Make populism the new progressivism

What's another key to defeating Trumpism in the elections to come? Rebrand progressive policies as the true populism that a majority of Americans are craving -- and then deliver on those policies.

We’ve already explored what the three-part argument should be for the Resistance in the elections to come. But there is still one part missing, one additional element that will make the entire enterprise more successful.

We need a new brand — a new way to frame what we stand for.

Democrats’ branding and framing has been leached of vitality for so long that it is of little help in this moment, when we need every ounce of energy and creativity for the titanic battles before us. To be fair, the Republican Party’s official branding and framing is also extremely tired and flat — so much so that a cheap third-rate marketing effort, MAGA, managed to co-opt and devour the GOP’s entire brand. The traditional parties have both struggled to project themselves in this not-really-new-anymore century.

The term “progressive” has also outlived its usefulness to anyone outside its choir. And that is the test for any branding and framing. Is it persuasive? Will it win over converts? Does it resonate outside the existing congregation? If it fails to do any of these things, it is not going to serve its purpose.

Yet there is no doubt that the substance of progressivism is very popular, with clear majorities of Americans — even conservatives, even in the deepest of deep red states — supporting policies such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, negotiated caps on prescription drug prices, expansion of Medicaid to help subsidize health insurance on ACA exchanges, and increases to the minimum wage, just to cite a handful.

Those last two policies are so popular, in fact, that they have been successfully implemented by referendum in extremely red states. In 2024, Missouri voted for Donald Trump, by 18.4 points — and simultaneously passed a referendum measure to increase the minimum wage to $15/hour and to require paid sick leave, by 15 points. Meanwhile a slew of red states passed popular referenda to require Medicaid expansion when their legislatures failed to do so: Missouri again, joined by Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah, among the most Republican-leaning states in the country.

Seven deep red states have adopted Medicaid expansion by referendum. How could such seemingly right-leaning states pass such left-leaning policies? Populism, that’s how.

What the hell is going on here? Why can progressive policies prevail in those states but progressive candidates cannot?

There are two major problems here, one on strategy, and one on branding.

First, much of the time, Democratic candidates do not actually or wholeheartedly run on progressive policies in those states. There is a perception that a red state automatically means only a moderate Democrat can win there, with a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility and pro-business policies and “finding common ground” that make the Democrat sound like a Lite Republican, a DINO. If apologetic Democrats keep losing while plainly stated progressive policies keep winning, then maybe, just maybe, Democrats should start running unapologetically progressive campaigns.

Second, we need to change the labeling. The word “progressive” just sounds boring. Pedantic. Professorial. It conjures images of a political event that feels more like a college lecture. And perhaps worst of all, when that word is heard away from the coasts, it sounds like what it is — an alien, coastal-elite invading force. This is why most purple and red state Democrats view “progressive” as a four-letter word. They’re right about that part. But they’re wrong on the substance.

Trumpet the progressive policies, but give them a new coat of paint.

What really needs to change is the messaging — and the overall tone and vibe. Don’t apologize. Attack. Act. What people want is help. And someone to listen to and to channel their anger and upset and discontent, with establishment institutions, with predatory corporations, with fraudsters and grifters, with gigantic forces out there that they feel powerless to do anything about. People see Goliath running amok, and they’re looking for Davids.

Some thought they had one in Donald Trump — but he is a charlatan, a fake populist, a phony champion of the people. He promised he’d fight the elites, but he was an elite billionaire, a silver spoon nepo baby, the whole time, and now in his second term, the charade is falling apart completely, as he embraces the mega-billionaire CEOs like Elon Musk who constitute the real elites in America now.

People want a fighter. Many of them fell for a fake fighter. We need to give them real ones.

And what do we call them? Populism comes much closer to capturing the vibe and tone we need to capture — taking anti-elite, anti-establishment fury and channeling it at the actual elite establishment, the multi-billionaires, the modern-day robber barons, and marrying it to the real, true, actual policies that will help We the People live better lives. Without apology. Without triangulation. Without fancified policies that are difficult to understand.

Is there a better word than populism? Of course there could be. Populism, like progressivism, is a dusted-off term from a century ago, recycled for contemporary use. It also carries a whiff of pejorative meaning within the commentariat, as something low and base and craven and pandering. But I would rather have op-ed columnists turn up their noses at “populist” than have voters in the swing states scratch their heads at “progressive.”

Find a better term, absolutely. Until then, give me populism.