Will Democrats ever pull back from examining the individual political trees and grasp the nature of the whole forest before them? I wonder this because I see time after time the Democratic Party being shown exactly how they can win elections -- and then time after time they just flat-out ignore it. Or downplay it. Or attempt to come up with a solution that doesn't address the core problem but instead merely tinkers around the edges of it. Or bury it in wonk-speak. I have to admit, it is frustrating to watch.

The answer to Democratic woes is pretty obvious. If they would only fully embrace economic populism, they could revitalize the party, entice disaffected voters back, and not only fight back against Donald Trump and Trumpism, but also strongly stand for a solution (instead of just repeating the refrain of: "Trump is bad.... mmm'kay?").

The general public has one overriding concern that they see politicians in both parties refusing to solve in any meaningful way. It can be simply stated: everything costs too damn much. The economy is rigged so that the billionaires and the giant corporations always get richer, while the rest of us pay higher and higher prices for just about everything. This is the overriding concern of the vast majority of the American public, in fact, and outpaces just about every other political issue there is, including immigration, crime, foreign policy, and all the culture war bugaboos. Because everything costing too damn much hits everybody, all the time.

Polling bears this out. A national survey of American workers showed that most of them not only disagreed with the path Donald Trump has chosen (on tariffs especially), but instead they have one basic complaint (emphasis in original):

This helps explain why, when asked which single issue elected officials should prioritize to help American workers, respondents ranked tariffs dead last. And when asked which issue workers least wanted lawmakers to pursue, they put tariffs at the top of the list by a wide margin. In fact, tariffs were the least popular option across almost every demographic -- men and women, White and non-White, college and non-college-educated, old and young, urban and rural.

. . .

So what do workers want from their country's leaders? Simply put: to make America affordable again.

For American workers, the central economic problem of 2025 is the same as it was in 2022: The cost of everything is just too high. More than two-thirds of workers said that reducing the costs of everyday goods or housing would be the best way to make life better for the country's labor force.

And at a time when the country feels divided on nearly everything, worries about the cost of living transcend partisan, class, income, educational and racial boundaries.

Need more proof? Here's yet another poll showing pretty much exactly the same thing:

The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs remain widespread.

About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a "major" source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a "minor" source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials.

. . .

Groceries are one of the most far-reaching financial stressors, affecting the young and old alike, the poll finds. While Americans over age 60 are less likely than younger people to feel major financial anxiety about housing, their savings, child care, or credit card debt, they are just as worried about the cost of groceries.

Meanwhile, some Democrats and political analysts have come up with a catchy idea that sounds a lot better than it actually is (when the term is fully defined). Because who doesn't like "Abundance," right? This is a new wonky concept that some Democrats have become enamored of, but it really can only go so far.

"Abundance," by their definition, will come about by slashing red tape. Now, overregulation can indeed be a problem -- witness what happened to many of the items on Joe Biden's signature agenda. Just to pick the most obvious, he got a whole ton of money to build electric vehicle charging stations across America, so that drivers could purchase an electric car knowing that they'd be able to power it up conveniently all over the place. That was a good idea. But the actual execution of the idea was pretty pathetic. After years of the money being in place, there were laughably few charging stations actually built. The planning and grant-writing and all the other red tape slowed things down so much that Biden left office without the huge network of charging stations he had promised in place yet. "Abundance" would have slashed all of that red tape and got the damn charging stations actually built -- which does indeed sound like a good thing. It would be applied to a lot of large government projects, such as building infrastructure (new freeways or whatever) and getting new housing built. Slash the time and hassle to get these projects underway (the theory goes) and Democrats can show the voters that they provide abundance for all.

However, "Abundance" doesn't even address other problems -- problems consumers face that are not tied to overregulation or red tape. So while it could be a valid thing for Democrats to get behind, Abundance is definitely not a comprehensive answer to the problem of affordability -- not by a long shot.

