Search results for "bernie sanders"

US reaches 'tipping point' as 'populist fury' turns on Trump: Robert Reich

In the 2026 midterms, Big Tech is experiencing a backlash on both the left and the right. Liberal economist Robert Reich, in a Substack column, notes that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and MAGA Republican Steve Bannon have some common ground in their disdain for AI (artificial intelligence) and data centers. And this heated debate, according to Reich, raises a question that goes way beyond Big Tech itself: "Are we on the cusp of a political realignment against corporate power?"

"Last week," Reich observes in his Substack column, "the unlikely duo of Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon keynoted a Washington conference to demand a stop to AI, its data centers, and the risks AI poses to jobs and even to the human species. Notably, both lambasted the corporate oligarchs behind AI. The most potent force in American politics is anti-establishment fury at a system seen as rigged against average working people. AI has become Exhibit A."

The backlash against those "elites," Reich stresses, is showing no signs of slowing down.

"Until recently, both parties largely avoided criticizing the wealthy corporate elites that funded their campaigns," Reich explains. "In nature as in politics, one does not bite the hands that feed. Trump Republicans have instead aimed populist fury at immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, Black and Latino people, 'communists,' Muslims, so-called 'woke' leaders, 'coastal elites,' 'childless cat ladies,' and other scapegoats. Democrats — with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders, AOC, and a few others — have also avoided criticizing wealthy corporate elites, aiming populist fury at Trump."

Reich continues, "This may be changing. It's becoming obvious to much of America that giant corporations have been raking it in while workers have been taking it on the chin."

AI, according to Reich, "may well be the final tipping point" for Americans who are frustrated with "corporate elites."

"As of mid-2026, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the total economy going to workers as wages fell to a record low of 52.9 percent (down from above 65 percent when tracking began in 1947) — leaving the rest to investors, business owners, and corporate profits," Reich writes. "AI is on the way to causing far more inequality — generating billions for its backers while reducing jobs and wages."

Reich adds, "Trump and his regime, meanwhile, have exposed the greed, venality, cupidity, and corruption of America's wealthy corporate elites by allowing them to do anything they want — including energy-guzzling, water-depleting AI data centers — as long as they kiss his assets by funding his PAC, paying for his ballroom, and singing his praises … Because of Trump, Americans are coming to view those wealthy corporate elites as more aligned with Republicans than with Democrats."

WSJ analysis proves it: MAGA is the party of socialism

On Friday, a new report by the Wall Street Journal revealed that the MAGA movement has embraced the very “socialist” policies for which President Donald Trump attacks his Democratic opponents. According to the Journal’s chief economic commentator, Greg Ip, MAGA’s “disdain for capitalism and centrism” has it looking more “socialist” by the day.

Ip raises the example of Vice President JD Vance, who dismissed Milton Friedman during an interview in June as irrelevant “in a world where globalized liberalism has become the sort of status quo of American elites." This sort of statement is a far cry from traditional free market Republican economics. According to Ip, such thinking tracks with the “Horseshoe theory,” in which “the similarities between communism and fascism” begin to overlap to the point where they are almost indistinguishable. Like the “communists” and Democratic socialists the president so often rants about, writes Ip, Trump, Vance, and other MAGA figures “disdain free markets and globalization while embracing big, coercive government" and "are obsessed with identity."

According to Ip, these ideas began to shape the Republican Party in 2016 “with Trump’s populist takeover of the Republican Party. ‘Trump has re-educated, or mis-educated a lot of Republican voters into thinking everything is rigged. It’s how Bernie Sanders thinks about the economy,’ said Andy Laperriere, policy analyst at Piper Sandler. ‘The foreigners, the big companies, the system, whatever, is ripping us off.’ Laperriere noted that many ideas that originated on the left now command considerable backing from Republicans. Limiting drug increases to the rate of inflation, banning large investors from buying single-family homes, raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and capping credit-card interest rates at 10 percent all command support of around 70 percent or more, according to polls.”

