My responses to questions from a candidate forum
Oct. 29 NWSOFA event
On Wednesday, Oct. 29, at 7 PM CT, NWSOFA is holding a virtual candidate forum for candidates in Illinois’s Ninth Congressional District. You can join here.
NWSOFA provided the questions in advance. Since I won’t have a chance to answer all of them during the forum, I’m providing my answers here.
There are a few key points to emphasize across all these answers:
Job One for Democrats is to win—to take back Congress and, even more critically, the White House. A lawless administration that doesn’t work with Congress and ignores the courts can’t truly be stopped until they’re removed from office.
We need a new vision to win back voters. The Democratic platform has been losing for a decade—but we’re still running on it. We can’t expect to turn our party around without bringing a new vision to the table.
My vision is a New American Century. America led in the twentieth century, but many Americans feel that our best days are behind us and turned to someone who made false promises of national renewal. We can lead again: we can innovate and grow, expand care and opportunity, and fight for freedom at home and abroad. We can reach voters who have given up on Democrats and build a majority that ends the MAGA era.
Thank you for getting involved in this election –
Nick
Domestic Questions (Trump-era issues)
1. Trump put 50% tariff on Brazilian beef. Prices at the store for consumers have been up dramatically. Now he wants to import beef from his Argentinian dictator friend, to bring prices down. In the process, he first annoyed consumers and now American beef ranchers. How is Trump getting away with this and how do you plan to hold him to account?
Trump’s economic policy is illegal and incoherent. In the near term, his unlawful tariffs will make prices go up on everything Americans buy, from groceries to clothing to cars. In the long term, they will isolate and weaken the American economy, making it much harder for all of us to get good jobs and afford the things we need. Cutting deals with autocratic cronies will only distort the economy further and compound the disaster.
He gets away with it because our system depends on the President having a basic respect for democracy and rule of law that Trump does not have. When he violates the law, steals Congress’s powers, and ignores the courts, the Constitution provides few ways to rein him back in. We can and must protest, challenge his actions in court, and block what we can in Congress, but the most important way we will hold him to account is building a winning majority and removing MAGA from Congress and the White House for good in 2028.
2. Trump has brought down the East Wing of the White House, with no accounting for donor money, and he plans to get the Justice Dept for give him $230 million for quote unquote improper lawsuits against him for storing sensitive papers at Mar-a-Lago. How do you plan to hold him to account for this lawlessness?
These are more examples of lawlessness, distraction, and corruption from the administration, and the answer is the same as it was for the last question. There are some things we can do now to highlight these abuses and slow them down, but we need to hold him to account by winning back Congress and the White House.
That race started the day after the 2024 election. We can’t wait for a presidential candidate to emerge and help us win. We have to use every moment, including this race for 2026, to lay out a platform and vision that bring new people to the party.
3. Obama-care subsidies are going to red states/districts, with voters in red states and rural areas accounting for 75 % of the beneficiaries of these subsidies. What strategies and messaging to them can you suggest to bring back all these traditional Dem voters including traditional labor to return to the Democratic party?
The obvious thing is to point out that the administration people voted for is hurting their interests. We must do that, but we’ve been doing that for generations. If it worked, we’d never lose an election to Republicans. Democrats have been the party fighting for healthcare, labor protections, consumer protections, lower taxes for the middle and working classes all my life and for decades before that, and we’re losing support. After each election, Democrats complain that working people vote against their own economic interest. Instead, we should work to understand why voters choose Republicans and meet them there.
Part of the reason Americans have chosen Trump is that they believe the country is in decline and our system is broken. Trump spoke to that belief and offered national renewal. Everything he does is the opposite of making America great again, but he saw the problem while Democrats continue to be the party of the status quo. If we want to win back voters in swing states and red states, we need to show we are ready to make major changes—to begin with, by investing more in creating widespread opportunity in addition to the safety nets where we typically focus.
