Monica Potts

The Democrats have picked the right fight to side with the working class.

The late-night host’s travails highlight just how unprotected most of us are in the current free speech wars.

The majority of family farmers aren’t working-class strivers. They’re affluent, politically connected businessmen who know when their next bailout is coming.

The latest divide among the liberals bucking to define the party’s next big campaign: Should they take on the oligarchs, or take their money?

The mid-twentieth-century versions were seen as sociological and fiscal nightmares. It’s time to reimagine and destigmatize the whole idea of public housing.

For the past few years, valuable government programs have helped women gain access to well-paying jobs traditionally held by men. That all changed when this administration took over.

After widening for decades, the gap narrowed thanks to pandemic-era government spending. But now we’re reverting to the status quo.

The party is responding to Trump’s authoritarian abuses with timid messaging that sounds as if it’s been poll-tested to death—because it probably has been.

Remember all of those reasonable, pandemic-era work policies? Poof, they’re all gone. And it’s hurting our entire economy.

Yes, his approval rating is tanking and he’s still trying to shake the Epstein scandal. But he’s been foreshadowing this authoritarian power grab for years—and yet Democrats still weren’t ready for it.

Voters in GOP-controlled states are passing progressive policies at the ballot—only to watch Republican legislators repeal them. Will it change how voters choose candidates?

A recent study highlighted by The New York Times casts doubt on this progressive approach to helping struggling families. But the study is hardly definitive—and we’re missing the bigger picture.

Alas, they love it for all the wrong reasons.

While Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book steered clear of the labor movement, centrist journalist Josh Barro has ignited a debate about whether unions stand in the way of abundance.

If the GOP really cared about meritocracy, they wouldn’t gut programs that help low-income students—especially those who also have a job or care for a child—earn a college degree.

The spending cuts could force many rural hospitals to close. That wouldn’t just be a crisis for rural health care but for rural employment too.

This is the dilemma the Democrats face as the Republicans push to impose onerous hurdles on Medicaid in their budget bill.

The scant polling evidence suggests that corruption is not a decisive factor for voters—yet there is a way for Democrats to leverage the president’s malfeasance in next year’s midterm elections.

Millions of people in the United States provide essential care for children, aging parents, or loved ones with disabilities. It shouldn’t be this hard to make it work.

The way we look after the elderly in this country is broken. But is funneling money into home care enough to solve the problem?