Ip argues that Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) – long the standard bearer for American socialist politics – “have a lot in common.” Ip writes that “Sanders wanted to nationalize oil companies in the 1970s and proposes 50 percent state ownership of AI companies now. Trump used to call for seizing Middle Eastern oil or being paid to defend it, and just grabbed control of a chunk of Venezuela’s reserves. He has taken stakes in numerous companies and discussed doing the same with AI.”

And when it comes to moving MAGA’s identity away from the broader tolerance typical of centrism, says Ip, “Vance has gone further than Trump in arguing that religion and national origin, not an idea, are the basis of American identity. ‘We cannot rebuild Western civilization, we cannot rebuild the United States of America or Europe, by letting millions and millions of unvetted illegal migrants come into our country,’ he told a conservative audience in early 2025. Vance has also led the charge against Republican economic orthodoxy.”

While MAGA may be increasingly socialist, Ip argues that it will never merge with Democratic socialists because “they may agree that identity matters, but disagree vehemently on why.” Most of the president’s policies simply don’t resonate beyond MAGA. As Ip notes, “Outside of his core base, support for Trump’s handling of the economy and immigration have plummeted.”

Trump just made a 'stunning admission' about his MAGA media manipulation plan

On Sunday, President Donald Trump made a “stunning admission” that revealed his media manipulation plans. Few seemed to notice it, but according to political analyst Dan Pfeiffer — former senior advisor to President Barack Obama — Trump’s “confession” not only exposed his intentions, but should be recognized as a “warning sign for democracy.”

As Pfeiffer explains, following the death of Lindsey Graham, Trump made a series of calls to Sunday news programs to discuss the departed Senator. Then while talking with Jake Tapper for CNN, Trump let something slip in what Pfeiffer calls a “stunning exchange.”

“I know you don't want to talk about any other issues out of respect for Lindsey Graham,” said Tapper, “but we would love to have you back sometime because I do have a lot of other questions.”

“Sure,” responded Trump. “We're trying to have CNN go on a normal path.”

“I’m on the normal path right here, sir,” Tapper replied.

“Good,” said Trump. “You are.”

“Think about this for a minute,” writes Pfeiffer. “Trump says ‘WE are trying to get CNN to go down a normal path.’ He is admitting on live television that the FCC’s approval of Paramount Skydance’s acquisition was part of a corrupt plan to make CNN more MAGA-friendly.”

As Pfeiffer explains, “David Ellison, the pro-Trump billionaire who owns Paramount, reportedly made promises to Trump to change CNN’s news coverage and on-air lineup. And this is exactly what Ellison did when he acquired CBS News. He installed Bari Weiss, a conservative opinion journalist with no TV news experience, to oversee the network. Weiss and Ellison immediately began gutting 60 Minutes, the news program that has been most at odds with Trump over the years. It seems like CNN is the next media outlet in line for a billionaire-funded MAGA makeover.”

In Pfeiffer’s estimation, “Trump’s blatant admission shows just how aggressive the right is being to remake the media in their image. It’s a warning sign for democracy, and it’s a call to arms for Democrats to get their s–– together and start fighting fire with fire.”

Shortly after Pfeiffer published his thoughts on Tuesday, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) happened to post on the matter, noting, “Larry Ellison spent $45 million to elect Trump…Trump's DOJ approved Ellison's takeover of CNN & CBS. In a democracy, the president does not control the media.” Based on this, Sanders asserts that “state AGs must block the Ellison-led Paramount-Warner Bros. merger.” Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, and the merger would give Ellison carte blanche to shape it as he sees fit. Currently, 12 states are suing to prevent the merger.

GOP senator loses it on Bernie Sanders: 'If I cared about your opinion I’d ask you!'

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) lost it during a confirmation hearing with President Donald Trump's surgeon general nominee, Dr. Casey Means.

Means, a wellness coach and influencer, accomplished her medical degree but never went through a residency program, leading critics to question some of her qualifications. She currently doesn't have an active medical license.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had questions about vaccine policy and studying vaccines.

