A Permanent Platform

The Common-Sense American Manifesto for a Nation Facing a Semiquincentennial Reckoning

Mar 16, 2025

Two hundred fifty years after the nation’s founding, in 2026, the United States will face a moment of reckoning. After a quarter-millennium of constitutional government, it is fair to ask: Why have a nation at all, if it cannot guarantee its people the basics of life?

Since the year 2000, U.S. government at the federal level has brought in on the order of $100 trillion into the United States’ revenue coffers (in inflation-adjusted terms). This immense sum – nearly half of all the money ever acquired by the federal government from its citizens since 1789 – was ostensibly devoted to the public good.

And yet, the fundamental needs of the vast majority of Americans remain shockingly unfulfilled.

Majority millions of citizens still struggle for clean air, safe water, uncontaminated food, secure housing, and basic health and livelihood.

How could such a wealthy society fail so profoundly at its national basics?

How?

A modern, stylized illustration inspired by the attached image, showing one person reaching up while another extends a helping hand from a higher platform. The setting incorporates the nationalistic and foundational themes from the previous request, featuring a strong, stable structure that symbolizes support, unity, and collective strength. The background suggests progress with natural elements like mountains or a flag waving in the wind. The illustration is clean, bold, and impactful, using a simple yet evocative color scheme.

I imagine some of this beggars belief, especially in an Age of Trumpian truths.

Nonetheless, drawing on government reports, academic research, and investigative journalism, I will document the extent to which America’s air, water, food, and homes remain compromised. And the facts are damning; they reveal a pattern of systemic neglect and regulatory failure spanning decades and both major political parties. You will see how these basic issues – the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the homes we live in – directly affect public health, life expectancy, economic productivity, and the very functioning of democracy.

The premise is stark: if an advanced nation with unparalleled resources cannot assure these most fundamental needs, something in our governance and political system is deeply broken. The promise of America is broken.

And, maybe, just maybe, has always been substantively unfulfilled; has always lacked the fullest commitment.

At $100 trillion in national revenue since 2000, Americans might reasonably expect (demand!) pristine drinking water, toxin-free air, healthy food, and safe housing as a bare-minimum return on investment, let alone a birthright. Instead, as this manifesto will detail, the basics remain undelivered. Children in many cities carry inhalers to cope with polluted air; communities from Appalachia to the Rust Belt to any city in the nation rely on bottled water due to contaminated taps; diet-related diseases and toxic exposures drive down U.S. life expectancy despite record healthcare spending; and substandard housing with lead and mold poisons vulnerable families. All of this constitutes a colossal failure of the nation’s social contract.

This Semiquincentennial Reckoning is not merely a litany of woes; anyone looking authentically at rigorous information could list this. After marshaling the facts with academic rigor, this manifesto will turn truly actionable – arguing that the ultimate cause of these failures lies in political factionalism and spectacle that distracts from common goods. The founders of the republic warned that partisan “factions” could hijack the public will; today, their worst fears are realized as policy falls captive to party power struggles and special interests. Neither major party has ever made the “national basics” their non-negotiable priority. Indeed, each election cycle sees billions spent on campaign ads and personality cults (the 2020 election alone cost $14.4 billion, a record) while America’s physical and human infrastructure rots.

“Why have a nation at all?”

This question haunts us in 2025. The purpose of a nation-state, at minimum, should be to protect and provide for the life, health, and well-being of its people. If it cannot ensure clean air, safe water, nutritious food, and safe and secure shelter, can it claim legitimacy?

This manifesto contends that it cannot.

I will argue for a Permanent Platform – an unyielding, concrete, non-partisan commitment to guaranteeing world-class basics of life for everyone – as the only logical answer to this crisis.

But first, we must confront the depth of the failure. Let’s begin with the air that Americans breathe each day.

The Air We Breathe

Air is the most immediate of necessities – a human can survive mere minutes without it. Yet in the United States, clean air is far from guaranteed. Despite decades of environmental laws, 131.2 million Americans (39% of the population) measurably still regularly breathe air with unhealthy levels of pollution, and nearly all of us do so at some point in any given three-month period. Nearly four in ten people in this country live in counties that receive failing grades for smog (ozone) or particulate pollution, according to the American Lung Association’s latest data. This marks a worsening from previous years – 11.7 million more people were consistently breathing unhealthy air in 2020s comparisons. Far from a problem solved, air quality remains an absolute national crisis, particularly air over our major cities and disadvantaged communities.

A stylized, minimalist illustration inspired by the attached image, depicting one person standing on a higher platform extending a hand to help another person rise. This time, the lower figure is emerging from a dense layer of smog or polluted air, symbolizing the struggle against environmental hazards. The background is simple yet powerful, with a contrast between the dirty air below and a cleaner, clearer sky above, reinforcing the theme of lifting people out of pollution. The color scheme is bold and evocative, maintaining a clean and impactful design.

Data on air pollution in U.S. cities paint a concerning picture: Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone – the two most pervasive and harmful pollutants – persist at levels that endanger public health. Major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York, and Chicago routinely experience spikes in smog and soot that exceed federal health standards. Wildfires intensified by climate change have blanketed Western states in smoke, causing particulate levels to skyrocket seasonally. Meanwhile, while the general way in which air on Earth works means that no one is safe from particulates, urban traffic and industrial emissions also create localized hotspots of pollution. The burden is not shared equally, because this is America: communities of color are exposed to disproportionately higher pollution, because…this is America. Although people of color comprise 41% of the U.S. population, they represent 52% of those living in counties with failing air quality grades; in the worst-polluted counties, nearly two-thirds of residents are non-white. This reflects an environmental injustice where minority and low-income neighborhoods, often located near highways or industrial zones, suffer the dirtiest air.

The health consequences of America’s polluted air are grave and well-documented. Breathing ozone and particulates triggers everything from asthma attacks and heart problems to poor neurodevelopment in children to premature death.

Researchers estimate that fine particle pollution (PM2.5) alone is responsible for about 58,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year.

Said a different way, PM2.5 alone is responsible for nearly all the losses we suffered in Vietnam, just in the U.S., each year.

No memorial.

No wall.

No crying at the names.

But losses of parents, children, brothers, sisters and loved ones nonetheless.

These tiny soot particles penetrate deep into lungs and even the bloodstream, causing inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer over time. Ozone (“smog”) burns the airways, leading to chest pain, coughing, and worsened bronchitis and emphysema. Long-term exposure to polluted air shortens lives – effectively stealing months or years of life from those breathing it daily. Children, whose lungs are still developing, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses are especially vulnerable. Notably, air pollution has been linked not only to respiratory diseases but also to adverse birth outcomes (like low birth weight) and even cognitive effects. It is a pervasive, invisible yet eminently knowable threat that Americans inhale with every breath in polluted areas. And its invisible nature is one of the reasons we rely on leadership under a social contract – our shared government – to deploy measures to keep us safe.

