Living Democracy, Feeding Hope

By Frances Moore Lappé, May 22, 2023 Only with democracy —specifically a living democracy— can we transform our wasteful, destructive food system to ensure everyone’s fair access to healthy, ecologically grown food. "What if we reconceive good eating as not just 'plant-based,' but 'planet-healing'?" asks Lappé. (Photo: harvesturbanfarms.com) Originally Published on Common Dreams , May 22 , 2023 Republished on LA Progressive , May 22, 2023 Planetarian. What’s that?” I am eager to explain. In the late sixties, as I struggled to find my path, Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb had just exploded, admonishing humanity for overpopulating the Earth and creating food scarcity. Soon, several friends even pledged never to have kids. So, I had to know: Was Ehrlich right? I dug in at U.C. Berkeley’s agricultural library with my dad’s slide rule in hand, asking: Is it true that we’re running out of food? No. Emphatically no, I soon learned. We did then—and do now—produce enough food for all. Yet decade after decade we turn abundance into scarcity for too many: Today, 1.3 billion people —1 in 6 of us—lack consistent access to the calories we need. And safe and healthy diets? They’re out of reach for almost 40 percent of humanity, and the crisis is predicted to worsen. Why? Simply put, our world’s gross power inequities—political and economic—are the root cause. As the richest 1 percent control about half the world’s wealth, food policies serve elite interests, not commonsense or our planet’s health. When our dietary habits incorporate environmental, justice, and health awareness as well as animal welfare, might we be "planetarians"? One result? Staggering inefficiency. Humans directly eat only about half the calories we produce. And the other half? While some become biofuel, in the U.S. we devote three-fourths of agricultural land to livestock production. And, of every 100 feed calories that cows eat, we get only three calories back in that burger or steak on our plate. With dairy cows, we get less than half the calories they’re fed. The big picture? Worldwide, almost 80 percent of our agricultural land produces livestock that give us only 18 percent of our calories. Other costs include vast environmental harms: Producing animal foods generates greenhouse gas emissions 10 to 60 times greater than producing plant-based foods. Plus, 60 percent of biodiversity loss worldwide is caused by livestock. Moreover, livestock grazing is responsible for almost 40 percent of global deforestation , worsening the climate and biodiversity crises. Natural historian David Attenborough warns us we are facing the 6th great species extinction , which requires a dietary shift toward plant food. Plus, “industrialized livestock” generate 85 percent of soil erosion, also a major threat. Next, water. Our heating climate diminishes fresh water supplies; yet to produce just one pound of beef we use 1,800 gallons of water . Globally, “animal agriculture” accounts for nearly a fifth of all freshwater use. Here in the U.S. cattle farming uses more than half the water drawn from the Colorado River, for example, even as area’s current water crisis already threatens many farms and puts dozens of fish species at risk. Meat-centered diets also directly damage our health: In 2015, the WHO declared red meat a probable carcinogen and processed meat a carcinogen . In sharp contrast, plant-centered diets have been shown to lower body weight, boost the immune system, and decrease cancer risk, coronary heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes. So, no surprise: A plant-centered diet is associated with “ lower risk of all-cause mortality ” in U.S. adults. It makes no sense. Why would we humans—supposedly the brightest species—actively shrink our food supply? Why? Because the deeper scarcity we’ve failed to address is that of democracy. On political rights and civil liberties, Freedom House—confounded by Eleanor Roosevelt—ranks us way behind nations we think of as peers. The U.S. comes in 59th between Panama and Samoa. Yet, only with democracy can we transform our wasteful, destructive food system to ensure everyone’s fair access to healthy, ecologically grown food. Thus, much of my life energies have gone toward what I call “living democracy” in which we each have both economic and political power. So, how does shifting my diet serve democracy? In nourishing ourselves we make multiple choices daily. That alone gives food special power. With each choice I know I am sending signals back through the food chain for sane, fair use of our Earth. Suddenly, my every bite has delicious purpose. As a vegetarian, I’ve loved knowing I was protecting animals and avoiding massive waste. But now I wonder whether “vegetarian” captures the full impact of such food choices. So, what if we reconceive good eating as not just “plant-based,” but “planet-healing”? When our dietary habits incorporate environmental, justice, and health awareness as well as animal welfare, might we be "planetarians"? I believe that with every step aligning our lives with our deepest truths, we become more convincing to ourselves and thus to others—and more likely to take our next step and the next…with ever greater courage. And that’s exactly what our planet needs now more than ever. So, “planetarian” feels great.

In focusing on Trump’s shocking amorality we risk sliding over a painful truth we must embrace to create the democracy we need and want: His rise is a symptom . Originally Published in Common Dreams , July 8th, 2025. Americans are waking up to President Donald Trump’s assaults on our democracy. In just four years, his documented lies have topped 30,000. He has also broken laws, including his attempts to dismantle  government agencies, his blatant conflicts of interest  with Elon Musk , and his disregarding courts  on a number of fronts. We honor those courageously stepping up to hold Trump accountable—from Indivisible  to Common Cause  to Democracy Forward , and many more citizen-organizing efforts. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images But our appropriate outrage might hide a danger—that in focusing on Trump’s shocking amorality we could slide over a painful truth we must embrace to create the democracy we need and want: His rise is a symptom. Donald Trump was able to triumph because of deep dysfunction long built into our governing structures. While we must resist his actions and work to limit the immediate damage, we must also commit to fighting for an even more democratic future, free of our current limitations. Simply put, some features of our democracy are baked-in   barriers to one-person-one-vote. The Senate , to name one. Wyoming , with a population of just over half a million has the same number of Senate seats as California , home to nearly 40 million. In other words, a voter in Wyoming has almost 68 times greater representation than a voter in much more densely populated California. Our fight can’t merely be against Trump but in pursuit of a positive vision of an America where each of us counts, and we work together building the world we want. And the challenges don’t stop there. Gerrymandering of electoral districts—the redrawing of district lines to favor the party in power—creates unrepresentative legislatures. As a result, one report found Republicans had an advantage of about 16 House seats in 2024’s congressional election. And then, there’s voter suppression as well as the hugely corrupting role of money in politics and the limits of our two-party system . Despite being unfit, Trump rose to power in large measure because our antidemocratic rules have led to deep dissatisfaction with government that he was able to tap. Indeed, it’s been nearly four decades since 60% of us expressed satisfaction with “the way democracy was working.” Since then, approval has tumbled steeply. By early 2023, just 28% of U.S. adults expressed satisfaction with how our democracy is working. And by early 2025 well more than half of Americans—61 percent— remained dissatisfied.   And Americans’ view of our standing in the world? Despite deep doubts about our democracy, interestingly, over half of us still see our country as one of the world’s greatest . One in five even place the us at the top, and only 27% acknowledge there are better democracies. Hmm. Self-perception can be self-deception: In global comparisons we rate shockingly low. Each year, Freedom House, founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, ranks nations by the quality of their political rights and civil liberties—a reasonable measure of democracy. Sadly, the U.S. ranks 57th worldwide, and not even in the ballpark of nations we imagine to be our peers. Almost all European Union nations rank in the top 25. Really? That bad? Yes. So, how do we explain the disconnect? And how might we use this bad news for good? Domestically, we know that there are deep roots to dissatisfaction with our democracy. But it’s not just the structural features named above: At the same time, our extreme economic inequality—deeper than more than 100 nations —means economic stress for most Americans, even as we hold onto the myth that we’re a middle-class country. Still, the myth of American exceptionalism blinds us. Instead, let us heed this truth: Be it a rocky marriage or a sprained ankle, healing starts when we get honest with ourselves—when we stop averting our eyes, making excuses, or just hoping one day it will all go away. Today, as our democracy is diminishing before our eyes; let’s drop these dangerous escapes and choose constructive action. The good news in our sad scores is proof of possibility—hard evidence that we can do better as we learn lessons from the leading democracies. So, let our dissatisfaction fuel determination and bold action. Our fight can’t merely be against Trump but in pursuit of a positive vision of an America where each of us counts, and we work together building the world we want. Democracy is not a dull duty but a thrilling vision and empowering action.