After Sanders asked his questions, Mullin began with a targeted attack on Sanders.

At one point, he attacked Sanders for supporting the Affordable Care Act, which Mullin claimed was no longer affordable.

"No, I support a national healthcare program which would cut the —" Sanders said shouting over Mullin.

"I'm sorry, it's my time," Mullin said as Sanders talked over him.

"But you're attacking me!" Sanders exclaimed.

"Nah, I'm pointing' out facts!" Mullin yelled back. "You can say what you want I'm just pointing' out facts."

"No. You're pointing out lies," said Sanders.

Mullin went off on a bit more in his speech before saying, "I'm sorry, I ranted too long."

"Yes you did," Sanders quipped.

That's when Mullin lost it.

"I'm sorry, I didn't ask your opinion on that. If I cared about your opinion I would ask you. But I don't care about your opinion. You're part of the system. You're part of the problem," Mullin raged.

"You've been sittin' here longer than I've even been alive!" Mullin continued.

Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. Before that he was elected to the U.S. House in 1991. Mullin was born in 1977.

"This is your problem!" Mullin said. "You should have fixed this a long time ago. You've been railing' on it so long, what have you been doing?"

"I decided not to run for Surgeon General," Sanders quipped, moving back to speak to the witness.

"That is something we'd never accept," said Mullin.

The 'cowardly' truth exposed as Republicans run and hide from critics

A growing number of Republicans are declining to take part in debates against their midterm opponents, and as one campaign communications veteran wrote for MS NOW, there is a "cowardly" truth that they are actually hiding from.

Symone Sanders-Townsend is an MS NOW host and contributor who also previously worked as a political strategist and national press secretary for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, as well as a White House spokesperson and senior advisor for former Vice President Kamala Harris. In a new piece published Sunday morning, she detailed the growing trend of Republicans ducking out of planned debates against their Democratic opponents.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, she noted, has taken part in election debates throughout his time in politics. Now, however, as polls show his current opponent, Gina Hinojosa, gaining on him, he suddenly "decided a debate is unnecessary," prompting Hinojosa to hold an event outside the governor's mansion. Elsewhere in Texas, GOP Senate candidate Ken Paxton has declined to debate his increasingly popular opponent, James Talarico.

"In Florida, Republican Sen. Ashley Moody has declined to debate Angie Nixon," Sanders-Townsend wrote. "In Mississippi, Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith said there’s 'no point' in debating Democratic nominee Scott Colom. Why are so many Republicans making the same decision in the same election cycle?... I have some thoughts."

Sanders-Townsend highlighted her own past experience working as "deputy communications director for the Democratic nominee for governor in Nebraska" in the 2014 midterms, which she said were anything but a "pleasant" time to be a Democratic candidate. Republicans had successfully turned President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act into a heated political issue, making it "difficult to keep the conversation focused on the issues we wanted to discuss" when the conversation would invariably get wrenched towards taking Democrats to task for the ACA.

Now, the tables are turned, she argued, and Republicans are running scared at the prospect of having to answer for their capitulation to President Donald Trump and his toxic agenda.

"That is the political environment I recognize today, except Republicans are now being asked to defend the president’s agenda," Sanders-Townsend wrote. "Donald Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs, raising costs for American businesses and consumers. Then came his war of choice in Iran. Gas and diesel prices climbed, raising costs for households and businesses. And Americans are still waiting for a clear explanation of how this war will end. Where were Republicans in Congress?"

She added later: "A debate means explaining those choices — or why you didn’t challenge them — while someone a few feet away questions your answer. I can understand why a campaign might not want that. But refusing to face those questions is cowardly... A politician who treats difficult questions as optional is telling us how they understand the power they hold. Perhaps the most revealing thing about these Republicans isn’t what they might say on a debate stage. It’s what they believe they no longer have to explain."