4. The Trump government shutdown is in its 29th day (assuming shut down is not resolved by Oct 29th), with Dems battling to get Obama-care credits restored after the Big Ugly Bill took them away. If you were in Congress, would you continue to fight this fight to keep the government shut down till Trump agrees to negotiate reading Obama-care subsidies and why? Pros and cons of such a strategy to keep government shutdown?
I would continue the fight. Democrats have limited leverage on a president that doesn’t work with Congress, let alone with the minority party. Because the President hasn’t yet been able to act without a budget (though he is trying), this is something we can do. For this fight, the focus on healthcare is absolutely right, because it shows the public what we are fighting for (and that we are continuing to fight) and because it’s the most focused way to accomplish something millions of people desperately need. The cons are that the shutdown can harm Americans in real ways and give the President a pretense to further marginalize Congress, but the alternative—acquiescing to his cruel budget—is unacceptable.
5. How can you as a Congress person oppose the anti-immigrant policies and raids of the Trump regime in Illinois and other states? Would you suggest specific legislation in Illinois, or court action, or rallies and/or other creative ideas?
As a member of Congress and part of an immigrant family, I will use my platform to draw attention to anti-immigrant abuses, including by participating in rallies and other activism. For reasons I describe below, I don’t believe a sidelined Congress will be able to stop this cruel administration from attacking its favorite targets, and I don’t want to make false promises. I support actions by state and local government in Illinois to refuse to cooperate with abusive immigration enforcement and to provide support and protection to individuals and communities that are being harassed and persecuted. Ultimately, our communities will not be safe until we change who’s giving the orders, which is why I am focused on building a party that can win back Congress and the White House.
6. Should we prosecute the members of the Trump administration in 2029 and beyond, for extra-constitutional acts in the Trump years? Why or why not? How far down the food chain should we go in these prosecutions: Cabinet level, advisors to the administration, political appointees in the various departments?
I’m a former federal prosecutor, and this isn’t a decision that members of Congress, the President, or any other politician should make. Instead, it should be made by career prosecutors at the Department of Justice based on the only consideration that matters: whether they can prove a violation of the law. When I was a prosecutor, neither President Obama, Attorney General Holder, nor any member of Congress exerted any influence on our charging decisions. That’s exactly the way it should be, no matter the crime or the defendant, because that’s how we ensure justice is fair and impartial.
We are fighting for the rule of law, and that means Congress should stay out of these decisions. Personally, I hope everyone in the administration at every level who trampled on the Constitution gets prosecuted, but I want that decision to be determined by the law, not politics.
7. Should we impeach Trump in 2027 if we gain control of the House, but do not have the 67 votes in the Senate to convict? Why or why not?
President Trump could be impeached on several charges at this point, and I’m sure there will be dozens more by 2027. It would be a waste of our energy and attention. Trump has already been impeached twice and it only hardened his base, because he thrives on division. We should not waste our time deepening polarization and solidifying our image as merely the party of resistance. Our focus ahead of 2028 should be laying out our own positive vision for the country so that the country sees Democrats as the party of leadership.
8. How do we prevent this slide to authoritarianism: before 2026 elections, between 2026 and 2028 if we gain the House, and after 2029 if we have all the levers of power? Any thoughts regarding a 2nd Constitutional Convention to “Trump-proof” the Constitution in 2029 and beyond?
It’s too late to talk about “preventing” it—we are in it now, and it is happening fast. The question is how we can stop it and turn it around.
If we win the House in 2026, we can better be able to slow the President down because we will have more control over the budget and other key areas. But already Trump is looking at ways to fund the government without congressional approval. As long as he continues to sideline Congress and ignore courts, our ability to push back in Congress will be limited. What we can do is articulate a vision that can win a majority of Americans and build strength in the party going into 2028. In Congress, I’ll introduce legislation to foster innovation, growth, and expanded opportunity and care—not because it can pass before 2029, but to let the public know there’s an alternative vision. That’s how we can win back Congress and the White House with a strong enough majority to end this era.