Yet the government’s response to air pollution has been a story of partial progress and profound failure.

It is true that the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments helped reduce some pollutants (for example, lead was removed from gasoline, and many industrial emissions were curbed). But regulatory efforts have faltered in crucial ways, allowing dangerous air to persist. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2006 sharply criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to implement mandated air toxics controls. The EPA had missed deadlines by years or even decades: Congress had required standards for urban toxic air pollutants by 2000, yet over 75% of those standards had not been issued by 2006. Because of this neglect, millions of Americans continued to be exposed to carcinogens and neurotoxins like benzene and mercury at levels deemed “unacceptable risk” by EPA’s own scientists. In the GAO’s dry bureaucratic language, it confirmed a “striking disregard” by EPA of Congressional orders.

In plainer terms, our elected regulators failed to regulate.

For those among us with a visceral reaction to the world “regulation,” we can put it another way: those taking home 100% of their paycheck every two weeks to do a job for the American people? They failed, utterly, to do their job.

And we suffer – we die – as a result.

Even under the general Clean Air standards, enforcement has often been lax. Industries exploit loopholes (why are there ever any? Why don’t we close them as we discover them? Cui bono?) and weak oversight (if there can be such a thing…either there is oversight, or there isn’t, but I digress) to emit pollutants beyond legal limits. The political will to tighten standards has also been inconsistent – for instance, the EPA only recently (in 2023) proposed “strengthening” the fine particle standard (i.e. proposed making it meaningful, substantive, reflective of the known science and impactful), after years of scientific evidence that the current limit was insufficient to protect health. Each time standards are updated, industry groups and partisan monied interests resist, delaying implementation, a pattern that persists throughout the failure of people elected with the money of those interests’ inability to solve for the National Basics (more on that later).

The result is that Americans still inhale levels of pollution that scientists know to be harmful. In some cases, standards themselves lag well behind science; as the Lung Association noted, the EPA’s previous weak annual particulate standard failed to acknowledge many populations at risk.

We must call this what it is: a failure of governance.

Failure.

Clean air should not be, cannot be and must not be a partisan issue – it is a basic need.

The failure to secure outstandingly clean air to breathe for all Americans ought to be the clear and seminal reason to change how we do governance in this nation. Yet, factional politics and industry influence have thwarted effective action. Meanwhile, the public pays with their health. The costs pile up in hospital admissions for asthma, in children kept indoors on smoggy days, in lives cut short by heart attacks and strokes triggered by bad air. A World Bank analysis estimated that air pollution costs the U.S. economy over $790 billion per year in lost welfare and health damages, roughly 5% of GDP. This staggering figure includes healthcare expenses and lost productivity from illness and early death. In essence, we tolerate a slow, preventable massacre of Americans by dirty air, year after year.

America in 2025 has the knowledge and wealth to ensure breathable air for all its people. Yet it has not mustered the political commitment, the citizen will to action. As we shall argue, a Permanent Platform for national basics would treat clean air as sacrosanct – a non-negotiable right. It would empower regulators to act swiftly, enforce strictly, and prioritize health over polluter profits or partisan point-scoring. The data make the case irrefutable: our current approach leaves tens of millions inhaling poison. To continue on this path is unconscionable. I now turn to the second basic necessity – water – where we will see a similarly troubling pattern.

The Water We Drink

If any resource rivals air in fundamental importance, it is water. Clean, safe drinking water is essential for life and health. The United States is a nation abundantly blessed with freshwater resources and modern treatment technology. Yet a shocking number of Americans lack reliable access to toxin-free water in their homes. From high-profile crises like Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi, to hundreds or thousands of underreported contamination problems in small towns and big cities alike, the evidence is clear: we have failed to ensure the water coming out of our taps is safe.

Consider the synthetic chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), often dubbed “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment and human body.

In recent years, testing has revealed widespread PFAS contamination of drinking water across the country.

These chemicals – used in products like nonstick coatings and firefighting foam – have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system effects. EPA’s monitoring data released in 2024 show PFAS present in at least 2,394 water systems, with over 143 million Americans likely drinking PFAS-tainted water. A 2020 scientific study estimated that more than 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their water at concentrations of 1 part per trillion or higher – a level many experts consider unsafe. This means essentially most Americans, in most regions, have PFAS chemicals infiltrating their taps, an unfolding public health disaster. Only now are regulators scrambling to set enforceable limits for a handful of these substances; for decades, they flowed invisibly, unregulated. The scope and scale – thousands of contaminated sites, all 50 states affected – speak to systemic failure in our chemical and water safety oversight.

Failure.

Then there is the ancient scourge of lead, a potent neurotoxin. The tragedy of Flint brought national attention to lead in water, but Flint was not an isolated case. America’s water infrastructure in many cities is old and rife with lead pipes and plumbing. An estimated 9.2 million lead service lines are still in use, connecting water mains to homes. Many of these are in low-income and minority communities, a legacy of neglect and environmental racism. Lead leaches from these aging pipes into drinking water, especially when corrosion controls fail – exactly what happened in Flint. During the Flint crisis (2014–2015), some homes had astronomical lead levels. Virginia Tech researchers measured tap water with lead concentrations as high as 13,000 parts per billion (ppb). (For context, EPA’s action level is 15 ppb, and **5,000 ppb qualifies as toxic waste.) One Flint official remarked they had “never seen such sustained high levels of lead” in decades of work. The consequences were devastating: thousands of children were exposed, and the percentage of kids with elevated blood lead spiked, potentially causing irreversible cognitive and developmental damage. Flint residents to this day often do not trust their water and rely on filters or bottled water, illustrating how the damage from one mistake can last years.

Elsewhere, Jackson, Mississippi – a majority-Black state capital – suffered a near-complete water system collapse in 2022. Decades of underinvestment and political neglect left Jackson’s main water treatment plant in disrepair. Flooding and equipment failures led to a crisis where for weeks, tens of thousands of residents had no reliable running water at all. Even when water flowed, boil-water notices were constant. Astonishingly, from 2014 to 2022, Jackson issued over 1,500 boil-water notices – at times, the entire city was under a boil advisory. People could not trust that what came out of the tap wouldn’t make them sick. Hospitals had to pay $10,000 per day to truck in water just to flush toilets and maintain basic hygiene during outages.