by Frances Moore Lappé, Jan 25, 2024 How can we hope to empower ourselves when we are shackled by the false promises of deregulated capital and exploited by Wall Street greed? (Photo Credit: Daniel Lloyd Blunk-Fernández/ Unsplash) Originally Published  on Common Dreams , Jan 25, 2024 Republished   on  LA Progressive , Jan 26, 2024 The headline of this column makes a big claim, but I’ll go even further. Free-market mythology denies us not only political and economic freedom, but psychological liberty as well. In his 1980 inaugural address, Ronald Reagan declared : “Government is not the solution to our problem: government is the problem.” Soon, in the Reagan White House, neckties sporting an image of 18th century philosopher Adam Smith —oft touted as the founding father of free market ideology—became all the rage. Reagan’s message was clear: Lower taxes, minimize government regulation, cut social programs, and the outcome will be a strong economy with more jobs. With less government intrusion in our lives, we’ll all be free to do better. Unfortunately, Smith’s insights were oversimplified to the point of distortion. His 1776 The Wealth of Nations was used to justify the premise that a society works best when we each act solely in our self-interest. What’s virtually never noted is Smith’s judgment that “subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible…in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.” Free-market mythology prepares the ground for polarization, often at the expense of those already struggling to stay afloat. Contrary to the view that acting for self is only “natural,” Smith noted in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that it is the “ precept of nature to love ourselves only as we love our neighbor . ” And today studies confirm that humans enjoy giving more than receiving. Yet, blind allegiance to a myth that puts innate selfishness at our center still undergirds the almost sacred notion that unimpeded-market competition is not only superior, but natural. For believers in the free-market myth, public involvement in the market is a grievous sin. The consequences are harsh. For one, we are made to doubt the essential, positive role of democratic governance in enabling and protecting widespread economic prosperity, as well as in achieving many essential public goods—from healthcare and education to environmental protection. Market mythology ignores the fact that all markets have rules, even if unwritten. In a capitalist market like ours, what is the unspoken “rule”? It’s simple: The more you have, the more you accrue. The pursuit of wealth thus becomes not merely a means to an end, but the end—the sole aim justifying personal enrichment at the expense of others. The result is wealth inequality in the United States that does not comport with our self-image as a beacon of fairness. Of 200 countries ranked from the most extreme wealth inequality, we come in 28th from the worst, between Peru and El Salvador. Here, the top 1 percent control about a third of household wealth, the bottom 50 percent—over 165 million Americans—control a meager 2.5 percent . Moreover, such a market ensures tightening corporate power, undermining the very competition touted as a prime goal. Between 1985 and 2017, yearly corporate mergers jumped almost sevenfold. So today the top five healthcare companies enjoy 99.4 percent of market revenue. Three companies control over 94 percent of carbonated soft drinks. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo alone account for 69 percent of the retail market. The harms from such concentrated wealth show up in citizens unable to afford decent housing as well as in deprivation of essential public goods. No surprise, therefore, that in both access and outcomes, our healthcare ranks last among “high-income countries.” Sadly, market mythology also leads to self-blame. Once swallowing the myth that—regardless of circumstance, anyone in America can make it if they work hard—self-doubt and shame become unavoidable. And that’s a big problem for any society. Shame is among the most painful of human emotions, which we often fight by seeking others to blame. Maybe it’s immigrants who will take our jobs. Maybe it’s those liberals who want to reward the lazy. In any case, free-market mythology prepares the ground for polarization, often at the expense of those already struggling to stay afloat. Thus, to build a strong democratic culture, let us challenge the pernicious mythology of a “free market” purporting fairness but thwarting opportunity. How? We can start by facing the sad truth that the United States ranks 60th among the world’s nations in political rights and civil liberties, between Panama and Samoa, according to Freedom House—co-founded by Eleanor Roosevelt. And, as we have in the past, we can create rules that break up monopoly power and strengthen the labor movement. We can expand social services to right the shortcomings of the “free market” and bring us closer to the standards of our peer nations. Once debunking disempowering free-market myths, we are free to embrace our empowering, widely shared values—those putting human and environmental wellbeing first.