There is no way to “Trump-proof” the Constitution or our institutions. This president is willing to break the law on everything from tariffs to military deployment to spending federal funds, and has even publicly considered running for a third term, and voters so far have let him. Law can’t stop a lawless president, and we can’t design our government assuming the worst leaders. Instead, we have to fight to preserve our democracy every day and in every election with strong leadership and vision that voters will choose over false promises.
9. What are your views on gerrymandering, mid-decade and end of decade? Or should we pass legislation to mandate independent bodies to draw geographical maps that are squares/rectangles with equal number of voters in each box, with no attention paid to the party of voters, maybe have AI draw the congressional maps?
In the immediate future, I support actions by Democratic states to redraw maps to counter the same action by Republican states; the stakes are too high to allow this to be a one-sided fight. Long-term, gerrymandering disenfranchises Americans of every background by sorting them into districts where there voices won’t be heard. I would support a bipartisan effort to find automated ways to draw maps that align districts with communities, which would then have to be approved by leaders.
10. Agree or disagree that Climate change is a hoax, given that green energy has increased share to 20% of power generation and costs for green energy are declining, causing energy producers to switch to green energy without government involvement. Why or why not should we go more green in the energy mix?
Scientific consensus is clear that climate change is real and driven by human actions. Green energy sources absolutely have to increase in the mix to the maximum degree feasible, because that is likely the most significant way we can reduce the emissions that are driving climate change. It’s an incredibly important development that green energy’s share of power generation is increasing as costs decline, but it’s not the case that it’s happening without government involvement. Even putting aside regulations and programs like cap-and-trade, government has been involved in funding basic research, in investing in emerging industries and companies, in public-private green-energy projects, in subsidies for producers and purchasers, and in creating a property and trade regime that fueled competition and growth in the industry. When someone buys a solar panel for their home or business, it is a private transaction that was shaped by decades of public investment. We need to continue to ramp up those efforts to do our part in accelerating green energy innovation and deployment.
11. What ideas do you have regarding restoring public education funding and restoring academic freedom in both schools and universities after the Trump term? Why is this important, or why not?
Academic freedom is important both as a fundamental liberty and as an essential part of educating people to be citizens. After Trump leaves office, we can end attacks on university funding and restore academic freedom to higher education.
As a former public school teacher, I care deeply about the health of our public education system, and we should work to restore funding that is being cut by the administration. But restoring funding won’t be enough. I believe raising the overall level of achievement and closing the achievement gap will take a significant expansion in funding as well as deeper investment in education technology, likely driven by the federal government. A major reason I want to ensure the United States focuses on innovation and economic growth is to make that expansion possible.
* The organizers did not ask a question about queer rights. As one candidate pointed out, this is a significant omission, particularly since this is one of the areas where there is significant disagreement among Democrats on the path forward. I’m including a statement here.
I firmly support queer rights, and specifically the rights of transgender people, who have targeted by the Trump Administration. Polls after the 2024 election indicated that many Americans chose President Trump because of Democrats’ positions on trans rights and some Democrats have taken that as a signal that we should roll back our support in order to reach moderate voters. I joined the Democratic Party because we stand for civil rights for all and we can’t give that up. The lesson from 2024 is not that we should abandon communities that are politically inconvenient, but that we need to offer Americans a broader vision inspiring enough that they will choose us to lead. I want Democrats to take winning seriously because we can’t secure the rights of all Americans until we are back in office.
Domestic Questions (Post Trump-era issues, after 2029 or whenever):
1. What are your views on supporting the “care economy” (Elder care, child care, special needs care)? What specific policies and methods would you suggest to fund the care including tax incentives, other?
I have young children and older parents, and care for my family is always at the forefront of my mind. We need to dramatically expand the care that people can access, including all the care mentioned here and more. For example, my wife spent years as an attorney at Legal Aid, and the guidance and support she provided people at difficult moments in their lives was also a kind of care.