Jackson’s crisis is an extreme case, but it underscores the fragility of water systems in many places. Newark, New Jersey had a lead contamination problem in recent years; smaller cities like Benton Harbor, MI and East Chicago, IN have struggled with lead or industrial chemicals; rural communities from California’s Central Valley (nitrates in wells) to West Virginia (coal chemicals) suffer unsafe water with far less media attention.

Zooming out, we see a national pattern of water system violations. In a given year, tens of millions of Americans are served by water supplies that violate health standards. A comprehensive report by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that in 2015 alone, about 77 million people – roughly one in four Americans – got drinking water from systems that violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. This includes a range of contaminants: from arsenic and nitrates to bacteria and disinfectant byproducts. Even more troubling, 27 million people were supplied water with violations of health-based standards (meaning contaminants exceeded legal limits). Essentially, one in twelve Americans had tap water in 2015 that could legally be defined as unsafe to drink. And enforcement was feeble: nearly 90% of violations received no formal enforcement action by regulators, and a mere 3.3% incurred any financial penalty. In other words, utilities that broke the law and exposed people to contaminants almost always got away with it. This lack of accountability virtually guarantees continued non-compliance.

The contaminants of concern in U.S. water are numerous. Aside from PFAS and lead, there are microbial pathogens (which can cause outbreaks if disinfection fails), agricultural pollutants like pesticides and manure-born nitrates (especially in rural wells), and industrial chemicals seeping from Superfund or factory sites (such as solvents, heavy metals, and fuel components). In many places, aging infrastructure means sewage overflows into drinking water sources during heavy rains, or biofilms and sediment in pipes foster bacteria like Legionella. These problems tend to hit vulnerable populations hardest: small rural communities often lack the budget and expertise to properly treat water or even monitor contaminants; impoverished urban neighborhoods suffer from dated plumbing and political neglect. The result is a patchwork of water safety, where your zip code can determine your risk of gastrointestinal illness or toxic exposure from a glass of “safe” water.

Failure.

Why has the world’s richest nation failed so miserably at ensuring safe water? The causes are systemic, but, ultimately, a set of choices.

First, infrastructure: much of our water infrastructure (treatment plants, distribution pipes) was built mid-20th century and is reaching end-of-life. Replacing it requires massive investment – the EPA estimates trillions of dollars are needed over coming decades – which Congress and state governments have only begun to address. Second, that hot-button word: regulation. Standards for new contaminants (like PFAS) have lagged far behind science, and enforcement of existing rules is under-resourced. Political leaders often prefer to cut ribbons on new highways than allocate funds to invisible underground water mains. Third, inequality: communities with less clout (often poor or rural) get overlooked. Flint’s crisis, to an investigative journalist, was the predictable outcome of placing cost savings over children’s health in a majority-Black, economically depressed city. Similarly, Jackson’s water plant languished as state leaders sparred with city officials rather than funding solutions.

The data and case studies make it painfully clear: access to clean water in America is not a given, but a privilege too often correlated with race, income, and geography…and even that mix of lottery-esque outcomes and purposeful intents is often not enough for authentically clean water.

That stark reality should be unacceptable in a modern democracy.

Water is life – no society can claim to uphold “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if it cannot provide clean water to every community.

And the failure is costing us dearly. Lead exposure from water and other sources costs the U.S. economy on the order of hundreds of billions if not trillions in lost productivity and health care due to cognitive impairments in children. Waterborne illnesses and contaminants result in healthcare burdens and undermined quality of life. Intangibly, each water crisis erodes public trust in government – trust which is already near historic lows (only 22% of Americans today trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time). When citizens must doubt the very water coming from their government-run systems, faith in the social contract withers.

A Permanent Platform centered on national basics treats perfectly clean water as a top priority: massively accelerated investment to replace lead pipes and upgrade plants (not the trickle – the joke – of current programs), strict enforcement of contaminant limits with no exceptions, and emergency interventions in any locality where water is unsafe.

[A Permanent Platform] would make universal clean water a mission akin to how the Apollo program treated reaching the moon – non-negotiable, boldly led, and achieved at all costs.

This is not utopian; it is entirely feasible with known technology and resources. What has been lacking is the political will and moral urgency. We will later outline specific policy demands, but the conclusion is clear now: The status quo – where American children are still being poisoned by their tap water in 2025 – is an egregious failure that must end.

The Food We Eat

Food is our most direct fuel and medicine. In the United States, supermarket shelves groan under an abundance of foods, and agriculture is a technologically advanced industry. Yet behind this abundance lurks a darker reality: much of the American food supply is saturated with chemicals, additives, and processes that undermine health. Diet-related chronic illnesses (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) are at staggering levels. Toxic pesticide residues and questionable additives make their way into our meals. And a handful of giant corporations control large swaths of food production and distribution, often setting aside safety in the chase for profit.

The very act of eating, which should nourish us, has become a vector for slow poisoning and disease.

Start with pesticides, the chemicals used to kill crop pests but which also often harm humans. The U.S. uses over a billion pounds of pesticides each year in agriculture. Traces of these chemicals remain on produce and in processed foods. According to analyses of USDA testing, nearly 70% of conventionally grown produce sold in the U.S. carries pesticide residues. This is after washing and peeling in lab conditions, meaning typical consumer washing cannot remove all residues. Many fruits and vegetables have multiple different pesticides detected; in one USDA test, more than 92% of kale samples had two or more pesticide residues, with some containing residues of 18 different pesticides. These include chemicals like Dacthal (DCPA), a herbicide classified as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA, which was found on 60% of kale samples – even though Dacthal has been banned in the EU since 2009. The continued use of such chemicals in U.S. fields despite known risks exemplifies regulatory lag. Only in recent years has the EPA moved to ban or restrict a few of the worst actors (for example, chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic insecticide linked to developmental delays in children, was finally banned on food crops in 2021 after being prohibited in many other countries). Most pesticide tolerances (legal residue limits) have been set more with farming practicability in mind than rigorous health protection, especially for vulnerable groups like children and pregnant women.

That is, the “legal limit” is for farmers, and corporate farming…not for a maximization of the quality of human life.

The health links to pesticide exposure are concerning. Chronic, low-level ingestion of certain pesticides has been associated in studies with increased risks of neurological issues, hormone disruption, and cancers. Farm workers and rural communities see elevated exposure and corresponding health problems, but even urban consumers are not untouched – the CDC finds pesticide metabolites in the urine of the majority of Americans, evidence of pervasive exposure. Pediatric researchers warn that children’s developing bodies are especially sensitive; the American Academy of Pediatrics has urged limiting kids’ pesticide exposure since 2012, noting links to brain tumors, leukemia, and neurodevelopmental defects in those exposed early in life. In short, what we eat can dose us with small amounts of nerve toxins and carcinogens daily.