by Frances Moore Lappé, May 9, 2024 What happened to the middle class in the United States? The rich ate it. (Photo Credit: Giorgio Trovato/Unsplash) Originally Published on Common Dreams , May 09, 2024 Almost 90 percent of us think of ourselves as being “middle class,” but we’re way off. In 1970, 62 percent of Americans did qualify; but by 2021, our shrinking middle class was down to 42 percent . By 2022, the value of our minimum wage has fallen by 40 percent since the late 60s. And our poverty rate? Today, at 12.4 percent, it’s the highest among almost all 38 OECD nations . Only the newest member, Costa Rica, suffers a higher poverty rate. So, how did our view of ourselves become so distorted? We were once indeed primarily middle class because we had stepped up to tackle poverty. In the late 1950s, our official poverty rate was about 22 percent, but Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty cut that rate in half, hitting a low of 11 percent in 1973. Then Reaganism struck, and by 1983 poverty had spread to nearly 15 percent . And now? While our official rate is indeed lower, it is still high and misses millions struggling to meet essential needs. Our path to this sad outcome began in the 1980s. Reversing the War on Poverty, Reagan began dismantling welfare protections while slashing taxes on the ultrarich. Capturing the tenor of the time, in the 1987 film “Wall Street”, Gordon Gekko declared “ greed is good .” Reaganomics paved the way for today’s shocking inequality. In 1978, the top 0.1 percent held roughly 7 percent of wealth. By 2018, this tiny group enjoyed about 18 percent. Most shocking: By 2019, America’s three richest families held more wealth than the bottom half of us. Hardly a middle-class nation, today’s concentration of wealth ought to make a Russian oligarch blush. Out of 178 countries the CIA ranks by income inequality, the U.S. lands between Micronesia and Morocco—at 56th. No industrial democracy is near us. The closest—New Zealand—is 31 places less extreme, at 86th. An additional injustice? While workers’ share of national wealth has been shrinking, their productivity has soared. Between 1979 and 2017, worker productivity grew by 70 percent, while hourly compensation rose by a meager 11 percent. And who benefited? As earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by just over a fifth, the wealth of the top 0.1 percent grew by 343 percent. That's 17 times more! Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that in 2019 the bottom half of us held only 2 percent of the nation’s wealth. Moreover, while American workers had to take on more hours to boost their relatively stagnant earnings and as healthcare and housing costs climbed, the wealthy increased their gains and used it to further warp our nation’s democratic institutions: By funding candidates and hiring lobbyists to ensure their interests were heard at the expense of ours. From 1998 to 2023 alone, dollars spent paying Washington lobbyists grew almost three-fold, from $1.5 billion to $4.1 billion. Thus, when our rules are set to bring the highest return to those with the most, a market economy not only selectively rewards the already wealthy; it undercuts democracy. The pain of Reaganomics should have taught us one clear lesson. A market economy can only work for the common good within rules set democratically—free from private control—to ensure opportunity for all. The beginning of these rules would be basics such as an enforced, livable minimum wage, as well as strong and enforced anti-trust laws. Such steps could move us toward a market serving the most basic freedom of all—the freedom to thrive.

by Frances Moore Lappé, June 14, 2024 (Photo Credit: History in HD/Unsplash) Originally published on Common Dreams , June 14, 2024 It’s easy to seek relief from fear of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s return by imagining that soon his outrages will stack so high that even loyal supporters will begin to fall away. If 34 felony indictments from falsifying business records didn’t crack the spell, surely recent news of Trump’s stunning record of business failure will feed doubt about the man’s judgment. Right? Hmm. Maybe not. Yes, it’s true that Trump is now the first U.S. president to be tried and convicted of crimes. Yet, almost half of Americans believe these charges are politically motivated, and thus unjust. Only about a third disagree . So, as we face one of the most critical elections in our nation’s history, extreme care is in order. Just how do we reach those still leaning toward Trump, but who might be deterred? Probably not by insulting them, or railing against them in any way. Instead, Democrats could broadcast empathy for the anger animating Trump supporters by condemning the deep unfairness in our economy that makes their lives so difficult and offering real solutions. Too often even progressives let stand the myth of America as a middle-class country, failing to acknowledge that our income inequality is more extreme than in over 100 nations, worse even than El Salvador and Kenya. We can alert and hopefully motivate our fellow Americans by using this sad truth as proof that we can do better, much better. At the same time, we can help awaken Americans to the urgency of electing leadership determined to strengthen our democracy. We can spread the shocking truth that we are ranked lowest among liberal democracies by the Electoral Integrity Project. Globally we come in a sad 75th overall and 15th among the 29 states of the Americas. In Germany’s Wurzburg University Democracy Matrix we place somewhat better: 36th worldwide between Israel and Cape Verde. This news can be hard to swallow. But we can reframe our poor rankings as proof of possibility. We, too, can reverse our extreme economic inequality as we establish a more accountable democracy. Also, Democrats can center election efforts on helping to register those hurting most from Republican policies. In that vein, note that in 2022 voter turnout in households with incomes below $20,000 was only a third—half the 67% turnout of those with household incomes above $100,000. What if Democrats focused more on closing that huge gap? One tool is the vote-by-mail option, already proven to increase turnout among low-income communities. Defenders of the status quo and corporate power often charge that any rule to keep markets fair is a form of creeping “socialism” antithetical to democracy. Progressives can counter by pointing out that democracy itself depends on market rules serving us all—rules that prevent wealth from consolidating in the hands of a few who can then use that advantage to gain inordinate political power. Progressives can also underscore that control over wealth has tightened to a shocking degree. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the wealthiest 10% hold 72% of total wealth. And the bottom half? Just 2% . In other words, a market economy could work for all of us, but only if we set democratic rules around it. We can, for example, reinstate rules preventing monopolies, which go way back to 1890 when the Sherman Antitrust law prohibited “monopolization.” However, in the 1980s Ronald Reagan’s administration killed them . So today our economy is greatly more consolidated than it was a generation ago, reports the Open Market Institute. Examples? Today, Walmart alone controls 72% of “warehouse clubs” and super centers. Amazon sells two-thirds of all e-books and 40 percent of hard copy books sold online. For 79% of groceries produced, just four or fewer companies control at least 50% of the market—for example, just three companies own 93% of sodas. And in grocery retail, just four companies control 65% of the market, as mom-and-pop stores close all across the U.S. and food prices increase. Equally important, we can reduce—and eventually remove—the power of private wealth over democracy via public financing of elections and greater transparency. In the past, public funding has given voters a wider choice of candidates, including two underdogs who went on to win the Oval Office—Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Reagan in 1980. It worked well in presidential races for a quarter of a century. Undoubtedly, most Americans desire a society grounded in basic fairness enabling opportunity for all. So, we can also underscore the obvious: Do we really think that a person whose life has focused on becoming one of the world’s wealthiest—Donald Trump is worth an estimated $7.5 billion —is a probable leader to move us toward greater fairness? Perhaps we need to think again, and set our sights on reducing the inequalities that are driving Trump supporters to think otherwise.