There are a range of ways we can fund both care itself and the things that make it possible, like making sure we have enough caregivers. We can ensure it is covered in public benefits, provide tax benefits to providers and tuition assistance to those training for care professions, and use our health agencies to drive research and coordination. There isn’t one answer here—it will a variety of approaches working together.
But, all of these will require greater economic capacity and opportunity. Today, the government runs deficits to serve the programs we have, and most people cannot pay privately. We could fund some expansion with tax increases alone, but not to provide all the care we should and not without putting a drag on the economy. We need economic expansion and increased opportunity to make it possible for more people to pay for care when they can and for the public to provide when they can’t.
2. Given the rightward tilt of the Roberts court, do you think we should increase the number of Justices to regain a progressive majority on the court? Why and why not?
I do not. I abhor the way the Supreme Court is both rolling back rights and rubber-stamping the administration’s abuses of power. But, increasing the number of justices will not solve the problem. As long as our electoral map tilts towards Republicans by disproportionately giving seats in the Senate and votes in the Electoral College to states where they win, the balance on the Court will tilt in their favor, no matter how many justices sit. In the meantime, it will undermine the rule of law we’re trying to advance—if we change long-standing norms to achieve our political goals, we will be affirming to the country that politics beats principle, which is exactly how Trump governs. No institutional fixes can substitute for the hard work of winning a durable national majority.
3. Trump won the 2024 election with a promise to lower costs for consumers including grocery prices, and in fact prices have risen due to his tariffs and other actions. What ideas do you have to make life more affordable for poor and middle class citizens? How will you pay for these programs?
The first set of tasks is obvious: roll back disastrous tariffs and ensure strong antitrust enforcement to make sure American consumers enjoy competitive markets, roll back cuts to critical programs that provide public goods (e.g., SNAP, Medicare), and reform the tax code to ease the burden on working and middle-class families. Next, I’d like to expand the care that we provide Americans to include childcare, elder care, and more. We’re not ready to absorb those costs as federal programs, but we can start introducing more tax credits and subsidies to ease the burden.
Beyond that, the most important thing we can do is foster economic growth and give people new pathways to opportunity. Getting a foot on the economic ladder should not require people to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, and there are alternative pathways that are relatively small today but that could become a way to give Americans fast, flexible, and cheap ways to build the skills they need. Programs that reduce costs are part of the answer, but we also need to create conditions where more Americans can get jobs that let them afford everything they need to lead a full life.
4. Do you believe in Medicare for all, Obama care with subsidies at current levels, Obama care with a cap on subsidies and if so what income cap, or a completely for-profit system? And why do you suggest your alternative?
My parents are doctors who worked in Chicago’s public hospitals, and healthcare for everyone was something I was raised to believe in. I support expanding Medicare as a public option for all Americans while retaining the private health system. Private solutions are great where possible, but decades of private healthcare have led to exorbitant costs and tens of millions still not covered. It’s time for a public option, building on the experience and lessons of other nations and some US states. However, I don’t want to end private healthcare, because many people prefer and depend on private healthcare.
5. The availability of illegal drugs on the streets of America is an existential threat to the country.” Agree or disagree? How can we combat the drug issue both on the demand side and the supply side of the issue?
Drugs are a major problem across America and fighting them should remain a priority. However, they are not an “existential” threat, and rhetoric like that has been used to justify dramatic overreach in drug eradication overseas and enforcement at home. I would like to see investment in what works, like enforcement against major distributors, treatment for low-level offenders, and decriminalization where possible to end the mass incarceration that destroys lives and communities.
6. Should there be limits on the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? What ideas do you have regarding sensible gun control legislation to reduce the impact of senseless gun violence? Assault weapons ban, background checks, closing loopholes, or amending the Constitution to limit the 2nd amendment?
The right to bear arms inherently has limits, just as freedom of speech does not protect slander or incitements to violence. There are policy areas where we don’t know what works, and there are others where we know what to do and need the political support to do it. Gun violence is the latter. We have known the policies that we need in place for decades: stronger background checks, red flag laws, disarming domestic abusers, bans on assault weapons—none of which would prevent responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. What we have to do now is build a winning majority that puts us in a position to enact these laws at the federal and state levels.
