The Democratic Party is licking its wounds after a shocking defeat last November. Donald Trump is headed back to the White House despite the heroic campaign of Kamala Harris. Propelling Trump’s win was the working class. 56 % of non-college voters opted for Trump, including large numbers of Black and Latino Americans. The latest issue of the Washington Monthly offers Democrats a potential path back to power. The cover package is titled Ten New Ideas for the Democratic Party to Help the Working Class, and itself. Joining us today to talk about the new issue is Paul Glastris editor-in-chief of the Washington Monthly. Paul was also a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, who led Democrats to victory in 1992. This is part one of our discussion with Paul.
Below is a transcript of the conversation lightly edited for clarity.
Anne: Welcome, Paul.
Paul Glastris: Thanks, great to be here.
Anne: So before we dive into the issue, I want to share a clip from Senator Bernie Sanders. He’s speaking in a post-election interview with Meet the Press. Now, you haven’t always agreed with Senator Sanders, but he seems to share your diagnosis of what went wrong in 2024:
(Bottom line, if you’re an average working person out there, do you really think that the Democratic Party is going to the max, taking on powerful special interests and fighting for you? I think the overwhelming answer is no, and that is what has got to change.)
So in your thinking for this issue, are you coming from the same place that he is? Or do you have a different theory of the case about how to reach the working class?
Paul: In a general sense, yes. In a specific sense, maybe not so much. Senator Sanders is correct that despite Joe Biden and the Democrats doing a lot to win over working-class voters—things that actually benefited them—the needle barely moved.
Over the last 40 years, Washington’s policies have often disadvantaged the working class, and it’s unrealistic to expect that to change in just four years. But even more than policy, Democrats failed to adopt the language and messaging that would resonate with the working class. They didn’t articulate a clear vision of economic fairness tied to the rules and programs they were implementing.
It’s easy to argue that because the working class moved further from Democrats, the policies themselves aren’t politically helpful. While logical, I think that’s wrong. Senator Sanders and I might differ in our preferred mix of programs—he would lean more toward large-scale tax-and-spend safety net programs, while I would emphasize writing rules for the marketplace that have a more direct and immediate impact.
Garrett: Let’s look at some of the examples in this action-packed issue of the Washington Monthly. It’s a set of 10 ideas that you think are key to moving forward. Why don’t you highlight two or three of them?
Paul: One idea we call Medicare Prices for All. In the late 2010s and 2020s, there was a major debate about Medicare for All, which aimed to provide universal healthcare through Medicare. While I believe that idea isn’t viable, Medicare Prices for All is different.
The idea is to tie commercial healthcare rates—what your insurance company pays for procedures and drugs—to Medicare rates. For example, if you have commercial insurance, you’re likely paying 25%, 50%, or even 200% more for a procedure than what Medicare would pay. Employers fund these inflated costs through pre-tax deductions from your paycheck, which means high healthcare costs effectively suppress wages. By tying commercial rates to Medicare rates, every working American would effectively get a raise, with the greatest benefits going to the working class.
Another idea focuses on the self-employed and gig workers, who make up 10–30% of the workforce. These individuals—Uber drivers, contractors, and small business owners—are often excluded from social insurance programs tied to traditional employment, like healthcare, retirement benefits, and unemployment insurance. Democrats barely address this group. For example, the 2024 Democratic platform mentioned workers 52 times, unions 24 times, and the self-employed only once.
Lastly, let’s talk about racial justice in higher education. For decades, liberals focused on increasing minority representation in elite colleges through affirmative action. While some progress was made, these efforts primarily benefited a small percentage of minority students. Meanwhile, the real growth in college attainment for Black and Hispanic students has occurred at regional public universities and community colleges, which are deeply underfunded. Democrats should shift focus to funding these institutions, which serve large numbers of minority and working-class students, rather than elite schools.
Anne: Paul, you were part of Bill Clinton’s administration, which led Democrats out of the political wilderness in 1992. Clinton co-opted parts of the conservative agenda while addressing Democratic shortcomings. Are there lessons Democrats can draw from his approach?
Paul: Absolutely, though we live in different times. Clinton’s policies were tailored to the problems of the 1990s, and while many worked, some—like admitting China into the WTO—had unintended consequences.
Clinton understood that average Americans believed the government wasted their money. He campaigned on reforming government, and his administration made strides in restoring public trust. Today, the challenge isn’t too many bureaucrats; it’s too few. Federal staffing levels haven’t kept pace with government responsibilities, forcing reliance on contractors, which introduces inefficiencies.
Trump’s approach—hacking away at bureaucracy and installing loyalists—is misguided. Democrats need to present a plan for modernizing government that emphasizes efficiency and accountability while addressing today’s challenges.
Stay tuned for part II.
