PROGRESSIVES ARE WINNING ELECTIONS BY FOCUSING ON AFFORDABILITY, FAIRNESS, AND CORRUPTION

SUMMARY: Strong progressive election results are continuing. Voters are making it clear that their top issues are the unaffordability of daily life, corruption in our politics, fairness in our economy, and strong, effective opposition to the Trump regime.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Strong progressive election results are continuing. My earlier post noted wins by progressives in June and early July elections, and my hope that national Democrats were hearing the voters’ clear message. Many still seem too entrenched with big-money backers to hear the grassroots voices. Voters are signaling that everyday unaffordability, as well as corruption in politics and the economy, are the issues that matter most to them.

In the past two weeks, elections were held in Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Progressives won repeatedly, including in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, and even democratic socialists won, although the democratic socialist in Wisconsin’s governor race lost narrowly.

Incumbent House Democrats’ losses to more progressive primary challengers suggest that Democratic voters want representatives who will more aggressively confront the affordability crisis, demand fairness, and take on the Trump regime’s corruption and bad policies on the economy, the war, ICE, the climate crisis, and protections for individual rights and the rule of law. [1]

While attention was focused on Democratic primaries, Republican primaries also produced notable results. Several Trump-endorsed candidates have lost, including Mike Lindell (the MyPillow guy) in Minnesota’s governor’s race, as well as Amir Hassan in Michigan and Andy Ogles in Tennessee in U.S. House races. In South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, Darline Graham was pushed into a runoff despite Trump’s endorsement. [2]

In Missouri, voters strongly rejected two Republican ballot initiatives. One would have eliminated the state income tax and replaced it with a higher sales tax (defeated 83% – 17%), even though supporters outspent opponents by more than two to one (with many proponent groups keeping their donors’ identities secret). This and other election results may indicate that the era of tax cuts as the supposed path to economic growth and jobs may be ending. [3] Missouri voters also rejected (80% – 20%) a GOP-backed effort to make it harder to pass initiative petitions. Both ballot questions passed in all eight Missouri congressional districts. [4]

These candidates and issues are winning, even when being outspent, because voters are no longer being fooled by messaging from a corrupt campaign financing system, including candidates’ disingenuous economic promises (e.g., tax cuts whose benefits will trickle down) that have resulted in economic inequality and the unaffordability of everyday life.

What unites these candidates is a shared focus: improving everyday life and making society fairer. They call out the greed and power of the American oligarchy and their control of the economy and policymaking. They make the case that for our private enterprise system to survive government must put a stop to huge monopolistic companies and dramatic wealth and income inequality. They argue that regulation and fair taxes are needed to curb monopolies and stop price-gouging (including by major food and gas and oil companies). They call for an end to private for-profit control of essential public services, such as healthcare, education, mail delivery, utilities, and transportation. [5]

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Hubbell, R. B., 8/6/26, “The polls were wrong in Michigan – by a mile! Why that matters,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-polls-were-wrong-in-michiganby)

[2] Hubbell, R. B., 8/13/26, “Don’t underestimate the ability of Democratic voters to get it right,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/dont-underestimate-the-ability-of)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 8/5/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-5-2026)

[4] Hubbell, R. B., 8/5/26, “The misleading narrative of Democratic disunity,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-misleading-narrative-of-democratic)

[5] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

Is Trump the Real Communist in American Politics?

SUMMARY: Trump is the only politician calling for and taking government control of private companies and resources. At his direction, the government has taken stakes in at least nine companies. On the other hand, democratic socialists in the U.S. today are in the mainstream of our history, not outliers, let alone communists.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Despite Trump and the Republicans calling Democrats communists, – especially the progressive ones and the ones who identify as democratic socialists – Trump is the actual communist. Really. [1] Let’s review definitions of socialism and communism, and then look at Trump’s actions.

Democratic socialism was eloquently defined by Senator Bernie Sanders in the fall of 2015 when he was running for president. You can watch and listen to his two-minute definition here. (My post about Sanders’ speech with more detail is here.)