7. How do you think we should manage the decarbonization of the economy? How should we manage this transition from carbon fuels to clean energy? Have a transition period when both types of fuels are used? What incentives/disincentives should we implement to encourage consumer and industry behavior? Use of cap & trade? New technologies to capture CO2 (carbon sinks, etc.) and other harmful gases in the atmosphere?
Clean energy must be our future, and the transition is already well under way as sources like solar and wind have grown as a share of energy in the US and in countries around the world. We are in the transition period now, and it will take time to eliminate the use of carbon fuels, but that’s where we have to go as quickly as possible. I support continued attempts at international agreements and regulatory approaches like cap-and-trade, but I am skeptical that they can deliver. Agreements come apart, targets are missed, and regulation comes and goes depending on who’s in office. I am more optimistic that technology can make the kind of steady progress we need to achieve an energy transition. To that end, I’d like to see greater investment in the entire clean energy pipeline, from funding basic research to developing critical domestic industries in solar, batteries, and more.
8. In recent years, both under Democrat and GOP rule, the rich have become richer with tax breaks and government loans/largesse, while the poor and the middle class are struggling to get by and are becoming poorer. What ideas including more progressive tax rates, lowering the estate tax floor, introducing a wealth tax, amending rules for depreciation in real estate, and tax laws relating to private equity firms?
I support a more progressive tax code, including some of the ideas here: for example, progressive income tax rates, lowering the estate tax floor, amending depreciation rules, and closing loopholes related to private equity firms. But, I can’t give blanket approval because I want to understand the practical effects of a specific tax proposal before supporting it. For example, if a tax proposal would significantly reduce investment or cause individuals or businesses to move money and operations out of the US, I would not support it. I want our system to be equitable, but I also want to promote the economic growth that creates opportunity and provides the capacity we need to deliver on our progressive priorities, and that’s a balance we have to achieve.
9. Agree or disagree with the proposition: “Let us codify Roe vs Wade into law in Congress.” Why or why not?
Absolutely. Reproductive choice is a basic right; the alternative is using the police power of the government to force someone to take a pregnancy to term, which is horrifying. I strongly back efforts to write choice into federal law.
10. Should the Senate get rid of the filibuster rule? Why or why not?
Yes. For now, while MAGA controls the Republican Party and Republicans control the Senate, it’s not as significant a check on majority power as it once was, since they will do what they want regardless of the vote in Congress. In the future, when Democrats recapture the Senate, we will have major work to do rebuilding the country and we cannot afford it. If both parties were acting in good faith and trying to do good work for the American people, I would support it as a valuable check on the majority, but we haven’t lived in that world for a long time.
International Issues
1. What are your views regarding tariffs as a way to make the global trading system fairer and to bring back manufacturing and other jobs to America? Any non-tariff ways to accomplish the same result?
Tariffs can make intuitive sense, but they are almost always a bad idea. They increase costs for both consumers and domestic manufacturers that use foreign inputs, invite retaliation, encourage other nations to find new trading partners, and weaken American companies by removing competition. They will cause inflation, job loss, and economic hardship across the country. Overall, they are a drag on the economy exactly when we need greater growth.
We should invest in American manufacturing in critical industries, including solar, batteries, semiconductors, and others that are likely to be critical to a 21st Century economy or to national security. But, it isn’t feasible to bring manufacturing back to the United States at the scale we once had, and both parties should stop making false promises. Instead, we should focus on ensuring that we are prepared, starting with education from primary through higher education, to make sure every American can get good jobs in the twenty-first century economy. We don’t know exactly what those jobs will look like yet, but we can build a system that can keep pace with a rapidly evolving economy.
2. What ideas do you have that can be implemented by the US, EU, IMF, World Bank, UN and other world organizations to improve conditions in the Global South to enable them to have better lives? Will such programs benefit the US, how and why?