The old order is dying as America faces a full-blown political reckoning

“The old order is dying and the new cannot yet be born; in this interregnum, monsters appear.” —paraphrase of Italian anti-fascist Antonio Gramsci

While Hakeem Jeffries revealed, as he trash-talked Medicare for All, that he doesn’t believe we’re in a full-blown populist moment in America, Trump, Bannon, and the neofascist tech bros and billionaires fully realize what’s going on — and are committed to making the most of it. As are Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, El-Sayed and hundreds of other Democratic candidates this year.

At its core, populism is a way of understanding politics as a struggle between ordinary people and a powerful elite that has stopped serving them. It’s not inherently left- or right-wing; it’s really a way political scientists describe a moment when the majority of a population has lost faith in the existing system and is looking for alternatives to it.

Arguably, the greatest failure of government in the past century was the Republican Great Depression, kicked off by Herbert Hoover with GOP tax cuts and tariffs in 1929 and lasting largely through the end of World War II. It created a populist moment that brought to power a Bernie-like populist in America named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It also brought to power a Trump-like populist in Germany named Adolf Hitler.

Because populist moments or eras typically evolve out of desperation — a third of Americans and Germans were unemployed in the 1930s — they open the door to people who offer solutions that radically depart from the norm. Breaking the old model and replacing it with a new one, in fact, is the essence of that populist pitch, be it coming from the fascist or the democratic socialist side.

And make no mistake: America is now being pulled in both directions by powerful movements from both sides. A recent Pew poll found that while almost 90 percent of Americans trusted our government to “do the right thing” for them in the Eisenhower/Kennedy 1960s, today that number sits at a shocking 17 percent.

The ground for a major, wrenching transformation of America has been seeded and the neofascist movement — which figured it out first — has, for the moment, captured control of our federal government along with about half of our states. But there’s also massive progressive pushback and dissatisfaction that, if anything, is amplifying the widespread populist sentiment.

So, which side will prevail?

The creation story of this moment is found when Reagan’s campaign cut a deal with the Iranian mullahs to hold onto their American hostages until after the election of 1980, thus destroying President Jimmy Carter’s chance at reelection. Reagan immediately began to execute a neofascist vision that had been presented to him by the billionaires who funded the Heritage Foundation with their 1981 “Mandate for Leadership,” that era’s version of Project 2025.

He destroyed the American union movement, slashed wages for working class people gutting the middle class, made it harder to retire on Social Security, made deep cuts to FDR’s social safety net, ended free college, killed Carter’s solar energy programs, gave trillions of tax dollars to billionaires while raising taxes on working people, slashed funding for our public schools, and repeatedly blamed the nation’s problems on Black people and “elites” in our universities.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton picked up Reagan’s neoliberal mantel and brought us “the end of the era of big government” and “the end of welfare as we know it” as Reagan’s draconian tax cuts — which no Democratic president since has seriously challenged — began the modern explosion of billionaires and monopolistic corporations.

President Obama, although he campaigned on the populist-sounding slogan of “hope and change,” continued the neoliberal plan, turning our healthcare system over to a handful of massive insurance companies and their billionaire executives.

Forty-five years of neoliberalism, as I document in detail in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America, have taken us from two-thirds of us being in the middle class with a single paycheck in 1981 down to a mere 41 percent of us claiming that status and having to have two full-time jobs to do it today.

Like the Republican Great Depression devastated average voters, so has this failed neoliberal experiment, bringing us to this second modern populist moment.

On the neofascist side, there’s a populist movement initially led by tech and fossil fuel billionaires that’s been joined by the over 200 billionaire families and foundations who spent nearly one in five of all dollars used in the 2024 election.

They’re aided daily in their efforts by propaganda operations run by Vladimir Putin (internet trolls), Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, and Benjamin Netanyahu (AIPAC), all committed to spreading strongman ethnonationalist movements across the world at the expense of democracy. And, of course, Donald Trump and his seizure of our federal government and police agencies.

Their most compelling weapon is their control of most of our media, particularly the powerful social media sites Facebook and X. As Peter Theil wrote in 2010, quoted in the opening of Gil Durand’s brilliant new book The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy:

“The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically overturn the monetary system of the world… the basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority… But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world—without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who were never going to agree with you—through technological means… technology is this incredible alternative to politics.”