His definition builds on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (FDR) proposed economic bill of rights and notes that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security. Democratic socialism includes:

Decent jobs at decent pay with time off and the ability to retire with dignity;
The ability to have adequate food, clothing, health care, and housing;
A right to a good education; and
The opportunity for small businesses, including farmers, to operate without domination by large corporations.

Sanders noted that Martin Luther King, in 1968, echoed FDR’s call for economic rights and stated that the US provides “socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.” By the way, while “socialism” may be a politically negative label to older Americans, 67% of young Americans have a positive or neutral association with the word “socialism” compared to 40% who are positive or neutral about “capitalism.”

Historian Heather Cox Richardson states that the democratic socialists in the U.S. today are in the mainstream of our history. Their policy proposals echo the 1860s, when the Republicans established public colleges; the 1900s, when Theodore Roosevelt called for public health insurance; the 1930s with FDR’s New Deal and proposed economic bill of rights; Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950s; and Republican President Nixon in the late 1960s and 1970s. (See my previous post for more details.)

Cox Richardson notes that today’s American democratic socialists are not communists or even hardcore socialists. [2] Communists and some hardcore socialists advocate for eliminating all private property. Today’s American democratic socialists call for a robust system of private ownership and enterprise, alongside government control of essential societal functions required for people to survive and for the economy to work for the good of everyone. (See my previous post for more details.)

Communism calls for government or communal ownership of all resources as well as all means of production, meaning the state, rather than private individuals or corporations, owns factories, farms, mines, etc. None of the Democratic or Democratic Socialist candidates is proposing anything akin to this.

The only politician calling for state takeover of private industries and resources is Trump. At his direction, the government has taken stakes in at least nine companies at a cost of at least $10 billion in taxpayer money. These companies are in the steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductor industries. [3] Trump claims he’s done this for national security reasons, but increasing his power, control, wealth, and influence seem to be the real reasons. Notably, the arrangements his regime has made leave power and control, as well as money, in his hands, not under the control of some group or entity that is committed to the public good. Trump has used tariffs (and exemptions from them), regulatory actions (e.g., approval or denial of mergers and acquisitions), and trumped-up lawsuits (no pun intended) to coerce business leaders into complying with his requests for control of their businesses.

For example, in August 2025, the Trump administration converted $9 billion in federal grants to Intel into a 10% ownership share in the company. The grants were made under President Biden’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research. The U.S. government is now Intel’s biggest shareholder. Intel had been struggling financially and this, along with other actions by Trump requiring other companies to buy Intel products or invest in it, bailed Intel out. (Imagine what Trump and Republicans would have said if the Obama administration had converted its bailouts of Wall Street and automakers in the 2008 Great Recession into government ownership of those companies!)

Apple got an exemption from Trump’s 100% tariffs on semiconductor imports (essential to iPhones and many other Apple products) by promising to buy Intel chips and collaborate with it.

Nvidia got Trump’s approval to sell its artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China (which he had said and others believe is a national security risk). Nvidia agreed to give 25% of the profits from Nvidia’s China sales to the government and to invest $5 billion in Intel.

The U.S. government has also become the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the only rare earth mining company in the country, after a $400 million investment of taxpayers’ money.

When the Japanese company, Nippon Steel, acquired U.S. Steel in 2025, Trump conditioned government approval on his receiving a “golden share” in U.S. Steel. This golden share allows him to veto key business decisions including decisions on changing U.S. Steel’s name, moving its headquarters out of Pittsburgh, or closing production facilities. [4]

These actions are not capitalism. Establishing government control over private companies is nationalized socialism or communism. Nothing at all close to this has happened in U.S. history except during the true national emergency of World War II. This is oligarchic communism in that it’s making Trump and wealthy executives and investors in these companies even richer. And it’s concentrating ever more power over a broader range of the U.S. economy and society in Trump’s hands. That’s authoritarianism.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1] Sonnenfeld, J.A., Pepper, J., Mulcahy, A., George, B., and Tyson, L.D., 8/21/25, “MAGA’s march toward a command economy,” Yale Insights (https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/magas-march-toward-command-economy)

[2] Cox Richardson, H., 7/5/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-5-2026)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

[4] Kimball, S., 11/24/25, “Trump appoints two Commerce officials to oversee U.S. Steel under ‘golden share’ agreement,” CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/24/trump-us-steel-nippon-golden-share.html)

ARE THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATS LISTENING?