A stylized, minimalist illustration inspired by the attached image, but reversed, showing one person reaching down to lift another out of a field filled with pesticide-infected crops. The lower figure is struggling among the plants, representing the dangers of contaminated food, while the higher figure offers a hand from a place of safety and health. The background contrasts the polluted field below with a clearer, more natural environment above, reinforcing the theme of escape from harmful food sources. The design remains bold, clean, and impactful.

Next, consider chemical additives and ultra-processed foods. The modern American diet is heavy in processed items – from fast food and frozen dinners to sodas and snacks – which often contain a cocktail of preservatives, flavor enhancers, colorings, emulsifiers, and other additives. Astonishingly, the FDA largely does not pre-approve these thousands of chemicals. Thanks to a loophole in food safety law, substances “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the manufacturer can be added to food without an FDA review or public notification.

The GRAS loophole, originally meant for common ingredients like vinegar or salt, has been stretched beyond recognition.

A recent analysis found that roughly 99% of new chemicals added to food since 2000 were never evaluated by the FDA, only by the food or chemical companies themselves.

The fox evaluating the sturdiness and readiness of the henhouse.

Out of 766 chemicals introduced, 756 went through this self-approval GRAS pathway. What does it mena that the fox built the henhouse? It means that companies decide a new sweetener, preservative, or flavor is “safe” and start using it, and the FDA often isn’t even aware of it unless problems emerge. This regulatory capture means many additives in our food have not undergone independent, rigorous long-term safety studies. Some that have been reexamined – like certain artificial dyes and preservatives – show evidence of hyperactivity in children or other effects, leading other nations to ban or restrict them while the U.S. still allows them.

Failure.

The corporate control of food production exacerbates these issues. A few multinational corporations dominate key sectors: for instance, just four companies process about 85% of U.S. beef and a similar share of pork, giving them outsized power over safety practices and prices in a world where the FDA, ostensibly the citizen’s voice, has ceded all power in practice.

In seeds and agrochemicals, giants like Bayer-Monsanto and Corteva control the traits of most major crops. This consolidation can lead to regulatory capture, where agencies like USDA and FDA adopt policies favoring industry profitability over public health. An infamous example was the high influence Monsanto had in pushing permissive regulations on its genetically engineered crops and associated herbicide (glyphosate), even as independent scientists raised alarms about ecosystem and health impacts. The USDA, whose dual mandate is to promote agriculture and regulate it, often errs on the side of promotion – aiding large agribusiness exports and production volumes, but showing less zeal in protecting consumers from, say, excessive antibiotic use in livestock or salmonella in meat. Inspection standards at slaughterhouses have in some cases been loosened (with industry self-inspection pilot programs) under industry pressure. The result is periodic outbreaks of foodborne illness and recalls that indicate systemic issues in how food is produced and handled at scale.

All of this has contributed to a national diet that, while ample in calories, is nutrient-poor and harm-rich. Over 42% of American adults have obesity, an epidemic driven in part by high consumption of ultra-processed, sugary, and chemically-laden foods. These conditions of obesity and related metabolic disorders (like type 2 diabetes, affecting an estimated 34 million Americans) are influenced by diet composition as well as quantity. Studies have found that diets high in ultra-processed foods – which often contain many additives and residual chemicals – are associated with higher risks of heart disease, cancer, and mortality.

The United States paradoxically spends the most on healthcare but has one of the lowest life expectancies among wealthy nations; diet is one major contributor to this paradox, alongside lack of universal healthcare access. The healthcare costs attributable to diet-related conditions are enormous (hundreds of billions per year on diabetes and cardiovascular disease alone).

Moreover, unsafe elements in food disproportionately impact the vulnerable.

Children accumulate pesticide exposures that may affect their neurodevelopment. Pregnant women consuming mercury-laden fish or nitrate-polluted water risk birth defects. Low-income families often rely on cheaper, processed foods, getting higher doses of additives and less real nutrition – a phenomenon that drives disparities in obesity and diabetes. Food deserts and the marketing of junk food in minority communities further entrench these inequities. The quality of calories matters, and right now too many calories in America come with ingredients that do harm.

Why has our system allowed our food to become a conduit for so many harms? Part of the answer is big business influence. The chemical and food industries have lobbied Congress and agencies to keep regulation light. The FDA’s GRAS loophole exists largely because industry pushed for a faster, less scrutinized path to introduce new additives – and they succeeded. The USDA’s nutritional guidelines have at times been swayed by agricultural lobbies (witness how long it took to adjust recommendations on sugar and certain fats). The revolving door phenomenon – where industry executives take key regulatory positions and vice versa – has diluted oversight and perverted incentives. It is telling that when independent academic scientists ring alarm bells (for example, on the dangers of a certain preservative or the link between processed meats and cancer), the policy response is sluggish and met with fierce opposition from affected companies.

A Permanent Platform approach to food would radically shift priorities: Public health - a right to clean food - would trump everything, including corporate profit.

This means far stricter limits on pesticide residues and outright bans on the most toxic pesticides, as the EU has done, aggressive reduction of added sugars and harmful additives in processed foods, and robust independent safety testing for any new food chemicals (eliminating self-policing by industry).

It would mean broad, sweeping and demonstrative anti-monopoly/anti-trust actions to decentralize food production and processing so that safety failures in one giant plant do not imperil millions, and so that farmers and consumers are not at the mercy of a few mega-corporations.

It would treat nutrition and food safety as pillars of national security – after all, unhealthy diets now kill far more Americans than any foreign adversary could dream of doing.

With no memorial.

No wall.

No crying at the names.

Imagine a food system where fruits and vegetables free of pesticides are affordable to all, where livestock are raised without prophylactic antibiotics or overcrowding (reducing disease risk), where school lunches are freshly prepared and rich in nutrients and organic ingredients rather than reheated processed fare. These are not impossible ideals; they are achieved in various high-income countries that prioritize public welfare (several European nations, for instance, ban many food additives allowed in the U.S. and have healthier population diets as a result).

The current American food regime – chemically intensive, corporately consolidated, and profit-driven – has given us cheap and convenient calories, yes. But the true costs are borne by our bodies (in illness) and our environment (in polluted soil and water).

This is food fraud at a grand scale: the promise of nourishment but the delivery of harmful substances and ill health.

We must demand better. A Permanent Platform ensures better. As we will articulate in our Platform and policy demands, a nation devoted to its people’s well-being would ensure that the food we eat helps us thrive, not slowly sicken.

