Why Democrats Are Not Radical Enough: Les Leopold on Jobs, Power, and the Working Class

Labor economist Les Leopold explains why Democrats keep losing working-class voters—and why a federal job guarantee could rebuild economic security and political power.

Why Democrats Are Not Radical Enough

Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.

Podcasts (Video — Audio)

---

Summary

A simple truth emerges: working people want stability, dignity, and power over their economic lives. Yet for decades, the political system has failed to provide it.

The conversation between labor economist and columnist Les Leopold, publisher of Wall Street’s War on Workers Newsletter, and Egberto Willies, publisher of Egberto Off The Record and host of Politics Done Right, reveals a core problem in American politics: Democrats often campaign as the lesser evil against right-wing extremism but rarely present bold economic solutions that directly address the insecurity facing working families. Leopold argues that the political class has accepted an economic system built on wealth extraction, corporate consolidation, and job instability. Unless Democrats champion transformative policies—especially a federal job guarantee—they will continue losing working-class voters.

• Job insecurity drives political anger. Over four decades, automation, trade policies, and corporate consolidation eliminated millions of stable jobs, leaving communities economically devastated.
• Both parties increasingly cater to wealthy interests. Financial deregulation and corporate mergers accelerated after the 1990s as Democrats competed with Republicans for Wall Street support.
• A federal job guarantee could stabilize society. Leopold argues that guaranteeing employment for anyone willing to work would restore dignity and economic security.
• Public frustration with the two-party system is growing. Surveys in key Rust Belt states show strong support for a new independent working-class political movement.
• Economic decline fuels social crises. Communities that lose jobs often face poverty, opioid addiction, and political alienation.

verwhelming: people do not merely want incremental reform. They want security, dignity, and a government willing to confront concentrated wealth. A politics rooted in full employment, labor power, and democratic control of the economy could rebuild faith in democracy while restoring hope in communities left behind.

---

Premium Content (Complimentary)

The central crisis in American politics is not simply ideological polarization. It is economic insecurity. For millions of Americans, the question that dominates everyday life is brutally simple: Will I still have a job tomorrow?

That question—ignored by much of the political establishment—sits at the heart of labor economist Les Leopold’s argument that Democrats are not radical enough. In his analysis and in his recent article, Leopold contends that the party’s reluctance to confront structural economic problems has alienated the very voters it once represented.

For four decades, the American economy has undergone a profound transformation. Stable unionized jobs in manufacturing, mining, and other industries disappeared as corporations pursued global supply chains, automation, and financial speculation. Entire regions of the country were hollowed out.

The Economic Policy Institute documents that union membership in the private sector fell from roughly 35% in the 1950s to around 6% today. This collapse dramatically weakened workers’ bargaining power and contributed to wage stagnation even as productivity soared. Meanwhile, wealth is concentrated at the top. According to the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts, the top 1% now controls roughly one-third of all U.S. wealth.

These structural changes did not simply reshape the economy. They reshaped politics.

Communities that once supported Democratic candidates in overwhelming numbers began drifting away as factories closed and economic insecurity deepened. In county after county across the Midwest and Appalachia, Democratic vote totals declined alongside job losses.

Leopold’s critique is blunt: Democrats frequently talk about opportunity rather than security. Political rhetoric about innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth sounds abstract to people who fear losing their jobs or cannot handle a $400 emergency expense—a reality confirmed by surveys from the Federal Reserve.

What many voters want instead is stability.

That is where the idea of a federal job guarantee enters the conversation.

A job guarantee is not a radical concept historically. Leopold points out that during the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal created programs such as the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps that directly hired millions of Americans to build infrastructure, parks, and public facilities.

Economists and policy scholars have revived similar proposals in recent years. Research from the Levy Economics Institute and scholars such as Pavlina Tcherneva argues that a federal job guarantee could stabilize the economy by ensuring full employment while providing public services—from environmental restoration to community infrastructure.

Leopold’s argument aligns with this tradition. If the private sector fails to provide enough good jobs, the government must step in as an employer of last resort.

Such a policy could address multiple crises simultaneously.

First, it would eliminate involuntary unemployment. Second, it would strengthen workers’ bargaining power by removing the fear of joblessness that employers often exploit. Third, it would rebuild communities devastated by industrial decline.

Critics frequently argue that such programs are unrealistic or too expensive. Yet the United States already spends enormous sums responding to the consequences of economic insecurity—from unemployment benefits to opioid addiction treatment and social services in struggling communities.

The deeper issue is political power.

Leopold argues that both major parties operate within a narrow economic framework shaped by corporate influence. Campaign finance structures and lobbying networks ensure that policies threatening concentrated wealth rarely advance.

Political scientists and media scholars have documented similar dynamics. In The Media Monopoly, journalist Ben Bagdikian warned that concentrated corporate ownership narrows the range of acceptable public debate. When media narratives and political institutions both depend heavily on corporate funding, transformative ideas struggle to gain visibility.

Yet there are signs of change.

Polling increasingly shows strong support for policies once dismissed as radical: universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, stronger labor protections, and aggressive antitrust enforcement.

Young voters in particular show growing interest in economic democracy and labor organizing. The surge of union drives at companies such as Starbucks and Amazon demonstrates a renewed appetite for collective action.

The challenge now is political leadership.

If Democrats want to rebuild their historic alliance with working people, they must offer more than technocratic reforms or incremental improvements. They must articulate a clear vision of economic security: guaranteed employment, shorter workweeks in an age of automation, universal healthcare, and stronger labor rights.

In the richest nation in history, these goals are not utopian. They are achievable policy choices.

The question is not whether the country can afford them.

The question is whether political leaders are willing to confront the economic system that concentrates wealth and power at the top while leaving millions of Americans living one paycheck away from disaster.