SUMMARY: I hope the national Democrats are listening. The grassroots are yelling and voting based on the unaffordability of daily life and the corruption in our politics and economy. In recent elections across the country, progressive, grassroots candidates are beating incumbents and winning even in conservative, Republican districts. Many of these candidates are young, female, multicultural, and/or new to politics.

(Personal note: I didn’t post the last two weeks because of the combination of a scramble to get signatures to put a question on the November ballot and a ten-day visit by an out-of-town grandson.)

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

I hope the national Democrats are listening. The people and the voters are sending a loud, clear message. I worry that many of the Democrats in Washington are too entrenched with the oligarchs who spend big money to support their campaigns to hear the grassroots voices. The grassroots are yelling and voting based on the unaffordability of daily life and the corruption in our politics and economy.

In recent elections across the country, from Maine to Florida, from New York to Ohio to Colorado and Montana, from Arizona to California to Washington State, progressive, grassroots candidates are winning. They are beating incumbents and winning even in conservative, Republican districts. [1]

These candidates are winning by calling out monopolistic, corporate America, by attacking the political corruption of big money, and by addressing the everyday problems of ordinary Americans. [2] They are advocating for:

Guaranteeing health care for everyone
Making housing and child care more affordable
Increasing the minimum wage and easing the path to union membership
Reforming the corrupt campaign finance system
Requiring that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share in taxes
Addressing climate change
Ensuring AI benefits all of us and not just the oligarchs
Ending wars and bloated military spending

The majority of the American people support these policies in poll after poll – and now in election after election. The public is sick and tired of status quo politics and corrupt campaign finance and economic systems that benefit only the rich and powerful.

Many of these winning candidates are young, female, multicultural, and/or new to politics. Some of them are Democrats and some are Democratic Socialists – not that many voters know what that means or care. What unites these candidates is that they are committed to making people’s everyday lives better and our society fairer. They are calling out the greed of the American oligarchy and their control of our economy and policy making. They make the case that our private enterprise system cannot survive unless the government ends huge monopolistic companies and dramatic wealth and income inequality through regulation and taxation. They call for an end to monopolistic price gouging like that of the food and gas and oil companies. They oppose private for-profit ownership of societal functions that people need to survive and that should serve the public good, such as health care, education, mail delivery, utilities, detention facilities, and roads, bridges, and public transportation. [3]

Ironically, Republicans supported many of these policies from the 1950s through the 1970s – ones they are now calling dangerous socialism or communism (without knowing or caring what those terms really mean). (More on the meaning of these terms in a future post.)

In 1969, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would have provided a universal basic income to all families, effectively ending poverty. But it didn’t get enacted. In 1971, Congress passed legislation creating a universal, federally subsidized child care system that President Nixon was about to sign until pressured by right-wing political forces to veto it. In 1974, Nixon proposed universal health care with cost controls and financial assistance for those who couldn’t afford insurance. This also didn’t get enacted.

Back in the 1950s, Republicans and President Eisenhower supported workers, unions, and increasing the minimum wage; the expansion of social security and unemployment insurance; as well as improved housing and health care. The Republican Party platform called for equal pay for equal work and the elimination of discrimination in employment. [4]

It’s amazing to review how American politics and policies have changed over the last 75 years. What were centrist policies, supported by Republicans, in the 1950s through 1970s, are now called far left, socialist (or even communist) policies.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here, here, and here.

[1] Sanders, B., 7/1/26. “Last night in Colorado,” (https://www.facebook.com/reel/1517611133169096)

[2] Reich, R., 7/6/26, “Why is he using the communist trump card,” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/trumps-communist-trump-card)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, “Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, see above