by Hannah Stokes-Ramos and Frances Moore Lappé, June 21, 2024 Originally published on Common Dreams , June 21, 2024 The latest development in the battle against a possible Trump takeover of our government is the Stop Project 2025 Task Force to combat the conservative Project 2025 agenda. If Trump were elected, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 would replace as many as 50,000 federal employees with those more amenable to Trump’s directives. It would reduce the independence of the Department of Justice, stop FBI efforts to fight disinformation, and end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives across the government. Its goal? To eliminate administrators and legislators who refused to break the law or standard protocol to follow Trump’s orders. In all, Project 2025 would greatly expand executive power and diminish the power of Congress. By the end of the Trump administration in 2021 our democracy had sunk to a new low in international rankings, reports Freedom House, founded by Eleanor Roosevelt. We’d dropped in just a decade by 11 points on a 100-point scale, ending up on par with Panama and behind Argentina. Sweden-based V-Dem institute concluded that Trump “undermined American democracy substantially during his previous tenure, not least regarding media freedom, judicial independence, and executive oversight.” Trump also famously praised autocratic leaders around the world. Expanding executive power under a second Trump term could therefore mean disaster for our democracy. Understandably, across party lines Americans are worried about our democracy. Earlier this year a CBS poll found 70 percent of Americans consider democracy a major issue in the coming election, while 82 percent said the same about the economy. Additional polls have found similar percentages. And here is an additional and worrisome puzzle. Roughly the same share—only about a third —of Americans, whether Red or Blue, believe democracy will be safe, be it Biden or Trump next in the White House. So, Democrats have a lot of work to do. In 2018 Democrats won key battleground areas as they focused on protecting democracy. But today, while of course President Biden must focus on free and fair elections , that is not enough. Biden and all Democrats must commit to curbing political corruption from corporate-political donations through various channels, which reached almost $344 million in the 2022 midterm, according to OpenSecrets , split 45 percent/55 percent between Democrats and Republicans. And while Democrats are right to focus on preserving core individual rights and freedoms like the right to abortion, they also must address the pain and humiliation of those feeling left behind by their government. To understand the roots of why Trump’s anti-establishment talk has such appeal, we see a taproot: Inequality . After all, what was so great about the America that MAGA just can’t let go of? True, half-century ago race, gender, and sexual oppression were even more rampant, but note well: In that time economic inequality was at an all-time low. We had stronger unions, a more robust middle class, and a higher minimum wage relative to the economy. One ( predominantly white male ) income could support a family, even from many blue-collar jobs. This is not our America of today. We’ve been falling backward. Rhetorically, MAGA proponents seem to refuse to let this happen. Democrats seem only weakly to acknowledge that it is happening. Neither party is addressing its roots. So, there’s a huge opportunity here. But lest we get ahead of ourselves, let’s review some facts. America’s economic inequality was at a low point from the 1940s to 1970s, but Reaganomics brought a sharp increase , even outpacing by far inequality in Europe. Between 1979 and 2016, the share of wealth owned by the top 1 percent compared to the bottom 90 percent completely flipped. By 2016, the top 1 percent had 39 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 90 percent were stuck with a mere 26% . Today, the bottom half owns just 2 percent of the wealth. In 1970, the top 100 CEO’s earned $45 for every $1 earned by the average worker, but by 2014, those CEO’s made 844 times the average worker. And, where did this extra income come from? The hard labor of working Americans. An often-cited graph shows U.S. productivity in output per hour growing almost four-fold since 1945. But since the 1970s, real median family income has nearly plateaued. Benefits from greater productivity have gone to the top, not to the workers. But has the broad public at least managed to benefit from this great increase in productivity and wealth via taxation used for public good? If you guessed no, you’re right. Since the 1980s, wealth by held by the top 0.1 percent has quadrupled, while its tax rate is unchanged. But is economic inequality really something we should be worried about? Whether Republican or Democrat, the answer is “yes.” Aside from basic justice, the IMF itself reported that economic inequality is bad for overall economic growth. Perhaps even more insidious, inequality is bad for democracy . For one, it erodes trust in political institutions - “economic inequality may affect citizens' perceptions of the responsiveness of the political system. It may also affect their perception of their own potential to influence political processes,” explain Simon Bienstman and colleagues about their recent article in the European Journal of Political Research . Thus, to skirt the real threat of Project 2025, Democrats must vigorously acknowledge the root of anti-establishment sentiment, leading so many Americans to feel a loss of status and identities right now. And not just in better messaging, but by offering strong, substantive policy promises addressing the root: America’s shamefully unjust economic inequality.

by Frances Moore Lappé and Hannah Stokes-Ramos, July 10, 2024 (Photo credit: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , July 10, 2024 In the presidential debate Donald Trump cast himself as our great protector against dangerous immigrants including the “insane” and “terrorists” who take our jobs and commit crimes. A top advisor reports that Trump plans to increase deportation 10-fold . Such charges aren’t new. The terms “threat” and “immigration” have together soared through our media since the ‘90s. To many Americans it’s seemed self-evident that “others” are robbing us of opportunity, draining our resources, and even inflicting immediate harm. But these charges are wrong, completely wrong. Immigration is being used by economic elites as a powerful tool to shift our attention away from the real roots of crises, both economic and political. Plus, casting immigration as a crisis blinds us to the multiple ways immigrants contribute to our national well-being. First, the basics. Immigrants—more than half of which are naturalized citizens—make up about 14 percent of our population. And they are an even bigger share of our civilian labor force— 19 percent . Thus, they do a lot to keep our economy going—generating $1.6 trillion in spending power. Immigrants also contribute to the public good, paying $579 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. That’s a lot! It is over three-quarters of what we spend each year on defense , which is among our largest national expenditures. Of course, millions more Americans are children and grandchildren of earlier immigrants—as am I—which has been a source of America’s pride. Yes, our foreign-born population has been increasing, but barely. Between 2020 and 2022 the percent of foreign-born grew one point, reports the U.S. Census Bureau . According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) , between 2019 and 2023, our immigrant labor force grew yearly on average 2.3 percent; yet there’s no evidence of harm to the native-born, as our economy has also been growing. In fact, EPI also found that for U.S.