The Homes We Live In

Housing is more than a market commodity – it is the physical space where we spend our lives, raise our families, rest and recover. A safe, healthy home is a basic human need and, one would think, a basic expectation in a developed nation. Yet a million people live in no home at all, and millions of other Americans live in housing that is unsafe or unhealthy. That is, in 2024, an estimated 771,480 people presented as homeless in the United States to some outlet that recorded the data, a 18% increase from the previous year, but many experts imagine an additional quarter of am illion people who may have never interacted with any system at all yet still function as without any domicile at all in the U.S.

Failure.

But this isn’t even just - or primarily - about those we know to be homeless; individuals and communities with homes are suffering from the harms replete in housing stock in the U.S.

Toxins like lead and asbestos, infestations of mold and pests, and structural decay plague a significant portion of U.S. housing stock, especially in low-income communities.

This is not merely about comfort; it’s about fundamental health and dignity. Substandard housing conditions have been conclusively linked to diseases and developmental problems. The failure to ensure healthy homes is another facet of systemic neglect – one that intersects intimately with environmental justice and public health.

One of the longest-standing home health threats is lead paint. Lead-based paint was widely used in homes until it was banned in 1978. However, the legacy remains: approximately 37 million homes in the U.S. (roughly one-third of the housing stock) still contain lead-based paint. Of those, about 3.6 million homes with young children have significant lead paint hazards (peeling paint, lead dust) right now.

Lead paint in old housing continues to be the primary source of lead poisoning in children – as paint flakes and dust are ingested by hand-to-mouth activity. HUD estimates also indicate that 23 million homes have significant lead hazards (chipping paint, high levels of lead dust), meaning the risk of exposure is not just theoretical.

The consequences are dire: lead is a potent neurotoxin, and even low levels in children can reduce IQ and cause behavior problems. There is no safe level of lead in blood, as health agencies reiterate. Black children and poor children are disproportionately affected, since they are more likely to live in older, deteriorating housing. Nationwide data show that almost twice as many Black children have elevated blood lead levels (≥2 µg/dL) compared to white children – a stark disparity driven largely by housing inequity. The harm from lead is lifelong, impacting academic performance, career outcomes, and health. And yet, the pace of lead removal from housing is woefully slow; at current funding, it would take many decades to eliminate all lead hazards.

Another silent killer in homes is asbestos, used in insulation, flooring, and other materials up through the 1970s. When old asbestos-containing materials deteriorate or are disturbed, microscopic fibers can become airborne and inhaled, causing lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other lung diseases years later. There are still countless older buildings – from homes to schools – that contain aging asbestos. Proper remediation is costly, and in many low-income areas it simply isn’t done. Thus, people continue to be exposed to asbestos in their own walls and ceilings long after the substance was known to be deadly. The full burden is hard to quantify, but the persistence of mesothelioma cases (around 3,000 diagnosed per year in the U.S.) attests to ongoing or past exposure sources. We essentially allowed a hazardous material to be built into our homes and have never systematically removed it, leaving a toxic inheritance.

Mold and dampness constitute a more ubiquitous but no less serious home hazard. Damp environments inside homes (from leaks, poor ventilation, flooding, etc.) lead to the growth of mold, which releases spores and can produce allergens and irritants.

Statistics indicate that somewhere between 18% and 50% of buildings in the U.S. have evidence of dampness or mold problems.

That could be up to half of all homes suffering from some degree of mold issue – whether visible black mold on walls or hidden mold under carpets and in air ducts. The health impacts are well documented: mold and dampness are consistently linked to higher risks of asthma onset and exacerbation, chronic coughing, wheezing, and other respiratory issues. The Institute of Medicine and subsequent research have concluded that living in a damp, moldy home causes or worsens respiratory conditions. One analysis estimated that about 21% of current asthma cases in the U.S. may be attributable to dampness and mold in homes – an astounding figure implying that fixing home dampness could potentially prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma cases. Mold can also contribute to allergies and cognitive effects (several studies link mold toxins to brain fog or depression). Aside from mold, homes with poor maintenance often harbor pests like rodents and cockroaches, which themselves cause asthma and allergies via their droppings and dander.

A stylized, minimalist illustration depicting a house transformed into a monstrous figure. The home has exaggerated features like menacing eyes in the windows, sharp teeth in the doorway, and twisted, claw-like roof edges. The structure appears to loom over, symbolizing the dangers or oppressive nature of an unsafe or toxic home environment. The background is stark and dramatic, with a contrast between dark shadows and light, reinforcing the eerie yet impactful theme. The color scheme is bold and evocative, maintaining a clean and striking design.

Then there are physical safety hazards and structural deficiencies: collapsing roofs, exposed wiring, lack of heat or hot water, broken stairs, etc. By official counts, about 6 million U.S. homes are classified as “substandard” by American Housing Survey criteria, meaning they have severe physical problems (such as no indoor plumbing, or critical deficiencies in upkeep).

To put it plainly, millions live in housing that fails basic standards of habitability – third-world conditions in a supposed first-world country.

Even beyond that, a much larger number of homes have one or more significant health or safety hazards. The National League of Cities reports an estimate that 45 million homes have at least one such hazard – from structural issues to environmental hazards like lead, radon, or pests. This is nearly 35% of homes.

Renters often suffer the worst conditions, as they are at the mercy of landlords who may defer maintenance. According to Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, renters report healthy housing concerns at higher rates than homeowners. Overcrowding (more people in a dwelling than it was designed for, common among low-income households) introduces further health stresses and safety risks, including higher spread of infectious disease and mental stress.

It’s crucial to recognize the intersection of housing with environmental justice. Poor housing conditions go hand in hand with other environmental burdens. The same low-income urban neighborhoods with old housing and lead paint often have higher outdoor pollution and proximity to highways or industrial sites. Thus, residents may be doubly hit – by bad air outside and toxins inside. Rural poor areas might have substandard housing and contaminated well water and high pesticide drift from nearby farms. These compounding risks contribute to health disparities. For example, children growing up in inner-city poverty may inhale lead dust at home, triggering cognitive damage, and also breathe asthma-inducing mold spores and cockroach allergens – this partly explains why asthma hospitalization and lead poisoning rates are higher in these communities compared to affluent suburbs. It’s a cycle of neglect: marginalized communities suffer infrastructure neglect across the board, including housing, leading to adverse health that further entrenches poverty.

Living in unsafe or unhealthy housing also imposes economic and psychological burdens. Families forced to move frequently due to poor conditions or evictions face instability that can derail education and employment. Those who stay endure stress and anxiety – parents worrying if their child will be poisoned by their own home or get sick every winter because the heating fails and mold grows. A broad body of research finds that poor quality housing is associated with higher stress, anxiety, and depression, as well as worse academic performance in children.

