The Real Litmus Test for Democratic Presidential Candidates

Supporting a wealth tax.

Wealth tax. (Photo: Getty)

You may not know that I have a crystal ball. It’s true. I can see the future. A year from now, the Democratic primaries for the 2028 presidential election will get going. People will say, “This is the most important election of our lifetimes.” People will say, “We must stop Trumpism, above all.” People will say, “Now is not the time to take a big risk.”

All of this will be true, for whatever it’s worth. Whatever election we are currently facing is indeed the most important election of our lifetimes, due to the fact that it is occurring in the present, the only vector of time over which we are able to exert influence. (If you pay attention, you will notice that 100% of presidential elections are dubbed “the most important election of our lifetimes.”) It is, indeed, important to defeat Trumpism. And, of course, every candidate in the race will declare themselves to be the one to do it. fortunately for those concerned about divisiveness, the least divisive candidate will be, by definition, the one who gets the most votes.

---

---

Yes! My magic crystal ball hath shown me a vision of Gavin Newsom and Mayor Pete and Gretchen Whitmer and Rahm Emanuel and a slew of other Establishment Democrats proposing devastatingly modest policies while saying “Now is not the time to take a big risk,” as kind of stupid political pundits nod their heads. This, my friends, reflects a misapprehension of the risks that we face. The triumph of Trumpism—a word that connotes fascism, oligarchy, and the gutting of democratic elections—is not something that can be prevented by racing to the mathematical middle of polling positions. Instead, it will require changing the substantive material conditions that allowed it to come about. What a concept! And there is no single change more necessary to fighting oligarchy and saving our democracy than making sure that a small handful of people do not have so much money that they effectively control our country. That means, quite simply, reducing the fortunes of the megabillionaires. The greatest “risk” for the Democratic Party in 2028 is not some Clinton-era projection of what Pennsylvania voters believe to be radical; it is the possibility that the already-existing oligarchs might use their power to convince the Democrats not to attack their fortunes even if they win the election.

If this happens, it means that the policy platforms of both parties have been effectively captured by the megabillionaires. Which would mean that we have already lost the most important battle. The greatest danger to democracy is not a single autocrat who practices transactional corruption for rich supporters—it is when the rich fully control both parties in a two-party system, eliminating all political risk to their unchecked power.

You hate Trump. You see the dangerous place our nation is in. You genuinely want to ensure that Democrats win in 2028. Given how bad things are right now, there will probably be multiple candidates in the primary who would seem to be a breath of fresh air. You may look at the Democratic field and be tempted to cast your vote based on, say, whose personality you like the best, or—more pernicious—who you believe to be most appealing to theoretical swing state voters that you have concocted in the corners of your imagination.

Let me suggest to you a much more effective and straightforward litmus test for candidates. It is: Do they support a wealth tax? If they do not, then they are not going to be willing to attack the underlying problem that got us to our troubling position in the first place. Do not cast your presidential vote for any Democrat unwilling to support a wealth tax.

Wealth tax opponents.

This week, Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna unveiled a proposed 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires. This proposal will be cast as “radical” when the primaries roll around. Do the math, and you will see that it is not. It would in fact allow billionaires to retain their status as billionaires and even centibillionaires. A tax of 5% annually is less than the rate of return that billionaires are already earning on their existing assets. Therefore it represents a small drag on their growth rather than a mechanism to reverse it. It can more accurately be characterized as a modest first step. A radical approach would be confiscatory taxes that eliminate the existence of billionaires. (I favor this approach, because it would actually solve the underlying problem. But I would settle for a first step.)

As governor of California, Gavin Newsom has come out strongly against the similar wealth tax proposed for billionaires in his state. Note that politicians may oppose state-level taxes by arguing that the rich will simply flee to another state. A federal wealth tax solves that problem. When Newsom likewise comes out against the national wealth tax, please remember that he is weaseling up new objections to a policy that solves the objections that he raised to the state-level wealth tax.

It is far too early to begin picking and choosing preferred candidates today. We all may find some potential candidates charming and others not. The situation we are in is far too grave to allow yourself to make decisions based on such trivialities. Donald Trump’s tax policies have enriched existing billionaires by hundreds of billions of dollars. It is rational for these billionaires to now spend a great deal of money on political donations to both parties to protect their fortunes. Any Democrat unwilling to advocate some form of wealth tax to begin digging us out of this deep hole of inequality is not worthy of your vote.

It is easy to stand up at a campaign rally and yell “FUCK Donald Trump!” It is much harder, and more meaningful, and requires more bravery, to defy the power of organized money. Don’t get distracted out here.

I know you don’t mean to do this, but if you vote for Democrat who opposes a wealth tax, you are going to be contributing to the long-term worsening of the situation which produced Trumpism. Do not do it. This is the policy litmus test that matters. If voters make it clear that this is a red line that must be respected, it will also put more pressure on candidates inclined to simply sell out to billionaire donors. Democrats who lack real ideology want it to be easy to oppose a wealth tax. Don’t let it be.

The level of extreme wealth currently held by fewer than a thousand billionaires is incompatible with the existence of any kind of true democracy in a nation of 340 million people. These people are happy to allow the class war to fade into the background, subsumed by all of the other political issues that feel pressing. Do not help them.

---

More

• Related reading: The class war is real, the great wealth of billionaires is America’s underlying problem, and we must claw back that wealth before they use it to further monopolize political power. One day we should have a maximum wealth, but in the meantime we have to strengthen organized labor in order to give non-billionaires the power to take your money back. For a longer explanation, I wrote a book about this.

• You can join DSA and organize a union at your workplace, and you should.

• Like many industries, journalism has been gutted over the past decade, primarily because tech billionaires figured out how to suck all the money out of it. Ironic! The publication you are reading right now, How Things Work, is my quixotic little attempt to ignore these macroeconomic trends. This place is able to exist thanks 100% to financial support from readers just like you. I am able to write things here and to go out into the world and report things because people like you choose to become paid subscribers, at $6 a month or $60 for the year. If you can afford to chip in here, I would appreciate it. This is socialist media funding and we can make it work. Rock on.