On the side that still embraces democracy, the populist progressive movement has been led by Bernie Sanders for decades, although that mantle is increasingly being picked up across the Democratic Party as politicians recognized over the past decade this populist moment.

Multiple polls from 2016 showed that Bernie Sanders could’ve easily beat Trump, if the Democratic Party machine and the big donors Bill Clinton brought along hadn’t sabotaged Sanders. It was verified by Politifact. Populist voters were ready to elect a populist in that election, and the only one offered them was Trump.

They rejected the neoliberalism of Reagan and the Clintons alike, and those who vote for Democrats are clearly now opting for a reinvention of America along the social democracy lines pioneered by the Scandinavian nations.

In his book I Paid Hitler, 1930s steel baron Fritz Thyssen confesses that he was entranced by populist Hitler’s promise to “resurrect” Germany from the depths of the Depression and its loss in World War I. He organized the first seed money that got Hitler into power in 1933 and brought along many of his fabulously rich peers.

Today’s heir to Hitler’s authoritarian populist mantle is Trump (although Vance and Rubio, among others, are waiting for the king to fail so they can step into the vacuum).

During that same time, the plutocrat and former New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt turned his back on his own class and embraced a Bernie-like populist message, claiming that he could put America back together by taxing the morbidly rich at 90% and using government to meet workers’ needs.

Today’s heirs to FDR’s progressive populist mantle could well be billionaire Illinois Governor JB Pritzker or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (although there are numerous competitors).

On both sides, the message is similar:

“The elites and the government have failed us, feathered their own nests while ignoring us and ours, and they must be overthrown and replaced. We need radical change in the direction of our government and our culture.”

The only difference is that the Republicans are saying they’ll fix things by handing the reins of government to billionaires and the stability of society to armed, masked ICE agents while Democrats are saying we must reverse Reaganism, tax the rich, and use that money to restore our middle class with free healthcare, education, and housing supports.

We’ve been in this populist moment since the middle of the GW Bush administration, although it was a slow boil until the 2016 election. The first indication was Obama winning with a populist message, and the for-sure proof was Trump winning twice on purely populist messages. The Trump movement, however, figured out that this was where America was at long before it occurred to Democrats (other than Bernie), and Biden’s efforts, although valiant, were too little and too late.

So, here we are at this populist moment, and our country faces a binary choice: fascism or democratic socialism.

Republicans are universally lined up on the fascist side, backing Trump and ICE while feeding at the trough of their billionaire donors. That unanimity gives them tremendous power; their only problem is that they’ve failed to deliver for the people and voters know it.

Democrats are split, between those corrupt neoliberals like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and John Fetterman who are deeply in the pockets of corporate and wealthy interests, and a new and growing generation of politicians who often describe themselves as democratic socialists or social democrats.

This schism, a remnant of the Clinton years, is weakening the Democratic Party’s populist appeal as many believe the Perez-style Democrats will prevent the AOC- or Pritzker-style Democrats from actually accomplishing the transition to a social democracy that America needs.

Some doubt that this is the most important election in our lifetime, noting that every cycle we hear that kind of rhetoric. But, given the stakes and the boiling populist energy arrayed on both sides, it’s hard to imagine this isn’t the most critical one since 1932 America and 1933 Germany.

Critics stunned as Trump claims his 'high IQ' is enough to regulate AI

President Donald Trump on Monday slapped down the idea of putting guardrails on artificial intelligence, despite increased warnings from industry insiders and outside experts about the technology’s potential dangers to humanity.

In a Truth Social post, Trump suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.

“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!”

The president then claimed, without offering any details, that his administration had already “stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,’” and then baselessly claimed the nationwide backlash to the technology was part of a vast conspiracy theory in service of the Chinese Communist Party.

