On being a Progressive Populist

Operation Hope
1

Progressive populism is about putting people over profit and breaking the stranglehold of corporate elites on our democracy. It’s not about left vs. right—it’s about the many vs. the few. We fight for higher wages, housing justice, and real democracy, not performative politics. We reject division and build coalitions across race and class because the system is rigged against all of us. The establishment wants us fighting each other. We say: fight them instead.

I get why some progressives are uneasy about populism—too often, it’s been hijacked to punch down instead of up. But real progressive populism isn’t about vague anger or scapegoating. It’s about taking power from corporate elites, landlords, and war profiteers and giving it back to the people. That means fighting for economic justice and social equity, rejecting division, and building a movement that serves all of us—not just the ones the establishment finds convenient.

What About Right-Wing Populists?

Strategic alignment with right-wing populists is not about compromising on justice—it’s about forcing real change at the top. If they’re serious about fighting corporate greed, endless wars, and rigged systems, we can work together on shared goals. But let’s be clear: there is no alignment with racism, nationalism, or scapegoating.

  • The fight must be bottom vs. top, not left vs. right.
  • If they defend billionaires while claiming to be anti-elite, call it out.
  • If they demand solidarity on economic issues but refuse to fight for marginalized communities, they aren’t serious about justice.
  • If they reject social justice while claiming to fight for economic justice, they aren’t actually challenging the system—just shifting who gets exploited.

Progressives shouldn’t fear tactical collaboration on economic justice, as long as we hold firm on our values. We don’t compromise on human rights, we don’t excuse bigotry, and we don’t trade justice for short-term wins.

How do we hold our own populist movements accountable?

A progressive populist movement must build in safeguards against the pitfalls of power-hoarding, charismatic leaders without accountability, opaque decision-making, and ideological purity tests.

How do we message to right-wing populists without validating reactionary elements?

Emphasizing economic populism, anti-corruption, and anti-war positions can be effective, but the movement must make it clear that social justice is not an optional add-on, but fundamental to dismantling elite control.

Populism can be powerful, but it’s only worth building if it’s rooted in justice—not just anger. The question is: will we build it the right way?

4 Likes
2

The problem, of course, is in the definitions. What is “left” and what is “right?” It is, as you say, a matter of hierarchy - in that there shouldn’t really be one.

Being a proponent of equal access, for example, is meaningless. This would be the so-called “meritocracy” which claims (without much support) that a person can succeed on something they call merit. The biggest problem with this is that this perspective still accepts poverty and powerlessness as acceptable.

One could, of course, add a second dimension of authoritarian vs liberationist. Then we’d have “left” (whatever the hell that means any more) vs “right” and “authoritarian” vs “liberationist. Or, better, anarchist.” We still don’t have definitions for “right” and “left.” Ok, let’s define “left” as socialist/communist/etc (depending how each of these is defined), and “right” as … what? Capitalist? Feudalist? A few other economic styles? Where do other relationships come in?

This gives us a 2 dimensional cataloguing system of economics on the x-axis and hierarchical relationship on the y-axis.

But we live in a three dimensional universe and so, I think, we need a third axis.

What does this mean for populism? Tune in later when I will have added to my digression (because I may have digressed from Maggie’s treatise discussion).

2 Likes
3

Great points! “Left” and “right” are often unhelpful labels, especially when both major parties operate within a capitalist, hierarchical system that protects elite power. That’s why I frame progressive populism as bottom vs. top instead.

I also agree that “equal access” alone is meaningless if the system remains rigged. Meritocracy itself was coined as satire—Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958) mocked the idea that a society based on “merit” would be fair. Instead, he warned it would create an entrenched elite who believe they deserve their wealth and blame the poor for their own oppression. Ironically, his critique was later twisted into an ideal.

Your multi-dimensional model is interesting—if we add a third axis beyond economics and hierarchy, what should it measure?

  • Material vs. idealist politics? (Pragmatic organizing vs. abstract theory?)
  • Transformative vs. reformist? (Overhauling systems vs. tweaking them?)
  • Collectivist vs. individualist? (Where does autonomy fit in structural change?)