-born workers, 2022-2023 was a time of “very low unemployment—and strong employment growth.” Robust growth continues to exceed expectations. And what about the claim that immigrants are “taking” jobs, especially of the less-educated? This, too, is misleading, as immigrants without a high school diploma fill very different jobs than comparable native-born Americans. Immigrants typically take jobs as maids and house cleaners, cooks, and agricultural workers. In California, for example, 69 percent of farmworkers are migrants. By contrast, native-born Americans with no high school education are apt to be cashiers, truck drivers, janitors, and building cleaners. Among undocumented workers, the largest share of work is in agriculture, construction, administrative support, and tourism, hospitality, and food service. In rural Ohio, I once had the opportunity to speak with such workers, and my heart broke as one woman expressed bewilderment at how she was treated. “Why don’t people here respect us?” she asked me. “We bring you your food.” Some worry also that immigrants increase crime, but data doesn’t confirm this fear: From 1990 to 2013 unauthorized immigration tripled while the U.S. crime rates fell by almost half. Furthermore, over decades unauthorized immigrants have proven to be less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, reports Northwestern University. And their incarceration rates are also lower. Among young, less-educated men from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador—who are a large share of undocumented immigrants—incarceration rates are at most about a quarter that of the native-born. Some studies also find delinquency rates of immigrant youth to be lower than their native peers. Trump has charged repeatedly that immigrants drain Social Security, when the opposite is true. Almost all undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes into Social Security and Medicare. From 2004 to 2014, they paid over $100 billion into Social Security alone. Yet, immigrants are not allowed to access the Social Security into which they’ve paid. Note, too, that most immigrants by far are documented. In 2022, the undocumented were only a bit over one-fifth of all immigrants and added no more than 3 percent of our population. Yet, they contributed over $35 billion in taxes. Refugees make up an even smaller segment of the population and pay over $30 billion in taxes each year. Trump’s proposed mass deportation of undocumented workers would strike a huge blow to the American economy. Our GDP would shrink by about $1.6 trillion, triggering a 5.7 percent decline in the economy while costing the U.S. government about $400 billion. Moreover, offering current undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship would add $116 billion in federal tax revenue, $68 billion in state and local tax revenue. GDP would grow by $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Plus, it’s false to assume that jobs vacated by deported immigrants would be filled by the native-born. After Arizona passed its restrictive SB 1070 law in 2008, the overall number of jobs shrank by 2.5 percent by 2015, and only 10 percent of vacated jobs had been filled by the native-born. So, let’s spread the word that many Americans are struggling not because of immigrants taking their jobs and using up their resources. The real threat is the worsening and highly alarming concentrations of wealth and income in our country—more extreme here than in over 100 nations. The top 1 percent of Americans control 30.4 percent of the wealth. Just 806 billionaires hold more wealth than the entire bottom half of all Americans. Such concentration continues because of our corrupt political system allowing big donors and private-interest lobbyists way too much power. Here, too, we are an outlier among our peer nations. Blaming immigrants is thus a dangerous distraction. It harms not only them but virtually all of us. It distracts us from digging to the root causes of illegal immigration—extreme poverty, gang violence, and autocratic governments. So let us redirect attention from false blame to face the truly critical challenges of fixing our democracy—via initiatives such as Equal Citizens —and to assume leadership internationally to address the root causes of poverty driving immigration.

by Frances Moore Lappé, August 2, 2024 (Photo credit: Natilyn Photography/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , August 2, 2024 In the presidential race, Democrats and Republicans remain neck and neck. But how could this be? Afterall, free-market mythology, politically popular since the 1980s, has led us to believe that humans are essentially selfish creatures, eager to put ourselves first. Yet, Trump’s many policies that harm the vast majority of us do not seem to diminish his appeal. Before puzzling over “why,” here are a just a few examples of party differences that one might think would have brought the truly self-interested to abandon Trump and jump on the Democratic bandwagon. On Social Security. Trump remains ambiguous, failing to provide any specific measures on how he would protect Social Security. In contrast, Democrats promise not only to protect but to strengthen benefits, including—if needed to cover the cost—raising taxes on those earning more than $400,000. They have also expressed support for raising benefits for low-income recipients and improving Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment formula. On taxes. The 2017 Republican tax reform was skewed to benefit the rich and Trump now proposes reducing taxes on capital gains. Democrats, however, seek to expand tax credits for workers and families and to increase tax rates on wealth for corporations and individuals. On the minimum wage. Trump says he would consider raising it but prefers to leave the decision to states. The Democrats pledge an increase , underscoring that the minimum wage has not risen since President Obama and still only brings the worker to the poverty line . On abortion. Trump promised in 2016 to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade . He also appointed abortion opponents to the federal judiciary, including three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn the federal right to abortion. However, Democrats support women’s right to choose, as do two-thirds of Americans. On education. As president, Trump called for eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness initiative and ended loan forgiveness for students defrauded by their schools. In contrast, President Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan—the largest one-time investment in education— helped schools reopen and regain ground faster. On healthcare. Trump calls Medicare “ socialism ” and supports appealing or overturning the Affordable Care Act in favor of a private market. He also supports spending caps and work requirements on Medicaid. With these changes, certain low-income populations, pregnant women, and people with disabilities would lose Medicaid coverage . Democrats support the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid as a federal program. On climate. Trump has promised to roll back regulation of the fossil fuel industry in exchange for $1 billion in campaign contributions . Under Biden’s presidency, carbon emissions fell by 2 percent even as the economy grew, and his administration is devoting $2 billion to encourage electric vehicles. On immigration. Trump declared an “illegal immigrant invasion, the worst that’s ever been seen anywhere in world.” Yet, between 2020 and 2022 the percent of foreign-born grew just one point, reports the U.S. Census Bureau . Between 2019 and 2023, our immigrant-labor force grew yearly on average 2.3 percent; yet there’s no evidence of harm to the native-born, as our economy has also been growing. Thus, for U.S.-born workers, 2022-2023 was a time of “very low unemployment—and strong employment growth,” notes the Economic Policy Institute . Plus, job growth continues to exceed expectations . Hmm. If on policy questions, direct self-interest seems to take a back seat, what is shaping today’s highly charged political divergence that might be less obvious? Our free-market mythology teaches us that anyone worth their salt can make it if they try. So, those who don’t are, well, either too lazy or too stupid. From that root myth, it is easy to grasp why those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder can feel shame . I know I’d be vulnerable, too. But we also know enough about our nature to realize that shame is perhaps the most painful of human emotions. We can cope with loss, anger, and embarrassment…but shame? Hmm, it hits hard. So, what can we do to evade that terrible feeling? Well, there seems to be one easy, effective way: Blame . As long as we can blame “the other,” we can find some solace. Feeling oneself to be a victim isn’t great, of course, but it’s definitely preferable to shame. For one, we can enjoy self-righteousness and create bonds with others based on common grievances. Another plus? We don’t have to be troubled by coming up with solutions ourselves, including how to tackle profound economic inequality . Note that worldwide in income inequality, the U.S. is ranked more extreme than 115 countries, while most of our peers come in far above us in the top 50. Acknowledging our standing and coming up with solutions is hard. Blaming “them”—immigrants, LGBTQ+, welfare recipients—is easy. Recognizing that blaming is an all-too-human pitfall, let’s strive to replace its simple satisfaction with those enriching, positive emotions that emerge through mutual empowerment as we shape and offer solutions through interaction with others. Millions of Americans are now building that courage through groups such as those in the broad network Declaration for American Democracy . Among the deepest of human needs is power—from the Latin posse , meaning “to be able.” It is not power over others, but rather a sense of agency that only democracy can offer. Yet, for most of us, action requires courage—risking the new by reaching out, asking tough questions, and doing something we’ve never done before. Courage, however, is also a human need. Its root lies in “coeur,” meaning “heart” in French. With the courage to step out comes the joy of bonding, not from shared finger-pointing but through acting together in shared problem-solving. And… in all, it is vastly more satisfying than blaming.