The home environment shapes mental health: constant leaks, vermin infestations, or fear of a ceiling collapsing keeps one in a state of insecurity. It is hard to focus on thriving or participating in civic life when one’s basic shelter is in crisis. As one study put it, housing problems “negatively affect mental health and cause an increase in stress, anxiety, and depression for several reasons,” including lack of control over one’s space and the chronic strain of dealing with repairs or health worries.

Why does substandard housing persist on such a scale in America?

Failure.

Largely affordability and policy failures. Decades of insufficient investment in affordable housing have left millions of low-income households with no choice but to live in older, deteriorating units. Landlords in these markets often lack incentive or funds to fix problems (especially if their tenants have nowhere else to go). Housing and health codes exist, but enforcement is uneven. Cities may not have the inspectors to proactively check properties, and tenants may fear retaliation (or have nowhere else) if they report violations. Federally, programs to remediate hazards (like HUD grants to abate lead paint) reach only a small fraction of affected homes each year. The political will to pour money into improving “others’” housing – often the poor or marginalized – has historically been weak. Instead, we see episodic attention when crises hit (a lead poisoning case gets news, or a carbon monoxide death in a public housing building), but no sustained, massive campaign to rehab the nation’s housing. Again, contrast this with how we treat other infrastructure: we don’t expect citizens to drive on crumbling bridges for decades, but we do expect them to live in crumbling buildings indefinitely.

A nation that fails to ensure safe homes is condemning a portion of its people to preventable illness and misery. A child’s potential can be literally stunted by the house they grow up in – through lead-induced IQ loss or asthma-induced school absences. An elder’s life can be cut short by a fall on a broken step or by breathing mold in a damp apartment. These are not dramatic Hollywood-type threats; they are slow, grinding, everyday tragedies of neglect. And, like other basics, housing issues often remain invisible to those not experiencing them – hidden behind the walls of “other” neighborhoods. The Permanent Platform insists that we make them visible and unacceptable.

In a truly civilized society - one with a Permanent Platform - every dwelling would be a healthy dwelling. What would that entail? Rigorous code enforcement and funding such that no one has to live with lead paint, or without heat, or among vermin. A crash program to remove all lead hazards from homes, which studies show would yield a huge return on investment (one analysis found a net benefit up to $188 billion by eliminating lead paint nationwide due to higher lifetime productivity and lower healthcare costs). Systematic remediation of old asbestos and mold. Building new affordable housing to modern healthy standards (and replacing the worst of the old). Essentially, treating housing as a form of preventive healthcare. The technology and know-how exist – what’s needed is political prioritization and resources.

When we speak of “national basics,” healthy housing absolutely qualifies. It is as vital as clean water or air, since home is where we consume water and air most of our day. A Permanent Platform informing government would launch something akin to an interstate highway program, but for housing rehabilitation: millions of jobs created to fix roofs, remove lead pipes and paint, install proper ventilation, and ensure safe wiring and plumbing in every residence. The social benefits – children with better chances in life, adults with fewer sick days and medical bills, neighborhoods revitalized instead of being health traps – would far outweigh the costs.

The current situation – tens of millions in hazard-filled homes – is a result of treating housing as only an individual responsibility and a commodity. It must be reframed as a collective priority and a right. Everyone deserves a home that shelters, not sickens. Until we achieve that, we are failing one of the most basic tests of a nation’s purpose.

Taken Together: The Anti-Democratic Burden of Living in America

Taken together, the systemic failures in air, water, food, and housing amount to a profound assault on the American people’s well-being, on the fundamental right ot live well.

But beyond the immediate health consequences and economic costs, these failures not only devstate the notion of a social contract, they directly impose a broader anti-democratic burden on society. By “anti-democratic,” we mean that these conditions erode citizens’ ability to participate fully and equally in civic life, undermine the promise of equal opportunity, and fray the shared trust and purpose that democracy requires in reality, in practice.

In a very real sense, when millions are preoccupied, consciously or unconsciously, with the struggle to breathe clean air, drink safe water, feed their families untainted food, or live in safe homes, they are less able to exercise their rights and responsibilities as free citizens. The energy of our people is sapped by survival challenges that should not exist in an advanced nation.

Firstly, consider the economic burden on individuals and families trying to cope with these systemic failures. Money that could go to education, savings, or starting a business is instead spent on doctor visits for asthma attacks, on bottled water deliveries, on replacing spoiled food or cleaning mold, on exorbitant healthcare for preventable diseases.

For example, if a family in Flint has to buy bottled water for cooking and drinking for years, that is a subversive “tax” they pay because the public water system failed them. If a farmworker in California develops cancer from long-term pesticide exposure, their earning capacity is cut short, and their family may be plunged into poverty.

Multiply these microeconomic hits across the country.

A study of lead exposure’s impact estimated that each year’s cohort of U.S. children loses on the order of $100 billion in future earnings due to lead’s effects on IQ and potential – effectively a massive, silent drain on national human capital. Air pollution similarly imposes huge costs: as noted, nearly $800 billion a year in economic losses from health damages.

When Americans collectively lose on the order of $8 trillion per decade from pollution-related health costs and lead-induced losses and so on, that’s money not spent on productive activity or improvements in quality of life. It’s like carrying a backpack of rocks in a race; our economy and society - our possibility! - are weighted down by these self-inflicted burdens.

At the household level, surviving in an unhealthy nation often means juggling impossible choices. A mother might have to choose between paying the electricity bill or paying for asthma medication for her son triggered by substandard housing. A family might forgo nutritious but expensive fresh foods in favor of cheap fast food that exacerbates obesity and diabetes, because they live in a food desert or cannot afford better – thus sowing seeds of future illness.

These “choices” are fundamentally undemocratic because they are dictated by deprivation, not by free will.

They reflect a lack of basic provision that constrains freedom. True freedom is not just the absence of tyranny, not just the presence of opportunity and security to live without constant fear, but the eternal presence of the national basics.

The real reason(s) to have a nation at all.

With low faith and engagement in any “national rationale,” another problemtic aspect that reveals itself is allostatic load, i.e. psychological burden costs and erosion of trust costs.

When people cannot trust the air, water, or food around them, it breeds anxiety and anger. When they see government officials fail to act, or worse, cover up problems (as happened in Flint where officials initially denied the water was bad), it breeds cynicism and disengagement. The social contract is essentially shattered into smithereens for those individuals. Why participate in a system that doesn’t even keep your kids safe from poison? Indeed, it is well documented that trust in government has plummeted over the last few decades, now near historic lows.

