The pendulum has swung once again.
2010’s Progressivism: An Obituary
The progressive movement is dead. Here lies 2010s progressivism. Born from the aftermath of the Great Recession and a decade of Bush-era conservatism, the 2010s progressive movement began to gain traction as millions of Americans watched what they perceived as the bailout of big banks during the Financial Crisis while regular citizens struggled. The souring economy and emergence of reactionary politics led to rival conservative ideologies competing for dominance. Policy objectives are pursuing climate policy, income inequality, racial equity, identity politics, healthcare overhaul, and social justice. Social groups and activist-led movements like Occupy Wall Street, Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, and #MeToo arose from the depths of the Great Recession, fueled by incredible resentment and anger. This is what I argue may eventually refer to this period as the second rise of populism, Neo-populism, or even the beginning of the seventh-party system.
Basic political science teaches us that electoral coalitions and party systems rise and fall, and it has become increasingly clear that we are moving away from the sixth-party system and the neoliberal order into something entirely different. This pivot began in 2016, catalyzed by Bernie Sanders’s attempted hostile takeover of the Democratic Party and Donald Trump’s successful transformation of the Republican Party. The growing popularity of populism and subsequent changes to electoral dynamics reflect the broader political transformation our system is currently undergoing—a shift that seems likely to continue.
All this to say, the progressive movement as a cohesive set of social and political goals has effectively died. Recently, Donald Trump won the presidency again, this time securing the popular vote. Progressive policies and policymakers across the country were defeated. In deep-blue areas like San Francisco, progressive board members lost to moderates; in Los Angeles, progressive district attorney George Gascón was voted out; and the entire nation shifted rightward on many issues. Trump and his rebranding of MAGA as the anti-incumbent reaction to the historically progressive Biden administration capitalized on the nation’s resentment and frustration. As we face this cultural backlash, historical, economic, and political investigations must explore how we got here, why we should have seen the writing on the wall, and how we can move forward.
This is not to say that progressive policies were entirely misguided or failures. Many of these ideas were based on evidence and science that suggested they were the right course of action. I believe that many of these policies were indeed well-conceived and even, in some regards, successful. However, the reality is that progressive policies fell short in implementation, lacked effective communication strategies, or struggled to gain popular support. Whether it was the push for full employment at the risk of inflation, universal healthcare, or progressive police reform, these ideas became politically toxic. This doesn’t even address other socially progressive initiatives like word policing, equity projects, or concepts born out of Ivy League academia that Americans have largely rejected. One particularly illustrative example is that candidates using the term “Latinx” rather than the grammatically correct Latino/Latina have consistently lost political support among Latino communities, something to the tune of 6 points on average
.
Federal policies to raise the minimum wage have been a bust. After failing to pass the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and being held to a 60-vote requirement per the Senate Parliamentarian—-the fight for fifteen is over. The average wages, however, or state-based minimum and average hourly income remain far above the federal minimum. This is not to say I disagree that it should be raised, but that the push for Federal policy mandating higher wages is a dead end. I am sure that Eventually* there will be a Federal minimum wage increase; however, in its current state, this progressive Federal policy is as good as dead. Labor market tightness and low unemployment have kept wages competitive for laborers which produced massive wage increases in sectors like food service and manual labor—-at the cost of higher inflation and higher prices in goods & services.
Movements like Occupy Wall Street managed some successes during the Obama administration—like the Dodd-Frank regulations—but ultimately fell short of meeting citizens’ demands. During the outrage following the 2008 recession, Americans blamed big banks and Wall Street for reckless behavior that led to economic disaster. There was a widespread perception that both Democrats and Republicans handed out bailouts to Wall Street while leaving average Americans to suffer. It’s important to note that during these bailout negotiations, Nancy Pelosi pushed for mortgage relief as part of the stimulus and other social provisions that John Boehner and George W. Bush eventually killed. (For more context, read John Lawrence’s *Arc of Power,* which provides a detailed account of Pelosi’s speakership and key legislative battles.)
Progressive economic policies post-2008, such as social welfare expansion, full employment, industrial policy, and pro-union efforts, were theoretically sound but ultimately unpopular in practice. Social welfare spending surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the United States implementing the most robust stimulus spending in the developed world. Republicans and Democrats alike acted swiftly during the pandemic to pump trillions of dollars into the economy. The U.S. government spent massive amounts on unemployment insurance, direct payments to citizens, and various other initiatives. In total, the United States spent over 5 Trillion dollars.
.
In hindsight, some spending proved unnecessary, with inefficiencies and inequitable distributions arising during implementation. Broader issues like fraud were common, particularly with the Paycheck Protection Program and other forgivable loans taken during the pandemic. The wider context of these decisions was essential: the country was teetering on the brink of a massive recession or depression, and swift action was needed. At the time, these policies were popular but ultimately contributed to inflation. The debate over whether specific types of stimulus spending were necessary or effective remains contentious, but there is now broad consensus that the ARP did not need to be as large as it was. Policies such as expanded unemployment benefits, direct stimulus checks, and the expansion of free food programs for children and families proved to be effective at increasing stability and security for working and lower-class families. Research showed that the child tax credit reduced child poverty dramatically.
While the broader success of these stimulus efforts is evident in the massive economic rebound and growth post-pandemic, public support has lagged. The so-called “booming” economy created an inflationary environment, which became the Achilles’ heel of progressive policy. Americans became increasingly conscious of the cost of everyday goods, such as gas and food, which fueled what I call the “highly visible price phenomenon.” People judged the economy’s health based on what they saw—high gas prices, high egg prices, rent. This rise in the price of food away from home and the cost of services rising dramatically due to labor shortages and higher labor costs further fueled my favorite macroeconomic phenomenon. What I have been telling people is the private taxi for my burrito phenomenon. (cheap delivery during COVID due to low wages, high unemployment, stimulus money, low aggregate demand, negative oil prices, etc, leading to cheap meal delivery. —thus overestimating the inflation rate despite it falling to near-target levels for over a year. I similarly hypothesize that Americans got used to cheap labor fueling economy-wide conditions like 24/7 Walmarts, cheap fast food, and cheap delivery due to an understimulated and subsequent goldilocks economy during the late 2010s. The push for a hot economy and full employment pushing wages up for the lowest quantiles but removing the ability to have these luxuries and cheap goods and services pissed off most American earners who make more than the median. So then, what happened to the progressive push for full employment, for federal spending to juice aggregate demand and higher labor markets at the cost of slightly higher inflation? The answer is a Trump victory and an extremely angry American electorate at inflation. While I 100% agree that the cost of living is too damn high and that inflation was HORRIBLE, it’s far more simple to blame the, unfortunately, timed Biden Administration for the global macroeconomic conditions that created the supply-side & long transitory inflation.
.
Economists often explain these dynamics in complex ways, but they can be illustrated more simply. When you give money to working-class people, that money is more likely to be spent immediately on necessities like groceries, gas, and other basic needs. This spending stimulates the economy faster than tax cuts for the wealthy, whose money is less likely to go directly back into the community. (GOOD THING) The lessons from the social welfare expansions and stimulus policies during COVID-19 are clear: giving direct support to citizens during a crisis helped to stabilize the economy and led to significant growth. However, it also led to inflation—a politically damaging outcome.(Politically damaging is an excellent way of putting it). This idea of improving material conditions for the working class and, in turn, returning them to the Democratic party has been a staple of progressive ideology. This push for progressive materialism—-that is, an improvement in quality of life and material conditions would, in turn, garner political support, turned out to be highly contradictory. People everywhere hate inflation, but the question at hand is, is it worth running an inflationary economy to benefit lower quantiles? The answer in public perception appears to be a resounding now. In the post-inflation world of 2024, incumbent political parties around the globe have been punished.
This disconnect between policy and public perception led to the overwhelmingly negative sentiment that cost the Democrats the 2024 election. Despite targeting working-class people with progressive economic policies, voters’ perception was detachment, misunderstanding, and dissatisfaction. Progressive economic policies effectively reduced unemployment and stimulated growth, yet inflation, exacerbated by supply constraints and demand shocks, became a political death knell. Americans dislike inflation far more than they fear unemployment. Despite the impossibility of the situation, the concept of massive fiscal stimulus in times of crisis is out the window. Politicians who saw the backlash to incumbents due to inflation across the globe will take away that the population would vastly prefer unemployment and cheap burrito delivery to inflation. The saddest component of all of this—aside from the loss of effective governance—- is that politicians will again be fearful of taking massive stimulus efforts during a future crisis. (2008 austerity all over again)
.