“There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China,” Trump wrote. “WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”

Regardless of Trump’s social media rants, there is widespread concern about the impacts of AI across the political spectrum.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, described Trump’s stance on regulating AI as “a fundamental incompetence that places us all in grave danger,” in a Common Dreams op-ed published Monday.

Reacting directly to Trump’s Monday social media post, Sachs told Common Dreams that it was a sign that “we are in the grip of madness and puerility.”

Axios reported on Monday that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will join former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and former Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon on Tuesday for a what is being described as a “Pro-Human Assembly” aimed at highlighting the dangers posed by the continued development of the technology.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), chair of Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Management, announced last week that he is opening a probe into the recent autonomous hack carried out by OpenAI agents, while also examining threats posed by the AI industry as a whole.

Calls to regulate AI have grown over the last week since Coxon announced that he had resigned from his position at AI lab Anthropic because he no longer felt it was possible to safely develop the technology.

In a social media post announcing his resignation, Coxon claimed that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” and accused them of “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”

Trump's Mar-a-Lago neighbors vote for ban that defies the White House

President Donald Trump has said every American should want a data center in their town. But his home county in Florida just voted to block them.

In a 6-0 vote, commissioners in Palm Beach County—home to the president’s luxurious private club and second residence, Mar-a-Lago—voted to enact a one-year moratorium on the construction of new “large-scale” data centers that use at least 50 megawatts of power.

The moratorium, approved on Thursday, came after Palm Beach residents expressed concerns shared by Americans around the country who’ve seen data centers move into their communities. Palm Beach already has some smaller data centers. But in July, it rejected a proposal for the 600MW Project Tango, following warnings about its potential effects on local wetlands and on families’ pocketbooks.

“Many communities want the economic benefits that data centers bring, but we all fear the higher power bills, the negative environmental impact, disruptive noise, and the depletion of water resources,” explained one supporter of the moratorium at a county commission meeting on Thursday, according to the local ABC affiliate.

A poll conducted last month by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro found that 75% of Americans now oppose the building of AI data centers in their area, including 61% who registered strong opposition. Aversion to data centers crosses party lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents viewing them negatively.

As AI companies spend tens of millions bankrolling Trump and Republican candidates, members of the president’s Cabinet, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have scoffed at Americans’ concerns about the tremendous water and energy use of data centers, which have been well documented as jacking up utility prices.

In a social media post last month, Trump himself said the only reason communities would not want a data center nearby is if they “want to end up being backwards and poor.” Before that, he said that “smart communities” were “begging for them.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has become one of Capitol Hill’s leading critics of data centers and the artificial intelligence models they power, has said that if Trump truly finds data centers so desirable, he should “lead by example” by having his friend and megadonor, tech billionaire Elon Musk, build one at Mar-a-Lago.

“Trump says communities that oppose data centers will end up ‘backwards’ and ‘poor,’” Sanders remarked Friday on social media. “Yesterday, Mar-a-Lago’s own Palm Beach County passed a year-long ban on these facilities.”

“Maybe,” the senator said, “Trump’s neighbors know something he doesn’t.”

The Trump trap —and how his billionaire buddies just exposed a dark truth

Last week, the unlikely duo of Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon keynoted a Washington conference to demand a stop to AI, its data centers, and the risks AI poses to jobs and even to the human species.

Notably, both lambasted the corporate oligarchs behind AI.

The most potent force in American politics is anti-establishment fury at a system seen as rigged against average working people. AI has become Exhibit A.

Until recently both parties largely avoided criticizing the wealthy corporate elites that funded their campaigns. In nature as in politics, one does not bite the hands that feed.

Trump Republicans have instead aimed populist fury at immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, Black and Latino people, “communists,” Muslims, so-called “woke” leaders, “coastal elites,” “childless cat ladies,” and other scapegoats.

Democrats — with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders, AOC, and a few others — have also avoided criticizing wealthy corporate elites, aiming populist fury at Trump.

This may be changing.

It’s becoming obvious to much of America that giant corporations have been raking it in while workers have been taking it on the chin.