The programs that work in the rest of the world are not very different than what works here: public health, education, infrastructure, investment in local economies, financial support, and peacekeeping, among others. As a consultant, I worked with the World Bank and saw that there are no silver bullets—it takes a lot of resources across a lot of programs over many years to make a difference. I don’t have ideas that are better than what development and aid professionals already know, and I would support reinstating USAID and expanding funding to it and the other organizations we have historically supported. Supporting global development absolutely benefits the United States. A world of stable, prosperous, and free nations is more secure and provides more opportunity for Americans, and supporting development builds influence and affinity for America. While the Trump Administration pulls back from the world, nations like China see the opportunity and are aggressively building their own influence through aid.
3. “It is the responsibility of First World and polluting nations like the US, China and India to pay compensation to poor countries like Bangladesh and Madagascar to recover from the impact of climate change and rising seas/melting icebergs.” Agree or disagree? Why or why not?
It is absolutely the responsibility of nations with greater resources and greater negative environmental impact to shoulder a larger burden of climate change remediation efforts. The United States should be investing heavily at every level, from investments in research and technology to funding for deployment of solutions to aid and support for global communities that are affected most severely. I don’t believe compensation is the right way to approach this now. We should be doing whatever most effectively utilizes resources to address the challenge.
4. Should the US do everything possible to ensure that the US $ remains the world’s reserve currency? And why? How concerning is the rise of BRICs currencies as an alternative or crypto as a possible reserve currency?
Yes. The status of the dollar as reserve currency gives the United States international influence and benefits our economy in multiple ways, from the ability to borrow at cheaper rates to the ability to impose sanctions on foreign nations. Losing that status would harm our economy and global standing in ways that would quickly impact ordinary people, in the form of higher prices, higher interest rates, weaker job prospects, and even weaker national security. I’m not currently concerned that those other currencies pose a significant challenge to the dollar soon, but President Trump’s mismanagement of the American economy and his private interest in cryptocurrency are concerning.
5. Can the US afford to run large fiscal as well as trade deficits into the foreseeable future? Impact of such deficits? How can we reduce such deficits or should we?
We can run fiscal deficits while our economy is relatively strong and recognized as stable throughout the world. If Trump’s mismanagement changes that, we will find it more difficult to borrow, with potentially disastrous effects on our economy and society. I would like to see deficit reduction and responsibility, but with the understanding that deficit reduction has to be balanced with other goals.
Trade deficits are not a pressing problem, and the way the Trump Administration talks about them doesn’t make sense; we have a major trade deficit with Vietnam, for example, because we can afford to buy more of what they produce than they can afford to buy of what we produce. We should focus on investing in American science and technology, business competitiveness, and workforce readiness.
6. What are your views on Trump’s blanket tariffs? Would targeted tariffs for a specified length of time benefit domestic industries to adjust and then end the tariffs after a finite adjustment period?
The blanket tariffs are a disastrous idea that will weaken our economy and cause long-term pain, for reasons described in the other answers on tariffs. On paper, protectionist tariffs to nurture nascent industries make sense, but in practice, those industries often fail to become competitive and fail without tariff protection. For most industries, I would not recommend any kind of protection; if we can’t do it competitively in the United States, we should turn our resources elsewhere. For some critical industries, particularly in emerging technologies or where there’s a national security interest in onshoring production, I would prefer to use investment rather than tariffs to promote domestic industry.
7. How should we manage the emergence of China and India as both financial/trade and military powers? Role of EU and allies in managing this competition?
The twenty-first century looks like it will be shaped not by one or two global superpowers, but by a few major powers and a larger number of mid-size powers. Once again, it will be our role to lead a coalition of democracies, beginning with the EU and others, to check the influence of a rising group of autocracies. Of course, we cannot do that until we rescue our own democracy from MAGA.