Industrial Policy and Populist Promises
One of the most successful facets of progressive policy has been industrial policy. The American heartland and middle class watched manufacturing jobs disappear for decades, largely due to globalization and companies offshoring production to lower-cost countries in Asia and South America. After the Free trade agreements and globalization efforts took these manufacturing jobs away, people suffered. The line of economic thought was that growth and cheaper goods for all would offset the losses in individual jobs. For decades, politicians promised to bring these jobs back. Donald Trump promised to do this with tariffs, but his trade war with China failed, raising consumer prices instead. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when supply chain constraints halted globalization, President Biden and congressional Democrats began pushing progressive industrial policy through initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Despite fears about the productivity and viability of semiconductor manufacturing plants in places like Arizona, these efforts exceeded expectations, helping to restore some of America’s tech dominance. Biden’s industrial policy pumped billions into red states to incentivize manufacturing nationwide, resulting in growth in industries like green energy, electric vehicles, and advanced semiconductors. However, despite the policy’s success, it failed to translate into votes. Voters in red states who directly benefited from these policies still overwhelmingly supported Trump in the 2024 election. Why? Cost-of-living issues—like housing, fuel, and daily expenses—remained at the top of my mind
.
This disconnect between tangible policy benefits and voter loyalty underscores the complexity of American politics today. While Biden’s industrial policy managed to create high-paying jobs and revitalize the manufacturing sector, especially in economically distressed areas, many voters saw their overall quality of life decline due to inflation and rising costs. The immediate pain of paying higher prices for everyday goods outweighed the more abstract, long-term gains in job creation and industrial growth. This failure to effectively communicate and connect the dots between policy successes and personal well-being ultimately led to a backlash. The tone-deaf nature of touting economic success and claiming victory despite evident widespread backlash is a fatal mistake.
To add to the complexity, progressive policies were often criticized for disproportionately benefiting certain states or groups. The CHIPS Act, for instance, funneled billions into semiconductor manufacturing, much of which was concentrated in specific areas. This contributed to the perception that progressive policies favored certain regions while neglecting others. The blue-collar worker in Ohio might have seen the headlines about semiconductor plants opening in Arizona, but if they were still struggling to pay rent or put food on the table, the broader narrative of industrial policy success fell flat. Ultimately, the failure to communicate progressive industrial policy could prove fatal for all the progress made. House Speaker Johnson has spoken about his desire to roll back Biden’s legislative agenda. (Despite the Federal monies going mostly to Republican districts.) The better question of these policies is how can effective economic policies and successful progressive measures communicate these benefits. Were the administration and their progressive economic measures of the 117th Congress’ legislation massively successful, and was inflation an outside factor? How can data show massive improvements and gains in wages and unemployment, yet the popular perception is so negative? Any future progressive must reckon with the popular failures of pushing this administration so far to the left. Americans in data and blind studies support these policies in theory, but where is the disconnect? Equally crucial to effective policy-making is the re-evaluation and communicative stage
Healthcare and Police Reform: Political minefields.
Healthcare reform under progressivism presented both triumphs and setbacks. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a landmark achievement that expanded healthcare access to millions of Americans. Despite its successes, the ACA became a political liability, leading to significant losses for Democrats in the 2010 midterms and continuing to be a target for repeal under subsequent Republican administrations. Incremental improvements to the ACA under Biden’s leadership resulted in record-high enrollments, but these victories were overshadowed by criticisms of rising premiums and the perceived inadequacy of the reforms. Although more Americans have healthcare than ever, the system is still massively flawed. There are so many pervasive institutional failures and issues with American healthcare that it’s unclear what measures won’t break the fragile equilibrium.
Progressives attacking the ACA for not including a public option (despite not understanding the gravity of the original bill) and right-wingers attacking it, claiming it to be big government socialism, badly damaged the healthcare debate. The ACA juggled the massive competition interests of healthcare providers, companies, senators, and so much more. The bill itself was the best possible outcome—-yet this was not enough for progressives who centered the debate on expansion into Medicare for all or some form of universal healthcare. This progressive policy, although seemingly popular, proved to be another political dead end. After the 2016 and 2020 push, the issue has become a total dead end. The concept of universal healthcare is popular, but falls apart as soon as discussion begins about raising taxes to pay for it.