by Frances Moore Lappé and Hannah Stokes-Ramos, August 18, 2024 (photo credit: Alejo Reinoso/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , August 18, 2024 For most of us a “near miss”—whether a car wreck or a marriage breakup—calls on us to ask, “Why” and to seek answers. So, certainly the near assassination of former U.S. President Donald Trump calls for similar digging into root causes we can address. Nearly two-thirds of Americans agree that crime is a big, national problem, and no doubt this near tragedy reinforces our worry. But what many of us may not grasp is how much more serious our crime challenge is relative to nations we assume to be our peers. In assassinations alone, we are one of just three countries sharing top place for the number of presidents killed between 1875 and 2004. The U.S. by far leads the world in gun ownership per capita, with a rate of 121 guns per 100 people. With under 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. has 40% of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Among our peer countries, Canada is second with 35 guns per 100 people, or roughly one-third our rate. But note this big difference: Canada suffers just over two gun-related deaths per 100,000 while our rate is 11 deaths . Closely following Canada in number of guns owned are Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. All have fewer than three gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. That’s almost a quarter of our rate. Our country is also plagued by mass shootings—defined as the killing or injuring of four or more. By this measure, in 2023 America experienced almost two a day—totaling more than 650 such shootings. Among the young in America—those 1 to 17—more now die from firearms than by any other type of injury or illness; and this death rate doubled in just eight years, from 2013 to 2021. And Black, Latino, and Indigenous people in the U.S. are more than 10 times, more than two times, and nearly 3.5 times (respectively) to die of homicide by firearms compared with whites. So, what are possible solutions? We can start by seeking lessons from our peer countries. In Canada stricter gun control includes a ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons. Handguns require a permit that is issued only on a temporary basis, and only for gun-club members and gun collectors and anyone demonstrating a need for self-defense purposes. Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds. Purchase of rifles and shotguns requires an official certificate and involves a 28-day waiting period. Purchase is denied to people with certain criminal histories or who have mental-health disorders associated with violence. Canada also has “ red flag ” laws, where an emergency prohibition can be issued for anyone judged to be a danger to themselves or others. In Finland, gun ownership requires a license and registration, an aptitude test for the license, and a minimum age of 20. Guns can only be carried for a specific purpose, and gun owners bear the responsibility for ensuring that the gun and ammunition don’t end up in the wrong hands. In Norway, semiautomatic weapons are banned , a license is required by the police, as well as a “valid” reason for obtaining it—such as membership in a gun club or use for hunting. Self-defense isn’t considered a valid reason. An applicant also must pass an exam after extensive firearm training , and firearms must be securely stored in an approved safe. With a 48-hour notice, police are allowed to enter to inspect the safe. In the U.S., domestic abusers can now be barred from owning a firearm, as well as felons , fugitives, drug users, those involuntarily hospitalized for mental health, and those dishonorably discharged from the military. Youth under 18 cannot possess a handgun, but they can still own a rifle or shotgun in the majority of states. Prohibited firearms include those with serial numbers erased, machine guns produced after 1986, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers. Federal law doesn’t require licenses or permits to own firearms, but 10 states do require them, dependent on completing background checks. Note that federal law now requires background checks only on purchases from a federally licensed gun dealer. So, more background checks could help. The problem? Only 40% of gun sales in the U.S. are through such a federally licensed dealer. Note that the 17 states that now do require prior universal background checks also require all sales of firearms to go through a licensed dealer who can perform such checks prior to sale. Additional protection could come from expanding bans on the most dangerous weapons. For example, approximately two-thirds of U.S. states allow civilian ownership of machine guns. Note that, overall, gun laws vary widely by state —with California being the strongest with a score of 89.5 out of 100 while most southern states receive a score of 20 and below. Might gun violence ultimately be a mental health problem, as Republicans like to claim ? It’s true that Finland and Norway, among the happiest nations, have a low rate of gun violence. On the other hand, Canada—ranking lower than the U.S. in mental health—has much lower rates of gun-related deaths despite having among the world’s highest rates of gun ownership. Of course when it comes to suicide, the link between mental health and gun violence is undeniable. As evidence, Greenland has a high suicide rate and gun-related deaths ( 18 deaths per 100,000 people) despite its low gun-ownership rate. And if poor mental health is one root of the problem, all the more reason to pass laws requiring tougher mental health screenings for gun ownership. Currently, a person can be barred if declared mentally incompetent by a court or government body. And if Republicans truly believe gun violence is a mental health problem, they need to actually vote for government support for mental health initiatives rather than defunding them. Plus, if better mental health is foundational to reducing gun violence, all of us should also be backing policies to alleviate stress created by low wages and high-housing costs, for example—precisely the changes that Republicans resist. Since the solution to gun violence goes well beyond addressing mental health, let’s begin with the most basic gun reforms advocated by the Democratic Party: strengthening background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of those with a history of violent crime or posing a danger to themselves or others, such as domestic abusers. Our upcoming national election offers a great opportunity to highlight these crucial steps for public safety, as the Democratic candidate for vice-president—Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz—became a gun-control advocate in response to the 2018 Parkland high-school shooting. Commonsense gun reforms are the least we can do as a nation to protect ourselves—especially children in schools, the minority members of our population, and our own politicians—while still protecting our right to bear arms.