Both China and India will be critical trading partners in the decades to come, and we should manage those relationships knowing that major disruptions will cause economic pain that will hurt working and middle-class people the most in terms of rising prices and job loss. China will be our chief global adversary in this century, and we should continue to manage the complex relationship while staying prepared for an escalation. India is the world’s largest democracy and has ambitions to grow in economic and political clout, and we should invest in a strong relationship with them, most importantly as a democratic counterweight to China in Asia. The Trump Administration’s petty antagonism of India is an enormous strategic blunder, and we should reverse it as soon as possible.
8. Should we continue to support Taiwan in remaining independent of mainland China? Should we put boots on the ground in Taiwan in the event of an invasion by mainland China? Why or why not? Concern over nuclear conflict as a result?
Yes, Taiwan is on the frontline of this century’s contest between democracy and autocracy, and we must continue to support them. The island is also the center of the world’s semiconductor manufacturing industry, making it indispensable to the American economy for the foreseeable future. It’s difficult to imagine the conflict reaching a point in the near future where we would want to deploy our own troops, but we should be ready for that possibility.
9. Do you believe in a two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict? If yes, should we have a time-line for such a solution and how can we get buy-in from Israel, Gulf States, Palestinian groups/factions to implement such a solution? Alternatively, what will be the consequences of status-quo, with no Palestinian state?
I absolutely believe in a two-state solution as the only way to achieve justice and security for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. I am hopeful that the present ceasefire can be a pathway there, because it includes provisions for governance of Gaza that could eventually transition to a permanent Palestinian state and that have buy-in from other regional players, though it is already fraying. The status quo, with no Palestinian state, cannot last, because it will continue the decades-long conflict and, just as importantly, it is simply unjust to the Palestinian people.
10. What ideas do you have to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war? Or is it unsolvable? Is it inevitable (because of fear of nuclear conflict with Russia) that Russia gains control of Ukraine by military force or by installing a puppet regime in Kyiv?
We must continue to support Ukraine in its fight, for the sake of the Ukrainian people and because, like Taiwan, it is a critical test case for democracies. If we fold and allow Russia to hold its gains, we will send a message to autocrats everywhere that the United States will does not have the resolve to stand against expansionist aggression. Russia will not be satisfied and will try to take more, and minor autocrats around the world will start to consider their own territorial ambitions. The war has dragged on for years, but Ukraine has shown unbelievable strength. It is not inevitable that Russia gains control of Ukraine and we should continue to support them militarily and diplomatically.
11. How can we stop further Russian aggression in Europe? Is putting American boots on the ground, pilots in the air an option? Why or why not? Developing a stronger coalition with Europe and even China to clip the wings of Russian expansionism? Would regime change in Russia with the help of the US government be an option? Why or why not?
At the moment, the best we can do to prevent Russian aggression in Europe is to continue supporting Ukraine and maintain our presence in Eastern Europe. At the moment, I would not support direct deployment in the conflict, but if Russia were to make further gains in Ukraine and begin actions against neighboring countries, we would need to consider it. A coalition with China is not a realistic possibility; China and Russia are more aligned in their interests. As for regime change, I’ve seen enough bloody, failed efforts to know that it is a mistake. We should check Russia’s ambitions, but changing the regime must ultimately be up to the Russian people.
12. How can we reassure allies in Europe. Asia and in our own hemisphere that they can rely on a steady hand at the till and that changes in President every 4 years will NOT have a dramatic change in our policies? Is see-saw change in US foreign policy likely to be par for the course?
This is an absolutely central question for the next century. In the twentieth century, America achieved global leadership because administrations of both parties agreed enough on the fundamentals to make it possible for foreign nations to make bets on America. Now, we have an administration in office for a second term that is taking us in entirely the wrong direction, and the world is noticing. In 2028, Democrats need to not only win back the White House, but to do it decisively enough to end the MAGA era and help sane Republican voices take back that party. That’s why we can’t cross our fingers and hope that Trump’s approval ratings slide low enough that we can eke out a victory. We need to be planning for that victory now, and that’s going to take a vision that can draw new voters to the Democratic Party, build a winning majority, and put us on track to building a New American Century.
