The Master Plan And The Democratic Divide

On one side are those who are fighting billionaires. On the other side are those who are owned by billionaires.

There is a master plan that deliberately legalized corruption. Know-it-all readers of Internet content who regularly comment on articles they haven’t read smugly presume they already know all about this plan, but unless they listened to The Lever’s audio series or read our new book, they don’t know much because it was mostly kept secret.

However, what everyone does absolutely know is that after this plan was executed, money now explains most of the real divides in American politics. This week, two headlines perfectly illustrate that - they underscore one of the biggest divides inside the Democratic Party that could define the next presidential primary.

Both stories revolve around a ballot measure that, according to The New York Times, “would require Californians with a net worth beyond $1 billion to pay a one-time tax equal to 5 percent of their assets. It would apply retroactively to anyone who was living in California as of Jan. 1, and taxpayers could spread their payments across five years starting in 2027.” The proposal - spearheaded by one of the state’s largest unions — “calls for the state to spend 90 percent of the new tax money on health care, with the rest devoted to food assistance and education.”

In the first story, we learn that billionaires empowered by the master plan’s deregulation of campaign finance laws are plotting to use their money to try to unseat California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna. His alleged crime? At a time of rampant tax avoidance at the very top, he is supporting the measure.

In the second story, we learn that California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is leading the fight against the measure amid massive cuts to the very programs that the new revenue would fund.

Whatever you think about the specifics of the tax plan, the contrast reveals a lot about politics in the master plan era.

Khanna’s position spotlights what he sees as a new populist lane inside the Democratic Party, and also his hope that there is enough of a grassroots fundraising base to support politicians who challenge the billionaire class. The elite backlash to what he’s doing shows how desperate billionaires are to try to make an example out of a high-profile politician in order to permanently shut those possibilities.

By contrast, Newsom’s position aligns him with billionaires and tech moguls who bankroll both parties’ presidential campaigns. This is almost certainly no coincidence: Newsom is a Patrick Bateman lookalike who has been running for president since his childhood days growing up with the Gettys, or at least since he spent the pandemic hobnobbing with lobbyists at French Laundry and defending wine cave fundraisers — so his move looks like both a form of class solidarity and also a calculated fundraising tactic.

Regardless of the machinations of these two likely 2028 presidential candidates, this is the Democratic Party schism right now (as it has been for most of the last 50 years).

Which side will the party end up on? That is the question we will learn the answer to in 2028.