by Frances Moore Lappé, December 23, 2024 (Photo Credit: Hartano Creative Studio/Unsplash) Originally published  in Common Dreams , December 23, 2024 It’s a crisis. America is now among 11 nations deemed most threatened by both mis-and disinformation . Little wonder that almost 90% of us fear our country is on the “ wrong track. ” And, President-elect Trump has led the way with 492 suspect claims in just the first hundred days of his first presidency. Then, before the 2020 vote, in a single day he made 503 false or misleading claims. By term’s end he’d uttered 30,573 lies , reports The   Washington Post . Now, he is joined by his promoter Elon Musk who is flooding his own platform X with disinformation—for example, about the bipartisan end-of-year funding deal. Some play down our current “mis-and-disinformation” crisis as nothing new. Referring to the Vietnam War era, the Heritage Foundation says “Trump is not guilty of any lie, falsehood, fabrication, false claim, or toxic exaggeration that equals the lies of one past president [Lyndon Johnson] whose Alamo-sized ego caused the deaths of thousands of Americans.” In 2018, Heritage dismissed Trump’s lies as insignificant embellishment about “his wealth, his girlfriends of decades ago, or the size of his inaugural crowd.” Yet, his more recent lies have had deadly consequences. Playing down the severity of Covid-19, Trump described it as “like the flu,” “under control,” and “already disappearing.” His casting doubt about protective measures likely contributed to “tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths,” reported health scientists . After losing the presidential race in 2020, he repeatedly reinforced unsubstantiated questioning of electoral integrity. “Trump’s big lie ”—sparking a violent insurrection on January 6—caused multiple deaths and helped trigger stricter voter-registration laws . Trump’s actions may have taken us into a new era some call “post-truth” politics. So, what might this mean? And how might we learn from democracies standing up against mis- and disinformation? Lies are about a particular event—as in former President Bill Clinton’s denial of an extramarital affair; whereas “post -truth” refers to a “shift to another reality” in which facts don’t matter anymore, observes Irish philosopher Vittorio Bufacchi . The stakes are high as “post-truth is pre-fascism,” warns Yale history professor Timothy Synder in On Tyranny . Pretty grim. But to step up most of us need to sense the possibility of success, or at least movement in the direction of well-being. So, where might we find grounds for honest hope? Let’s look at what courageous peer nations are doing. Between 2011 and 2022, 78 countries passed misinformation and disinformation laws covering social media, including Germany’s “ anti-hate-speech law. ” Yes, some measures have been criticized for unintended consequences . In authoritarian states and those with weak guardrails against misuse, they can cause harm. As in the monarchy Bahrain . It used fake news laws to control content and threaten journalists with arrest . Some critics note that Germany’s anti-hate-speech risks “ over-blocking ” content. But we cannot afford to give up. Fact-checking news websites such as PolitiFact and Snopes—flagging content on social media—are valiant efforts. So far they’ve been only moderately helpful , but we can learn from their experience to create a holistic, long-term approach to countering mis-and-disinformation. One key will be more independent and public journalism , including PBS and NPR , driven not by narrow profit or partisan agendas. As local journalism—perhaps easiest to hold accountable—has suffered a sharp decline in the past decades, state and local governments can step up with financial support and incentives . Here, many peer nations can inspire us. Several have much to teach us about addressing disinformation with public news media . One exemplar is New Zealand with a unique approach. Since 1989, its Broadcast Standards Authority has offered an easily accessible, transparent online platform for any citizen to call out disinformation. The authority is tasked with investigating and requiring removal of what is both false and harmful material. The BSA seems to have been both cautious and effective. In the early years, complaints were upheld in 30% of cases. But by 2021-22, those upheld had shrunk to just under 5%. That’s a big change. And, a possible implication? Knowing one can be exposed for harmful lies can discourage perpetrators. “BSA has, over more than three decades, overseen a standards system that has been a game changer in delivering on a vision of freedom in broadcasting without harm,” says its chief executive Stacey Wood . Want to know more? See our exploration in Crisis of Trust: How Can Democracies Protect Against Dangerous Lies? Another key? Strengthening media literacy . Sadly, as of 2023 only three states required media literacy classes. So let us quickly spread this opportunity to strengthen our ability not only to critically assess information but also identify motives behind the lies . The News Literacy Project provides helpful resources and programs. Finally, we can encourage public debate and action to transform social media platforms into fact-based public discourse, functioning without harm . “At the end of the day,” observes Cornell psychologist Gordon Pennycook , “you cannot use psychological interventions to resolve this problem. There are structural, systematic, underlying problems that need to be dealt with.” Platforms such as X systemically spread disinformation. So, what can we do? Initiatives around the world are calling for public-or-user-owned platforms, such as the Platform Cooperativism Consortium . We can strengthen emerging alternatives like Bluesky or Mastodon , as we simultaneously urge for public regulation, such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act . There’s no “silver bullet,” of course. But the good news is that many Americans are awakening to the disinformation crisis after experiencing tragically unnecessary Covid-19 deaths and facing today’s unprecedented lies from our president-elect. For sure, deep change requires courage. So, with pounding hearts let us jump into this contentious arena. We can spark discussion-and-action commitments within our own families, friendship circles, schools at all levels, and workplaces. We can fortify our determination by exploring and sharing the innovations of others. Together, we can make history as we help save our democracy from today’s deadly disinformation plague.

