Progressive Values. Operational Teeth.

Populism is rising for a reason. But if we want real change, we have to build it.

This moment feels like an earthquake.

People have lost their sense of equilibrium. The pandemic upended our society. Inflation eroded household security, interest rates spiked, climate disasters kept arriving, and social trust plummeted.

For many, basic life milestones like homeownership, financial security, and upward mobility no longer seem attainable. The American middle class, once a defining feature of our national identity, is increasingly out of reach. The future seems scary and uncertain.

And we haven’t even gotten to artificial intelligence. Promising faster access to knowledge and extraordinary efficiency, it also threatens to disrupt jobs (blue-collar and white-collar alike) at a scale we’ve never seen. For millions, that’s not a breakthrough. It’s a looming and mysterious threat.

So yes, people are angry and scared. Affordability is top of mind. And they’re understandably filtering everything—politics, culture, identity—through a single, urgent lens: economic survival. Will I be able to put food on the table for my family?

The “system” isn’t working, and populism is moving from the margins to the mainstream—right and left.

I understand why it resonates.

At its core, populism offers a diagnosis that is, in many ways, dead on: the economy is rigged, the political class is captured, and our institutions can't deliver for the people they were built to serve. I agree with that diagnosis.

But diagnosis is not the same as solution.

The Right’s Answer: MAGA

The dominant strain of right-wing populism today is the MAGA movement. It combines nationalism, tribalism, cronyism, and grievance into a potent political identity. It directs real anger into resentment: against immigrants, cities, scientists, journalists, elections, you name it. Instead of trying to repair broken systems, it aims to bend them toward loyalty and control.

MAGA correctly perceives the collapse of institutional trust. But instead of working to restore it, it exploits it. Its policy playbook—tariffs, attacks on higher education, politicization of federal agencies—doesn’t serve the broader economy. It protects an in-group at the expense of national competitiveness, innovation, and fairness.

And the costs are mounting—rising prices, economic isolation, weakening of our research and university ecosystems, erosion of the rule of law. This is not a revival. It’s a predetermined failure, a retreat to a time that felt safe to some, and dangerous to many others.

The Left’s Version – And Its Risk

At the same time, a populist left is gaining energy and visibility. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and now Zohran Mamdani represent a moral energy for a generation deeply disillusioned with incrementalism. They speak with fervor. They organize with purpose. And they are absolutely right that our system favors the wealthy and entrenched.

On a values level, I get it. The system is not working. It rewards capital over labor, hoarding over contribution, and insiders over innovators. We need deep structural reform, not symbolic or piecemeal concessions.

But I worry about the proposed path.

Populism, left or right, can sometimes confuse intensity of moral purpose with effectiveness of execution. And many of the left’s most popular solutions—though well-intentioned—risk making the very problems they aim to solve even worse.

Take blanket rent control. While it aims to protect tenants, it often reduces housing supply, discourages new construction, and fuels long-term displacement. A landmark study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that expanding rent control in San Francisco reduced the city’s rental supply by about 15% and increased market rents by 5.1%. Similarly, a study across 27 U.S. metros—including New York and Los Angeles—found rent-control measures were linked to significant drops in total housing units, especially outside the poorest neighborhoods.

In short: rent caps may offer short-term relief, but they often undermine long-term affordability, quality, and access for everyone else.

Likewise, resistance to permitting and development reforms—often in the name of labor or environmental protection—can delay the very progress we need. In California, for example, 85% of CEQA lawsuits from 2010–2012 were filed by groups with no prior environmental record, often targeting infill housing, bike lanes, or solar projects. On average, such litigation adds 2.5 years to project timelines in major cities.

In San Francisco, housing permits can take over a year, and in some cases, nearly two. Every additional month of delay adds about $4,400 per unit in Washington State, and a two-year delay in New York City can raise costs by $50,000 per unit.

These are not minor bureaucratic hassles. They are real, compounding barriers to affordability, housing supply, and clean energy goals.

When we try to address every concern equally, or all at once, we risk impeding our ability to build. This is a core reason Democrats have struggled to live up to their lofty promises to get absolutely anything done.