As of mid-2026, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the total economy going to workers as wages fell to a record low of 52.9 percent (down from above 65 percent when tracking began in 1947) — leaving the rest to investors, business owners, and corporate profits.

AI is on the way to causing far more inequality — generating billions for its backers while reducing jobs and wages.

Trump and his regime, meanwhile, have exposed the greed, venality, cupidity, and corruption of America’s wealthy corporate elites by allowing them to do anything they want — including energy-guzzling, water-depleting AI data centers — as long as they kiss his assets by funding his PAC, paying for his ballroom, and singing his praises.

Trump has thereby unveiled the truth about corporate America that for years had been hidden behind corporate PR about “corporate social responsibility,” corporate charity, and “trickle-down” economics: The captains of corporate America are willing to throw average working Americans under the bus to make billions more.

Corporate avarice under Trump has become so blatant and corporate America’s contempt for the needs of average Americans so flagrant that most Americans are now catching on. In a recent NBC poll, 54 percent of Americans agreed that “When it comes to politics and society, nothing really matters because powerful people will always do whatever they want.”

AI may well be the final tipping point.

Data centers are unpopular — some 70 percent of the public opposes them. And Americans harbor deep suspicions of AI. Over 60 percent believe AI could destroy humanity (this includes 60 percent of Trump supporters).

Fears about AI are provoking larger concerns about wealthy corporate elites bribing politicians — not just to get generous subsidies for AI but also to reduce the corporate elite’s tax bills, kill off unions, slash social safety nets, deregulate Wall Street, attain no-bid government contracts, receive exclusive licenses, open tax loopholes, get tariff exemptions, use public lands, and become even bigger monopolies.

Because of Trump, Americans are coming to view those wealthy corporate elites as more aligned with Republicans than with Democrats. According to last week’s Times-Siena poll, when likely voters were asked which party the word “elitist” describes, 43 percent said Republicans while 33 percent said Democrats.

This is something of a return to how America’s two major political parties used to be viewed. Before World War II, Democrats were assumed to be on the side of working people against wealthy corporate elites. On the eve of his 1936 reelection, FDR told the American people they were fighting “business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, war profiteering …. We now know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government organized by the mob.”

Will Democrats seize the moment and embrace the new AI-fueled economic populism? Or will they continue to succumb to the siren song of big money?

According to Politico, some Democratic political consultants are quietly urging candidates in the toughest battleground races to stay mum on AI “over fears that powerful and well-resourced pro-AI interest groups could spend money pummeling them in the final weeks of the midterms.”

It’s not just the future of the Democratic Party that’s at stake; it’s the future of America.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

‘They’ve forgotten us’: Trump hit with reality of his working-class support

In 2016 and 2024, working-class voters played a crucial role in Donald Trump's victories over Democrats. Trump, both years, successfully convinced many voters that Democrats were out of touch with blue-collar Americans. But according to Politico reporters Erin Doherty and Anna Wiederkehr, both of the United States' two major political parties have a big problem with working-class voters in the 2026 midterms — which are a little over two months away.

Doherty and Wiederkehr stress that although "Republicans and Democrats are fighting over working-class voters," Americans "don't believe the rhetoric" — and a poll conducted by Politico in August underscores that distrust.

"Republicans and Democrats are fighting over working-class voters," the Politico journalists explains. "Americans don't believe the rhetoric. Fifty-five percent of Americans think politicians are just trying to win votes when they say they will help the working class, according to new results from The Politico Poll. It's a view held by majorities of people who voted for President Donald Trump, who voted for Kamala Harris and who self-identify as working class. Only one in four Americans who self-identify as working-class say politicians genuinely want to help them."

Doherty and Wiederkehr add, "That wariness comes as both parties increasingly see working-class voters as key to their winning coalitions. But The Politico Poll results show both parties face serious challenges to doing so. Neither party does particularly well with Americans who identify as working class: 38 percent of them say Democrats best represent them, while 32 percent say Republicans. Americans, broadly, are almost identically split, with a 37 percent plurality saying Democrats best represent the interests of the working class, while 30 percent say Republicans."