If Kennedy really wants to "Make America Healthy Again," he could instead start by addressing the dangers of red and processed meats, a concern grounded in science. by Frances Moore Lappé (Photo Credit: Dyana Wing So/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams, January 28, 2025 Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr . to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has triggered controversy. Many have rightly criticized his ongoing anti-vaccine messaging . He’s also erroneously claimed that antidepressants were linked to school shootings, among other falsities. Despite this all, his confirmation seems likely. So, let us prepare. Kennedy promises to take on ultra-processed foods. He has alerted Americans that their over-consumption is linked to multiple maladies, from diabetes to heart disease. He also advocates banning them from school lunches . On this, I say, “Right on, Bobby!” The American diet poses great risks, including its heavy reliance on ultra-processed foods. They are one reason for our shockingly low international health and health-system ranking —way down at 69th. Unfortunately, RFK’s tendency to mislead carries over to this issue. It’s already clear that his campaign against ultra-processed food is not evidence-based. For example, he falsely claims seed oils (sunflower and canola) are harmful. If confirmed, RFK Jr. will oversee the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving him power to regulate our food industry as well as a much-broader mandate : “to safeguard the food supply.” If Kennedy really wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” he could instead start by addressing the dangers of red and processed meats, a concern grounded in science. The World Health Organization identifies red meat as a probable carcinogen and processed meat a carcinogen. Likewise, a meta-analysis of 148 studies reveals that red meat—especially processed meat—contributes to higher risks for a range of cancers. Crucially, today’s definition of “ food-borne illnesses ” contains a serious oversight: the deadly diseases linked to red meat and processed meats. We have a right to be outraged that the FDA still fails to require warning labels or otherwise alert the public to this serious harm. The recently proposed front-of-package labels for saturated fats, sodium, and sugar would be a first step, but we cannot stop there. Perhaps most troubling, the agency has enabled ultra-processed meats—hot dogs or bologna—to be fed to our children at our schools . Loose guidelines also allow mega-food corporations like Kraft Heinz to introduce ultra-processed products like Lunchables in school cafeterias. Sadly, for many children, school meals are their main source of nutrition. We need to do better by them. This crisis also reflects the political power of the meat industry. Therefore, RFK Jr. must stand up to this pernicious interest group, which “spent more than $10 million on political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2023,” which for some, “was an all-time high,” reports the Missouri Independent . Over more than 50 years, a number of my books, starting with Diet for a Small Planet , have focused on the needless waste, ecological destruction, and hunger built into our grain-fed-meat-centered diets—all driven by the highly concentrated power of corporate agribusiness. I have stressed the health benefits of plant-based diets. The great news is that diets rich in whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and nuts—with little or no red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains—can lengthen our lives. A much-cited 2001 National Institute of Health study predicted that avoiding meat contributes to lifestyles that could add ten years to one’s life. Even if one began this healthier diet as late as age 60, life-expectancy increases over eight years for women and almost nine years for men. To enable access to wholesome diets, Kennedy must also do his part to tackle the growing crisis of “food deserts”—low-income, urban areas where at least a third of residents live a mile or more from a supermarket. This barrier to healthy diets affects over 40 millions of us. The HHS will oversee the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans , which inform key programs such as SNAP and the National School Lunch Program . Here, we must urge RFK Jr. to focus on the science: processed meats are dangerous. In all this, we must remain vigilant in holding Kennedy and the broader Trump administration accountable. We must also work for political reforms to ensure our elected officials are no longer corrupted by private interests. Our fight to protect our community’s health goes hand-in-hand with our fight for democracy. Every bite we eat is a choice for the world we want. So, let’s push the incoming head of the HHS to ensure that all Americans are able to take healthy, wholesome bites.

We Americans have an obligation to each other and future generations to take on the root causes behind our suffering. by Frances Moore Lappé and Corinna Rhum (Photo Credit Jose M/Unsplash) Originally published in Common Dreams , February 10, 2025 How often do I hear friends and political commentators lamenting America’s polarized culture. “Polarization” is so commonplace that it was Merriam Webster’s 2024 word of the year . Whether it’s Democrats v. Republican, Conservative v. Liberal, Right v. Left, or Red v. Blue, the feeling conveyed is that we’re simply stuck in opposing camps, sharing little common ground. Yes, of course, these labels capture real differences. But thinking that our opposing “poles” are our real problem can deter us from seeing solutions or even believing positive change is possible. The truth is, we’re less divided than we imagine ourselves to be. Plus, “polarization” feels fixed—discouraging us from probing deeply the forces that underlie our differences—forces that we can indeed address. When we dig in, our hunch is that much of today’s painful divide arises from economic forces and realities that aren’t front-and-center in Americans’ view of our nation. Exposing this reality could release energy for much-needed action. The truth is, we’re less divided than we imagine ourselves to be. Of course, Americans are aware of class differences, but we assume that they are more-or-less static—just the way it’s long been—and at least close to the norm in other democracies. Few of us likely appreciate that we are a global outlier in the depth of our economic disparity—coming in more extreme than roughly 120 nations and far below our peers. Consider this: Three Americans control more wealth than bottom half of us which together hold only 2 percent. Deep inequality threatens democracy itself. History suggests that if wealth is concentrated at the top, the moneyed elite will infect and distort the political process in its favor, thus undermining democracy. Combine these realities: First, the inherent hardships—daily stress, lack of leisure as well as the real deprivations of so many Americans, including our low-minimum wage, the dangerously poor-quality of our most-affordable diets, and our failure to assure access to healthcare for everyone. Then add to all that the long-sung tune that anyone with drive and decent character can “make it” in our free market system. And what do you get? Painful self-blame and fear…and, yes, exhaustion. Understandably, then, we seek someone to blame—a tragic pattern that has been repeated throughout history. Take the 1863 New York City "draft" riots , during which poor, white (mostly Irish) workers feeling the pressure of exploitation and poverty took their anger out against New York’s Black population in the one of the most significant insurrections in U.S. history. The draft riots are a grave warning of what can happen when two disenfranchised groups are pitted against each other. Division is sowed where unity and solidarity are most needed. Hitler’s rise to power is another terrifying tale of how scapegoating minority groups can be a potent—and devastating—political strategy, especially during times when citizens are struggling to make ends meet and a country is in a period of unrest. Today, the president of our nation is successfully casting himself as a big, angry man who names our oppressors and will fight against the bad guys for the rest of us. Trump has targeted immigrants, spreading dangerous lies and authorizing deeply damaging policies. Likewise, he has taken swift action to disenfranchise transgender people, justifying it through harmful rhetoric. Donald J. Trump’s core demeanor is anger . So, it’s understandable that many believe he’ll use his loudmouth to fight for them. Casting himself as an outsider is brilliant. Of course, his policies belie his pose. They hurt the most vulnerable and reward the most powerful. Beyond his attacks on immigrants and trans people, here are just a few: Trump's attempted federal funding freeze could severely impede early childhood education, infrastructure projects, and social-benefit organizations. He has also promised to limit SNAP benefits and cut healthcare spending —all while expanding tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthiest. In addition, he’s rolled back environmental protections. Sadly, Trump’s posturing and scapegoating effectively engage many Americans. But, getting stuck on what feels like an insurmountable chasm does not serve us. Progress comes when we focus on our common ground and go from there. So what can we do? Remember: We are all influencers. Each of us can share what we know with family, friends, and colleagues. They are likely to do the same. Hey, we never know the ripples of our own courage to speak out. We can fight destructive disinformation on social media that the president and his now right-hand man Elon Musk have weaponized. We can reach out to our representatives in government, helping them find the courage to take on the painful realities of extreme inequity and the false messaging pitting us against each other. Blaming “polarization” is a dangerous distraction. It is a symptom of our real problems. We Americans have an obligation to each other and future generations to take on the root causes behind our suffering. It’s still a new year. Let’s make it a new beginning as well.