At least one faction of Democrats has realized this and is trying to convince the party at large to embrace a much wider economic agenda instead of getting carried away with thinking the wonky new fad is some sort of be-all, end-all answer:

Populism is more electorally effective than the new "Abundance" agenda, a progressive think tank and Democratic operatives are arguing in a preview of the party's messaging divisions ahead of next year's midterms.

A memo obtained first by Politico cautioned Democrats about relying solely on the emergent school of thought, which criticizes overly bureaucratic regulations for slowing progress on housing production needed to drive down costs and infrastructure projects. It was penned by Kamala Harris campaign veterans Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster, and strategist Brian Fallon, along with the liberal economic group Groundwork Action.

. . .

"While there are elements of the Abundance agenda that have appeal, and the choice on which messages to deliver is not zero-sum, a populist economic approach better solves for Democrats' challenges with working-class voters," the memo read. "If candidates are asking which focus deserves topmost billing in Democrats' campaign messaging, the answer is clear: though some voters believe excessive bureaucracy can be a problem, it ranks far behind other concerns and tackling it does not strike voters as a direct response to the problem of affordability."

It described affordability as voters' primary concern, and posited they "see Abundance-style policy solutions as less responsive" to that problem.

. . .

Progressives, led by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), have pushed economic populism, arguing that the party must rebuild its relationship with working-class voters by vilifying billionaires and corporate power. That's more in line with what the memo argued will reach voters, as "majorities of Democrats and independents and two in five Republicans believe the outsized power of billionaires and corporations in our government is a bigger problem than red tape and bureaucracy."

Getting a new freeway built faster isn't going to help voters with their grocery bills. Even if the Abundance agenda could solve the housing shortage in the wink of an eye, it wouldn't solve all the rest of the high prices consumers face. More affordable housing would indeed be nice, but it's only part of the picture.

It all boils down to "everything costs too damn much," period. We already live in an age of populism, but what Donald Trump sold his followers was nothing more than fake populism. He swore up and down that he would lower prices on everything -- and then he got into office and hasn't done anything about it at all. Except to slap tariffs on every country on Earth (except Russia), which is just causing prices to go up more. This abject failure to address the issue of affordability is a gigantic golden opportunity for Democrats. All they have to do is turn the issue around on Trump and his Republicans.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many Democrats in the party machinery who recoil in horror when faced with the concept of true economic populism. These are the people who did everything they could to deny Bernie Sanders a presidential nomination (twice!) and are now terrified at the prospect of Zohran Mamdani becoming the next mayor of New York City. Which is a shame, since both of them offered voters exactly what they wanted: a pledge to attack affordability with every means they could come up with.

Right now, there's an easy answer for Democrats to coalesce around -- end the "Trump tax." Get rid of all the tariffs, now. That right there would lower prices on all kinds of things. Later, they can flesh their platform out by adding pledges to do things like lower prescription drug prices by using the power of Medicare and Medicaid to force the pharmaceutical companies to stop charging Americans 10 times what they charge to every other country on the planet. They could attack the oligopolies of agriculture which push grocery prices through the roof. They could attack corporations who are making money hand over fist by overcharging Americans on all sorts of things. There are all kinds of things a truly economic populist party could focus on, and all of them would be wildly popular with the voters.

So far, Trump has gotten away with just flat-out lying about prices. He insists that prices are way down on everything, and that a gallon of gas costs less than two bucks. He says inflation just isn't a problem. But average consumers know that none of that is true. Trump is failing at solving one of the biggest problems he ran on, in fact, and all it would take would be for Democrats to place this issue front and center and challenge him on it relentlessly.

If the Democrats truly became the "Everything Costs Too Damn Much" party, they could expose the false populism of Trump and promise some real solutions and some real attention to the problem. While Trump sticks his head in the sand and insists everything is perfect, Democrats should counter with a very loud: "No it isn't!" The opportunity is there. The answer is clear. Everything costs too damn much, and voters are looking for politicians to realize it and promise to do something about it. Trump did so, but then he absolutely ignored the problem once he was elected. So turn the issue around and use it against him!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant