I have been FURIOUS with my Democratic elected officials because of their failure to acknowledge my lengthy letters on landlord - tenant issues (despite the fact that 45 - 60 percent of their constituents are renters). See my detailed issue brief, https://sharonlawrence.substack.com/p/issues-and-answers-11-a-bill-of-rights.
The Democratic focus on landlord-tenant issues is on those facing evictions - and little else. Only lately have a few leading Dems (i.e., the attorneys general) come to the party to go after Real Page and other issues that all renters have.
Yes again the people demonstrate they are smarter and more ethical than either side’s party machine.
I hope you’re sharing your findings with the DNC, Democrat leadership, and candidates running for office.
Thanks for your suggestion! Yes, our Substack is public.