The 7 Questions Every Presidential Hopeful Should Have to Answer—Starting This Year
Andy Beshear, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Ruben Gallego, Amy Klobuchar, Wes Moore, Chris Murphy, Gavin Newsom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, J.B. Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer:
You, in alphabetical order (because it’s way too early for any other kind of ranking), are 12 people who, I suspect, can see themselves as the Democratic nominee for president in 2028.
A few months ago, when there were very few signs of organized opposition to Trump, I called for ambitious Democrats to take turns hosting a daily YouTube video (working title: We the People). The idea was to demonstrate unity, help process the news, and start to chart a better way forward.
A sustained and coordinated messaging effort—that would allow Americans to see each of you in action—remains a good idea. By anointing Kamala Harris 3.5 months before the election, after sidelining her for nearly four years, Biden gave us a candidate whom too many voters felt they didn’t truly know.
::turns away from the presidential hopefuls to address voters more generally::
Let’s fix that this time around. We have a deep bench. Let’s get to know them. Let’s see what they’ve got.
Here’s the thing, though: standing up to Trump—the most corrupt, anti-democratic president in American history—is table stakes. Resistance is necessary but not sufficient.
To win, we need a detailed economic plan that resonates across class lines. And—as if that weren’t hard enough—that plan needs to address massive, AI-related job losses likely to hit in the next two to ten years. (The timeframe varies depending on who in the AI field you ask; the inevitability of widespread unemployment does not).
This is not a plan to sketch out in debate prep three years from now. Real leadership would involve developing and stress-testing a solid, AI-aware economic plan before the mid-terms—providing a useful blueprint for Democrats running at every level.
We live in disorienting times: on a single day this past weekend, there was a political assassination, a corporate-sponsored military parade, an enormous turnout at nationwide protests, and the very real possibility of the U.S. going to war. I accept that in any given hour, our elected reps might have to address all manner of pressing issues. But in the Eisenhower spirit of centering the important not just the urgent, how about we resolve not to advance anyone towards the nomination—even in our heads!—who doesn’t have substantive answers to these seven questions:
1) What AI tools have you personally used, and what do you think of them?
2) How is AI going to reshape the workforce in the coming years? If you don’t believe we’ll see unprecedented job dislocation, what’s your rationale?
3) If you do believe there’ll be widespread job losses, how do you propose we respond? Do you support UBI (universal basic income) and universal healthcare? If so, how will these be funded?
4) If fewer people have jobs, will we see a spike in mental health crises?
5) How should education be re-designed for the AI age?
6) Many generative AI tools were trained on human-created content—without consent, credit, or compensation. How do you plan to rectify this? What sorts of corporate taxes and other arrangements would you propose, to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared, not hoarded?
7) Wealth and power have become more concentrated in recent decades—and AI breakthroughs are likely to accelerate that trend. What in your track record suggests that you will fight for the greater good vs. the 1%?
The document outlining Project 2025 is 922 pages long—but quantity is not quality. I’d be happy with a tight 200 pages from any presidential hopeful—if all these questions are thoroughly addressed. We’re right to be focused on the clown show in D.C.—it’s genuinely dangerous—but as a result, we have our backs turned on a metaphorical train that’s going to inflict very real damage. We need to spin around, look hard at that train, and make a plan.
Kate