Curious where you take this—how we map power shapes how we fight it.

4 Likes
4

Well articulated and argued. My question is: Is there really a left and right? In a world where the profit interest controls our society can we really say there are two sides to our politics? I’m just a 43/s/hetero/m from Florida. The same people who own the media are the same people who fund the politicians. The only two sides I see are for profit and not for profit.

3 Likes
5

Appreciate that perspective! I’d argue that left vs. right has largely become theater, especially when both major parties serve corporate interests. The same billionaires who own the media also bankroll politicians, ensuring that the debate stays within boundaries that don’t threaten their power.

That’s why I frame it as bottom vs. top, not left vs. right. The real fight is between those who profit from exploitation and those fighting for justice. And like you said—if the system is designed to serve profit above all else, then the real question isn’t which party wins, but how we dismantle corporate control over our democracy.

Would you say the “for profit vs. not for profit” framing is about economic structure, political control, or both?

3 Likes
6

I like where you’re coming from. In a world where everything is for sale it’s possible to achieve power to manipulate and dominate everything just like masters dominate their slaves. How do we dismantle corporate control over democracy? By refusing to be slaves and collectively revolting against our slave masters.
The “for profit vs not for profit” framing is about power.

4 Likes
7

Yes, “we” turned democracy into a rigged marketplace where corporations rule and the rest of us fight for scraps.

Refusing to be slaves is the first step, but resistance without direction is just chaos. We need to envision the future we want—otherwise, we’re just reacting instead of building.

So how do we dismantle corporate control over democracy? By shifting power from elites back to the people:

  • Hitting them where it hurts—organizing unions, launching rent strikes, building worker co-ops, and cutting reliance on monopolies.
  • Disrupting their political game—demanding money out of politics, backing independent movements, and using direct action to make them feel the pressure.
  • Taking back what should be ours—housing, healthcare, and public resources shouldn’t be run for profit. We fight to reclaim them.

But dismantling the system starts with us, too. We all need to do some deconstruction—unlearning how we’ve been conditioned to accept hierarchy, scarcity, and division as inevitable. If we don’t shake that off, we’ll just rebuild the same broken system.

Populism can be powerful, but only if it’s rooted in justice—not just anger. The question is: will we build it the right way?

2 Likes
8

Very well said… To put it a bit more rudimentary:

The recurring theme in both ideologies is JUSTICE…

With LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL!!!

Did I inadvertently come up with a battle cry or call to action…? Hmm…

3 Likes
9

Maggie, I think you make many good points. We know that since the 1970’s , the Supreme Court has made some disastrous decisions. Reducing money in politics will greatly increase the chance of the common good , since ideally the people are the recipients of that good from the structure , the framework of the Constitution ,Amendments , and the Bill of Rights. A cap on individuals , corporations , and lobbyists donations in the election process could make things more equitable. Our populist plank is another tool to achieve a more level playing field . I 'm very happy that TYT is heading in this direction for all people . I am more interested in these policies that cut across the political divide, because ultimately , our goal would be what’s best for most people , rather than the plutocratic , oligarchs few. Jack

4 Likes
10

While I understand and appreciate the value of analyzing these concepts, to reach most people, we should first look at how most people view them, which is pretty two-dimensional, and plug Populism in from there. A good starting point is the Political Compass; then we’ll expand on it. Let’s consider the X-axis (Left and Right) loosely consisting of one’s beliefs on how our population and government should earn and spend its money - think macro level. For example, the Left wants, at varying degrees, systems that create equity and social support. In contrast, the Right, again at different degrees, wants competition and (the illusion of, but I digress) mediocrity… Oops, I mean meritocracy. Then, consider the Y-axis (Authoritarianism and Libertarianism) loosely consisting of one’s beliefs on how much control our government should have over an individual’s freedoms - think micro level. For example, extreme Authoritarianism would say abortion, gay marriage, and trans people should be banned. While extreme Libertarianism would say abortion, gay marriage, and being trans are an individual’s right and must be respected as such. The concept of Populism must, then, add a new dimension to make this a voxel grid, the Z-axis (Elites and The People) loosely consisting of one’s belief in how wealth and power should be distributed. With this, one extreme believes the Elite Class should have the money and control. On the other hand, the other extreme believes The People should have a fair share of the money and that everyone should have equal power.

11

And then the belief that the trillions pulled in by government via taxes should benefit the people more via universal healthcare, paid schooling and school breakfast/ lunches.

On a tangent we do need tax reform and get the message out that the people being elected are not doing us justice in the way OUR money is being managed.

I truly believe that would be a winning message of a progressive populist politician. If the people finally understood that taxes is our money being mismanaged and not benefiting them the way it should we could see a shift in the way people are voting.

A concerted effort must be made to shift the narrative away from words like entitlements and other Right wing manipulation of words, talking points and messaging.

1 Like
12

Appreciate these perspectives—there’s a common thread here: who holds power, how it’s used, and how we take it back.

Jack, you’re right—corporate takeover of democracy has been years in the making. Money drives political decisions, prioritizing donors over the public. To restore a government that serves us, we must end corporate influence, eliminate dark money, and regain control of our elections.

In terms of political frameworks, I recognize the importance of mapping things out, but ultimately, most people are guided by what works or fails them, not ideologies. The true divide lies between those who hoard power and those who suffer because of it.

That’s where taxes come in. People are angry about government spending, not due to a lack of desire for public services, but because they see their tax dollars wasted on wars, corporate subsidies, and handouts for the ultra-rich. The issue isn’t “big government” or “small government”—it’s who the government serves.

When people realize their money is being stolen every day—that they could have healthcare, education, and infrastructure if it weren’t funneled into corruption and greed—they’ll stop voting for the people robbing them. These aren’t entitlements. They’re what we’re owed for the taxes we already pay.

Are we going to keep letting them divide and distract us—or are we finally going to take back what’s ours?

1 Like
13

We’ve been talking about who holds power, how they use it, and how we take it back—but the biggest mistake we can make is letting them dictate how we fight.

Yes, we need to call out corruption, expose rigged systems, and push back against bad policies. But if all we do is react to the latest outrage, we’re stuck in their game, on their terms.

This video lays it out: What are we building? What world are we creating? The more we engage with their distractions, the more we reinforce their power. We cannot let them be the architects of our focus.

Fighting corporate influence, reclaiming public money, and breaking the elite grip on democracy aren’t just about resistance—they’re about construction. We’re not just here to tear down what’s broken. We’re here to build something better.

1 Like
14

from Max at UNFTR in a recent newsletter:

TL;DR: Those in power don’t fight for us because they don’t see our struggles—and when they do, they don’t believe them.

https://www.unftr.com/february-15-2025#:~:text=following%20close%20behind.”-,Max%20Notes,-I’ve%20been%20thinking

My take:

They see cars on the road, cell phones in hands, and full seats at restaurants—and decide that must mean people are fine. They see the surface, not the debt, the medical bills, the paycheck-to-paycheck stress, the decisions between rent and groceries.

That’s why they fight harder for tax cuts for the wealthy than for housing or healthcare. Why even politicians who claim to be on our side hesitate when it comes to poverty relief or safety nets. It’s not just indifference—it’s denial.

Max’s piece makes it clear: they don’t believe you. And if they don’t believe us, they’ll never fight for us.

So what do we do? We stop waiting for them to care. We stop trying to convince them. We build our own power. We force their hand.

Because whether they believe us or not, they will hear us.

2 Likes
15

So from my contemporary Marxist perspective the most important general dichotomy is between the employer class(es) and the employee classes. For me a true democracy is the “one person, one vote, one share” ideal. In fact this does cross many adversarial lines. The on-the-ground MAGA people are undeniably mostly in the employee classes. The same for most of the non-MAGA people whether conservative, liberal, or something else. Most people don’t want war, don’t want poverty for themselves or anyone else, don’t want healthcare and education to be accessible by only a few fortunate people.

Sadly, too many people (on any part of any scale measures) also don’t want have to be responsible to any community - they want someone else to protect them and to keep the “other” away from them. The employer class takes advantage of this by fomenting the fear of the “other” as the cause of all problems. Fear is a terrible force for bad behavior and poor choices.

Another worry is the shift from the well known evil of Capitalism to the encroaching evil of technofeudalism. So where I have used “employer class or class(es)” feel free to replace these with “technoaristocrats” or “cloudalists” (this last is Yanis Veroufakis’ term and it fits!).

2 Likes
16

I appreciate the perspectives shared, yet I want to refocus on what actually moves the needle — the Populist Plank and how we organize around it.

This isn’t about left vs. right labels, ideological purity tests, or theoretical debates. It’s about shifting power back to the people by rallying around policies that the majority of Americans already support.

The Populist Plank isn’t just a wishlist—it’s a strategy:

  • Get Money Out of Politics – Break the corporate chokehold on democracy.
  • Higher Wages – No one should work full-time and still struggle to survive.
  • Paid Family Leave – The U.S. is the only developed country without it.
  • No More Wars – Endless war enriches defense contractors, not the people.
  • Ban Private Equity Firms from Buying Homes – Stop Wall Street landlords from making homeownership impossible.
  • Negotiate All Drug Prices – Because no one should have to ration life-saving medicine.

We already know corporate elites and their political allies will resist these changes—but instead of just diagnosing the problem, we should be asking:

  • How do we build pressure to force these policies into reality?
  • What partnerships and coalitions do we need to make this happen?
  • How do we ensure these policies aren’t abandoned when it’s politically convenient?

Operation Hope isn’t just about talking — it’s about doing. Let’s stop getting sidetracked and start building momentum.

2 Likes
17

We need to employ a mix of grassroots pressure, strategic partnerships, and long-term accountability.

  1. Building Pressure: Turning Public Demand into Political Action
    • Mass Mobilization: Organize protests, strikes, and town halls to show public support. Politicians respond when they see pressure from voters.
    • Direct Action: Call, email, and visit lawmakers. Flood social media with demands for universal healthcare, fair wages, and strong infrastructure.
    • Ballot Initiatives: Push for referendums where possible to let the people vote directly on key policies.
    • Media & Messaging: Reframe the conversation. Make it clear that these policies are about fairness, economic strength, and freedom for working people—not “handouts.”

  2. Building Strong Partnerships & Coalitions

We need a broad, united front that cuts across party lines and unites working people. Key allies include:
• Labor Unions – Support from workers makes policies like universal healthcare and fair wages harder to ignore.
• Small Business Owners – Show how lower healthcare costs and better infrastructure help the economy.
• Healthcare Advocates & Patients’ Rights Groups – Strengthen the demand for universal healthcare and affordable prescriptions.
• Teachers, Parents, & Education Advocates – Push for fully funded schools and fair teacher wages.
• Rural & Urban Alliances – Bridge the divide to show these policies benefit all communities.
• Independent & Third-Party Groups – Avoid overreliance on major parties that abandon policies when convenient.

  1. Ensuring Long-Term Commitment
    • Hold Politicians Accountable: Support candidates who commit to these policies and challenge those who backtrack.
    • Policy Watchdogs: Create independent groups to monitor government spending and expose corruption.
    • Binding Legislation: Push for laws that require funding for healthcare, infrastructure, and education—so they can’t be easily cut.
    • Primary Challenges: If politicians abandon these policies, run or support candidates who won’t.
    • Economic Pressure: Support businesses that back progressive policies and boycott those that fund anti-worker agendas.

Bottom Line: Pressure + Partnerships + Accountability = Real Change.

We don’t wait for politicians to act—we make them.

1 Like
18

Amen , Maggie . Let me and Tony know how we can help. Jack

1 Like
19

So we can be prepared for Wednesday’s meeting, let’s move some of this dicussion here: Endorsements & Outreach Progress – Discussion & Decision Thread

1 Like