Surveys find Americans deeply skeptical that government will do the right thing. While there are many reasons for this, one concrete factor is lived experience of government failure – like watching partisan bickering while your community’s infrastructure crumbles. Public health crises caused by neglect are particularly corrosive to trust, because they violate a basic expectation of governance. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, showed how decades of underfunding public health, dis- and mis-information and politicizing science led to confusion and mistrust that cost lives. Similarly, each environmental health fiasco (be it lead, PFAS, or mining waste in rivers) adds to a narrative that “the system doesn’t care about people like us.” Democracy depends on a baseline faith and practicable habits that reveal that collective institutions serve the common good. When that faith is lost, and practices become impossible, people either drop out (not voting, not engaging), gravitate towards demagogues promising to blow up the system, or blow it up themselves.

None of the above is healthy for a republic.

Furthermore, the hidden costs of surviving in an unhealthy nation often entrench inequality, which in turn undercuts democratic equality.

Wealthy Americans can, to some extent, buy their way out of these problems – they can live in neighborhoods with access to cleaner air and water, afford organic foods and water filters, renovate homes to remove hazards, and access top healthcare worldwide if they do get sick. Poor and working-class Americans often cannot.

The result is that the poor, persisitent poor and near-poor bear a double burden: they suffer more from the basics failures and they have fewer resources to cope. This leads to a vicious cycle for half of Americans (who make up that tripartite group): environmental and health problems keep people poor (through medical bills, lost productivity, cognitive impairment in children, etc.), and poverty in turn makes them more likely to live in environments with those problems.

Democracy might promise one person one vote, but when some are so burdened by daily survival, their ability to exercise that vote and influence society is effectively diminished. It’s hard to attend a town hall meeting or organize for change when you’re working two jobs and dealing with chronic illness at home.

There is also a collective opportunity cost: the national basics failures distract and consume political and social capital that could be spent on higher pursuits. If Americans weren’t fighting over whether to provide clean water or healthcare – things any civilized society should have resolved – imagine the creativity and effort that could go into advancing society (like exploring space, curing cancer, inventing new technologies, etc.). Instead, we are still stuck in a 19th-century scenario of battling cholera and bad meat, so to speak. Every Flint or Jackson or public housing scandal sucks up years of activism and litigation just to get back to zero (i.e., the condition of not poisoning people). It is an enormous waste of potential. It is the modern example of such.

A nation constantly tending to untreated basic needs is like a person constantly tending to an untreated wound – they have little energy for anything else, including being better for each other or being a leader the world needs.

From a philosophical perspective, the failure to guarantee these basics violates the spirit of democratic freedom and equality on which America was ostensibly founded. Jefferson’s concept of an American yeomanry – independent citizens free to pursue happiness – implicitly assumed people had the basics (land, shelter, sustenance) to be independent. When the masses of society are effectively unfree because their environment is making them sick or stunting their children’s futures, the promise of equal citizenship rings hollow. Environmental and public health crises become a form of ongoing disenfranchisement. Think of children who cannot reach their full potential in school because of lead poisoning or constant asthma attacks: they are starting the race of life miles behind their peers through no fault of their own, and, often, will stay behind everyone else. That is profoundly undemocratic in outcome.

Moreover, these issues often do not get proportional political attention precisely because the affected populations might have less political voice (the poor, minorities, the soma-engaged middle class/bourgoisie, etc.). This is a self-reinforcing loop: those whose basics are unmet have the least power to demand redress, because money and influence skew politics. The result is policy agendas that focus on things like marginal tax rates or cultural wedge issues, while lead in pipes and mold in walls languish on the back burner. It’s a politics of spectacle (as we discuss in the next section) that serves partisan games but not people’s real needs.

We should also address the psychosocial toll on national morale and social cohesion. Constant crises over basics create a sense of national decline and helplessness. When people in other developed countries read about Americans having to boil water or crowdsource medical bills or live in roach-infested apartments, it diminishes American prestige and confidence. It is hard for citizens to feel pride and solidarity when they see such glaring failures that go unresolved year after year. This can fuel nihilism or divisiveness – people start looking for someone to blame (immigrants, the “other” party, etc.), further polarizing society rather than uniting to solve problems. In that way, the neglect of basics is politically destabilizing. It provides fertile ground for extremists who exploit discontent, or for conspiracy theories to flourish (e.g., if officials lie about water safety once, some citizens might not trust them about vaccines or anything else, sliding into anti-science beliefs).

In summary, the burdens created by unclean air, unsafe water, unhealthy food, and insecure housing are not just individual tragedies – they collectively debase and degrade the fabric of the nation and its democratic vitality. A populace struggling with preventable ills cannot be fully engaged in the civic sphere. A government that cannot or will not solve these fundamental issues loses legitimacy. An economy weighed down by the costs of these failures cannot reach its full productive potential. And an ever-widening gap between those protected from these ills and those who suffer them undermines the egalitarian foundation of democracy.

Addressing these basic needs, therefore, is not only a health or economic imperative – it is a functional democratic imperative. It is about empowering every American to lead a life of dignity and opportunity, to have the genuine freedom to participate in society, rather than being chained by chronic ills and anxieties. It is about restoring faith that our democracy can deliver on its most elementary promises. If we fail to meet this imperative, we risk a downward spiral: a sicker, more divided, more disillusioned populace, which in turn makes it harder to achieve any collective progress.

If we succeed, we remove a suffocating weight from the shoulders of millions, unleashing human potential and renewing the sense that we are all in this together, that the nation is for us.

The next sections turn to why our current political system has failed to make these basics a priority and how a reimagined approach – a Permanent Platform above party politics – is the rational path forward.

The Fraud of Political Personalities and Party-Based Governance

How did we get to this point of glaring fundamental failures? A core contention of this manifesto is that our political system – dominated by personalities and parties – has proven incapable of addressing these basic, non-negotiable needs. In fact, the spectacle of American politics often actively distracts from or even perpetuates these problems.

The founders of the United States foresaw the danger of factionalism. George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address, warned in the “most solemn manner” against the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” He noted that partisan factions could - and would - misrepresent each other, enfeeble the government, and empower “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” to subvert the people’s power. This was not theoretical: Washington knew that if loyalty to party trumped loyalty to the common good, the republic would suffer. His prophecy has come to pass. The “will of a party” has often replaced the “delegated will of the Nation,” as he put it, resulting in public administration - in our government - being a daily mirror of factional projects rather than “wholesome plans digested by common councils.”

Today, politics is frequently treated as a team sport or reality show – an endless campaign where scoring points against the other side outweighs governing. This politics-as-spectacle is fed - as it would be - by our corporatized forms of mass media and social media, which generate income and secure wealth by amplifying controversies, gaffes, and personality drama.