Democrats, according to Doherty and Wiederkehr, are "wrestling with how to win back voters who have drifted toward the GOP" — and are debating "which wing of the party, progressives or moderates, best speaks to" working-class voters.

Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way (a centrist Democratic think tank), told Politico, "We've struggled with the working class for quite a while and it's been a combination of being out of touch with working-class values on a lot of culture issues and being seen as either not helpful or not helpful enough on economic issues."

But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is doubling down on his progressive message.

Sanders told Politico, "It is not just traditional Democrats or independents. There are a lot of working-class Republicans who understand that there's something wrong when we are the only major nation on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people."

Meanwhile, conservative former Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) acknowledges that Trump, ahead of the midterms, has a problem with working-class voters.

Renacci told Politico, "With the (Iran) war, with gas prices, with cost of food, the working class is not happy with the president, and many who are independents and even some Republicans have said that he's forgotten about them."

Republicans are turning on Trump’s plan to fix Social Security

One of the reasons I write this letter to you each day is to arm you with the facts and analyses you need to respond to the garbage coming out of Trump’s Republican Party.

Today I want to talk to you about Social Security.

The trustees of Social Security — of which yours truly was once a member — say the program will be able to pay full benefits only until 2033. After that, Social Security will be able to dole out only roughly 77 percent of benefits due.

This summer, Ohio’s Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren in proposing to raise the payroll tax cap so people with higher incomes pay more into the program.

Fairly suddenly, the idea is emerging as an acceptable fix among other GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma), the influential chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

Cole thinks the political blowback from Social Security benefit cuts would be far worse than a comprehensive solution that includes raising taxes.

It’s another example of Republicans deserting Trump, who thinks the “fix” for Social Security is to repeal taxes on Social Security benefits. Trump’s fix will not save Social Security. In fact, quite the opposite. Without the revenue from Social Security taxes, the Social Security trust fund will run out of money even sooner.

I’m encouraged by what looks like the start of a Republican turnaround on this. Not only are Republicans deserting Trump, but they’re beginning — just beginning — to become sensitive to what average voters need and want.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the reason Social Security is running out of money is not because so many boomers are retiring.

The Social Security trustees anticipated the boom in boomer retirements. This is why Social Security was amended back in 1983, to gradually increase the age for collecting full retirement benefits from 65 to 67. That change is helping finance the boomers’ retirement.

The real reason Social Security is running out of money is something the trustees never anticipated: how much of the nation’s total income is going to the top.

A big part of the American working population today is earning less than the Social Security trustees anticipated years ago — reducing revenue flowing into the program.

Had the pay of American workers kept up with the trend decades ago — as well as their growing productivity — their Social Security payments would have kept the program flush.

But a much larger chunk of the nation’s total income is now going to the top compared to decades ago.

Yet income subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped. No dollar of earnings above the cap is taxed. The cap in 2026 is $184,500.

So, as the rich have become far richer, more and more of the nation’s total income has escaped the Social Security payroll tax.

A CEO earning $20 million a year pays Social Security taxes on roughly 1 percent of their income, while a worker earning under the cap pays Social Security taxes on 100 percent of their income.

They both end up paying the same amount of money into the program. This isn’t fair.

The rise in the amount of income above the cap due to inequality has cost the Social Security Trust Fund reserve more than $1.4 trillion since 1983.

The solution is obvious: scrap the cap and make the rich pay more in Social Security taxes.

One plan introduced by Democrats in Congress would eliminate the cap on earnings over $250,000 and also subject investment income to Social Security taxes.

It’s estimated that this would extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years without raising taxes on 93 percent of American households.

Bottom line: Trump’s plan will destroy Social Security.

The Democrats’ plan will save it — and do so fairly. Remarkably, Republicans are coming around to this plan.

If we want to ensure Social Security’s long-term future, and that working people can retire with dignity, we must make the wealthy pay their fair share.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.