Sixty-two percent respond with universal coverage.
Fifty-five percent oppose the plan.”
Similarly, progressive attempts at police reform failed to garner widespread support. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the systemic inequities within the police force. Yet, popular support for police reform quickly waned, especially around the “Defund the Police” slogan, which many saw as too radical. Distrust in police soared, but so did fears around crime, leading to a conservative backlash in 2024. Ultimately, police remain one of the most famous institutions in the country, and calls for defunding became politically toxic. Progressive police reforms of the 2010s and 2020s have all become one of the most damaging issues for politicians. The fact of the matter is that not only do the majority of Americans support police officers, but most believe more policing is the solution. The out-of-touch nature of 2010’s progressivism highlights the disconnect between wealthy academic progressives and citizens who live in the real world. Again, this is NOT to say that police are all-powerful, unquestionable, and always right, but attempting to discredit a majority-supported institution is a political dead end. Progressives, in their all-knowing genius, believed that by labeling themselves as pro-police abolition or reducing policing, they would support a freer and fairer society—which conveniently ignored the sentiment of people who rely on police as sources of income, for protection, or simply as ensuring community safety. This anti-police and soft-on-crime belief has permeated liberalism for too long and has become toxic to average Americans. It killed Democrats in deep blue areas in 2024 as a full-throated rebuttal of soft-on-crime policy (even if not soft but focused on rehabilitative measures)
Progressive reforms in other areas of criminal justice also failed to gain traction. In California, progressive measures were repealed by overwhelming margins. For instance, a 2024 ballot proposition that reclassified certain petty crimes as felonies received 70% of the vote. People nationwide, particularly in blue states and cities, are fed up with petty crime. The rise of shoplifting and petty crime has led many stores to close or adopt extreme security measures, further alienating the public. The perception that progressive politicians are “soft on crime” has contributed significantly to the backlash we are witnessing now. Citizens across the country are seeing deodorant, toothpaste, and even clothes locked behind glass doors to prevent petty theft. Although VIOLENT crime is down to record lows the perception is completely different. Whether it’s a confabulation of petty theft and violent crime, the outcome is the same—people no longer want the soft-on-crime policies.
The backlash to progressive criminal justice policies can also be seen in how many urban areas have handled homelessness. Progressive approaches to homelessness—focused on rehabilitation and social programs—failed to curb the problem, and cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York faced increasing visibility of the crisis. The perception of lawlessness, rising crime, and urban decay became potent symbols of progressive failure. The promise of rehabilitation was overshadowed by the sight of tent cities, public drug use, and spiraling social services.
The Cultural and Social Backlash
The failure to effectively address crime, homelessness, and immigration further eroded progressive credibility. Homelessness, in particular, became a potent symbol of urban decline under blue-state governance. Progressive approaches to homelessness—focused on rehabilitation and social programs—failed to curb the problem, and cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York faced increasing visibility of the crisis, leading to public backlash. The perception of lawlessness in these cities, coupled with the influx of illegal immigrants, became a political liability, allowing Trump to capitalize on fears around crime, immigration, and urban decay
.
Immigration—particularly illegal immigration—also played a significant role in the shift in public sentiment. As a result of progressive policies, millions of immigrants entered the country, straining already limited resources and adding to the perception of chaos in blue states. Democratic leaders tried to treat immigration as a non-issue, but the public backlash was swift. Republican governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott capitalized on this sentiment by transporting undocumented immigrants to blue states, where cities like New York struggled to accommodate them. The perception that progressive leaders had failed to manage immigration effectively was another nail in the coffin for the movement.
The narrative that progressives were detached from the struggles of everyday Americans was further reinforced by cultural issues. Students protesting in solidarity with Palestinians during the 2024 Israeli-Hamas conflict further alienated many Americans, who viewed them as privileged, out-of-touch activists. Conservative politicians seized upon this moment to criticize the perceived failure of universities to stem anti-Semitic rhetoric, leading to calls for university presidents to resign. While student activists believed they were on the right side of history, they failed to garner mainstream support, and their actions became yet another example of progressive activism losing touch with the average American.
Similar cultural backlash occurred around free speech, gender identity, and race. The rise of what some called “cancel culture” further alienated voters who felt that progressives were too focused on policing language and behavior rather than addressing the material concerns of everyday people. Debates over the use of terms like “Latinx,” pronoun usage, and other socially progressive initiatives that emerged from academia failed to resonate with many Americans, including those who might have otherwise supported economic aspects of the progressive platform. Instead, these issues became fodder for conservative culture warriors who painted progressives as elitist and disconnected. Harris was killed at the ballot box over inflation, immigration, and transgender issues. The Trump team was able to successfully paint Harris as an out-of-touch progressive more focused on social issues like surgery for transgender inmates that caring about the average citizen.
The backlash to progressive cultural policies also came to a head in schools. Debates over curriculum content, critical race theory, LGBTQ+ rights in education, and transgender involvement in sports became lightning rods for controversy. Often frustrated with school closures during the pandemic, parents were increasingly wary of progressive educational policies that they perceived as overreach. Conservative media amplified these concerns, portraying public schools as battlegrounds where progressive ideology was forced onto children. The involvement of transgender athletes in women’s sports became a rallying cry for the right, who argued that it undermined fairness and safety in athletics. This message and claims that Vice President Harris was too focused on social issues became one of the most common themes in voter exit polls during the 2024 election. This narrative resonated with many parents, contributing to an immense cultural pushback against progressive policies.
The Rise and Fall of Progressives
Once a powerful force advocating for social change and economic equity, the progressive movement has faced a significant decline, leaving behind a series of lessons and unfulfilled promises. The story of progressivism in America is complex—woven with elements of economic reform, industrial policy, cultural battles, and political missteps. While the movement’s ideals resonated with many, its eventual downfall reveals crucial lessons about how political messaging, implementation, and public perception interact. Progressivism and the Democratic party are on a lifeline. The movement’s effectiveness has been waning for years and failed to carry Kamala Harris across the finish line. The progressive economics, the progressive social policy, and the citizens looking forward to progress lost—and lost big. Americans voted to return to the 2019 Trump years. Americans are angry about inflation, immigration, social issues like anti-police, soft-on-crime rhetoric, out-of-touch liberal elitists, and all other facets of America. This decline was a strange confluence of factors, but they must reassess and lick their wounds if ever to be vital again.
Ultimately, the progressive movement’s decline was as much about perception and messaging as it was about policy substance. Many progressive initiatives were grounded in sound principles and had the potential to transform the lives of millions for the better. However, the lack of a cohesive message communicating these benefits in simple, relatable terms proved fatal. Americans needed to see how progressive policies would directly improve their lives, and when they failed to make that connection, they turned elsewhere.
While important, the focus on cultural and social issues overshadowed the economic messaging that could have resonated more broadly with voters. Progressives struggled to balance their advocacy for social justice with the bread-and-butter issues of jobs, healthcare, and security. This imbalance allowed conservatives to paint progressives as more concerned with ideology than with the practical needs of the average American family.
Lessons for a Progressive Movement 2: Electric Boogaloo
The rise and fall of the progressive movement in America offer essential lessons for the future of political advocacy and governance. Effective policy must be paired with effective communication, and broad ideals must be translated into tangible benefits voters can see and feel. The movement’s successes in industrial policy and healthcare reform show that progress is possible, but without connecting these victories to voters’ day-to-day experiences, such achievements risk being overlooked.
Progressives must also recognize the importance of prioritizing issues that resonate broadly while finding ways to address cultural concerns that do not alienate potential supporters. A compassionate and practical movement that values both social equity and economic security has the potential to rebuild trust and create lasting change. Progressivism’s future depends on its ability to learn from these past mistakes, refocus its message, and effectively communicate a vision of a better America for all.
The future of any resurgent progressivism lies in a few key facets. Ditch the activist groups who push for Ivy League-sanctioned actions that DO NOT speak for communities themselves. Ditch identity politics—Americans are a part of the greatest melting pot on planet Earth and want equality, not equity. While intellectually preferable, it is incompatible with the general public and their sentiment. Ditch the anti-institutional action and the anti-establishment behaviors; ditch the anti-social behavior. Progressivism cannot be associated with wealthy students throwing tantrums on campuses but must return to its average joe supporting views. Communicating the intent and the effects is equally important as ensuring future policies serve America as a whole, not just the elitist echo chambers of academia and activism.