There’s A Better Way: Inclusive, Delivery-Driven Reform

The goal isn’t to split the difference between two extremes. It’s to deliver material improvements to people’s lives, fast enough and big enough to matter.

To meet this moment, we need solutions that are both morally ambitious and relentlessly outcome driven. Think of it as progressive vision with operational teeth.

That starts with building more, faster. Housing, clean energy, and public infrastructure aren’t aspirational policy goals, they’re daily essentials. No housing means homelessness. No transmission lines means no clean energy. No reliable transit means communities get left behind. We need to align working people, climate, and affordability goals, not let them stall each other. Everyone deserves an affordable home, clean air, and reliable transit.

Yet we continue to let progress get bogged down by competing interests and endless delays. What matters isn’t how many planning meetings we hold. What matters is: how many homes were built? How many clean megawatts came online? How many people got where they needed to go faster and cheaper?

The Biden administration funded 500,000 EV charging stations, but only about 8,200 were built. That’s less than one in 50 that were promised. Meanwhile, California's high-speed rail has been studied, litigated, and debated for over a decade. But still no trains, no riders. And across the country, well-intentioned policies keep colliding with red tape, blocking desperately needed housing, transit, and energy infrastructure. This is failure – full stop.

We need to change that, starting with clear goals, accountable timelines, and a public sector that’s focused on execution, not just more process. Let’s remove permitting roadblocks, adopt cost-saving technologies faster, and give local governments the tools they need to actually get things done.

Wealth inequality didn’t happen because capitalists suddenly got greedy—they’ve always been greedy. It’s the system that changed: who owns what, how work gets valued, how taxes are structured. As we enter a new era shaped by artificial intelligence and rapid automation, we need to think seriously about what that system should look like. If technology is going to supercharge productivity and growth, we have to ensure those gains don’t just flow to the top. That means reimagining how ownership, opportunity, and value are distributed. How can more people have a stake in the upside of innovation? How can we build models that reward contribution — not just capital? These are the questions we should be asking now, before the gap grows wider. If we get it right, we can build a system that is not only more fair, but more resilient and aligned with the future we’re headed toward.

And finally, we can’t rebuild faith in government without proving that it works. That means treating execution as a first principle rather than an afterthought. And it means giving public institutions the resources and capacity to deliver.

These are just a few examples of what I mean by delivery-driven reform: aligning moral urgency with tangible outcomes. Progressive values. Operational teeth.

We’re Not A Divided Party. We’re A Debating Party.

Some voices, like Dean Phillips, suggest the Democratic coalition is too broad. That we can’t hold both left-wing populists like Mamdani and pragmatic reformers in the same party.

I think that’s ridiculous.

We all essentially want the same thing: a rising tide that actually lifts all boats. An economy that works for everyone, not just for the wealthy or well-connected. A future that replaces easy promises with real answers.

We’re having a necessary conversation right now, about what those answers should be, and how we build them. But let’s be clear: that’s not counterproductive or dangerous. That’s the work. And it’s the only path forward with a shot of restoring faith in the idea that government can still work for people.

Why I’m Speaking Up

I’ve been working on these issues for a long time. I’ve seen what happens when we skip the strategy and go straight to the outrage. We don’t get very far. All hat; no cattle. The people who need change the most are left waiting. I believe real change takes time, discipline, and a willingness to stay in it when the spotlight moves on.

I’ve also worked in the world that helped shape this system. So I understand how tempting it is to wait things out, to trust that the market will rebalance, or that politics will fix itself.

But systems don’t change themselves. People do. They build new things that last: systems, coalitions, institutions, trust. That’s the work that matters. That’s the work I’m committed to.

I suppose I’m writing this to encourage us all to stay focused on the work. If we want better outcomes, we need better execution. And that starts with naming what’s not working and backing the people and ideas that can actually change it. So, over the next few months I’m going to be laser focused on finding, connecting, amplifying, and supporting the people and ideas that can build tangible solutions for Americans.

I don’t have all the answers. But I’ve seen what’s possible when people stay focused and keep showing up.