The attention of the public (and thus politicians) is easily hijacked by cultural flashpoints or partisan one-upmanship, while slow-burning-yet-fundamental crises like those detailed in this manifesto receive scant consistent focus. For example, one week the nation may fixate on a politician’s offensive tweet or a partisan impeachment saga, and the next on a Supreme Court battle – meanwhile, the fact that, say, thousands of towns have PFAS in their drinking water or that children in public housing are being hospitalized for asthma seldom sustains headline coverage or legislative urgency. It’s not that these issues are never reported – they are, by diligent journalists – but they rarely become political priorities. There is no sustained factional advantage to be gained in solving them; thus, they languish.

Both major parties have failed in this regard, albeit in different ways. Democrats often talk about infrastructure, healthcare, environmental justice – indeed, they did enact the Affordable Care Act and recently a big infrastructure bill – but they too have not mounted the full-court press needed to truly eradicate these basic problems, nor have they delivered the vision required to re-imagine the $100 trillion in spending since the year 2000 they mostly sanctioned. They are often pulled into other arenas, or compromise away bold solutions in fear of political backlash or under influence of certain industries (for instance, historically some centrist Democrats allied with real estate or agribusiness interests that diluted reforms). Republicans, on the other hand, have frequently been outright hostile to regulation and public spending that would address these basics – positioning themselves as anti-government and pro-business to the point of denying funds or rules that would clearly save lives. Environmental and consumer protections have been labeled “burdensome regulation” and gutted; social safety nets that relate to housing or food have been slashed under rhetoric of personal responsibility.

A stylized, minimalist illustration depicting a session in the House of Representatives, but with each representative appearing as a zombie. The figures are hunched, decayed, and mindless, seated in the grand hall with tattered suits and hollow eyes. The scene conveys an eerie yet satirical tone, symbolizing dysfunction or stagnation in governance. The background includes the architecture of the chamber, with an ominous lighting contrast that enhances the unsettling yet impactful design. The color scheme is bold and striking, maintaining the clean, graphic style of previous images.

Neither party has clean hands. One can cite, for instance, that the federal minimum wage last increased in 2009 under a Democratic Congress, and despite pledges, it remains $7.25 to this day in 2025, losing value each year – a bipartisan abdication of ensuring a living wage (indeed, in 2021 a raise was defeated in the Senate with the help of members of both parties). Similarly, the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act have not been meaningfully updated in decades; infrastructure was left to rot under many Congresses and Presidents of both stripes until some action in 2021. These are systemic, cross-cutting failures.

One reason is the short-term horizon of party politics. Elected officials think in two, four, or six-year cycles oriented around the next election. Investing in preventive measures (like lead abatement or climate resilience) may not pay off in visible ways before the next vote, so it’s deprioritized. There’s more immediate political capital in cutting a ribbon on a new factory (jobs! media coverage!) than in painstakingly rebuilding sewer lines under the city (invisible, taken for granted). Parties focus on issues that energize their base or donor class. Basic needs often do not fit that mold; they are not “sexy” issues. They can even be politically dangerous because solving them might require raising taxes or confronting powerful lobbies – actions that invite attack ads and political risk.

Politicians may not be able to even imagine how to forge solutions that do not spring from, or serve, election cycles. And if our problems - the problems of clean air, clean water, clean food and clean places to live, to start, let alone health care, transportation, energy, aging in place, et cetera - and their solutions persist outside that framework - if they require thinking that will never spring from the exigencies of the political cycle - then these leaders cannot serve us…they don't know how.

Moreover, party-based governance encourages blame games rather than solutions. If one party in power tries to address a basic issue, the other may obstruct or undermine it for fear that success would make the ruling party look good. Or they may use people’s suffering as a talking point against the incumbents, rather than joining to solve it. Think of how infrastructure spending was stalled or minimal for years as each administration’s proposals were picked apart by opponents not wanting to hand a win to the other side. Flint’s water crisis, for instance, became somewhat politicized along partisan lines in Congress, delaying a robust federal response initially as lawmakers squabbled over responsibility. Meanwhile, the people of Flint just needed their pipes fixed and healthcare for their kids – something that should rise above party.

The personality-driven nature of modern politics is part of the fraud. Charismatic politicians often campaign on broad promises to uplift the common person, to “fix the system,” to care for the forgotten. But once in office, the gravitational pull of party leadership, special interest donors, and the media spotlight often draws their attention elsewhere. Voters are left disillusioned as each successive figurehead fails to fundamentally change material conditions. This creates a dangerous vacuum where demagogues can step in, claiming “only I can solve it” – often scapegoating minorities or the opposing party as the reason basic needs aren’t met. We saw elements of this in recent years with populist rhetoric railing against the “establishment,” yet delivering few concrete improvements for the struggling, instead fanning culture wars.

Historically, the United States had moments of more functional governance tackling big basic issues (e.g., the Progressive Era’s public health reforms, New Deal housing and labor standards, the postwar environmental legislation). But in the last few decades, hyper-partisanship and the influence of money have hollowed out that capacity. Elections have become billion-dollar spectacles – the 2020 cycle’s $14 billion price tag and the $16.3 billion cost of the one in 2024 exemplifies how politics is awash in money – and much of that money comes from industries and ultra-wealthy donors who often have a stake in maintaining the status quo or preventing stronger basic protections (fossil fuel companies vs. clean air regulations, Big Ag vs. pesticide limits, pharmaceutical and insurance companies vs. sweeping healthcare reform, etc.).

As a result, party platforms moderated or muddied their commitments to basics, and political debate gets warped. There is a fraudulence to campaigns that thump chests about American greatness and values while ignoring that children are drinking lead or going hungry. It’s as if the political class lives in a bubble removed from the everyday struggles, the needs for national basics, enumerated above.

The Founders’ fear of factions was also about how party loyalty can override truth and reason. We see that in current debates over, say, climate change or pollution science – what should be a factual discussion about risk and mitigation becomes a polarized fight where each side has its own “experts” and facts are bent to ideological lines. Facts, remember those? Those empirically verifiable statements and objective truths grounded in evidence, observation, and logical consistency which exist independently of belief, perception, or ideological preference and are demonstrable realities confirmed through repeatable experimentation, measurement, or historical documentation? We used to be awash in those across national culture. Yes, those who wanted the nation to move indifferent to knowable truths existed, and they were possessed of agendas, but they nece4ssitatively functioned at a remove.

They do not do so now. A failure of the American project has to be the move of the unserious and afactual to the center of discourse.

This makes rational policymaking (like reducing emissions to protect air and water) much harder, because one party or demogogue might stake its/their identity on denying a problem exists.

Similarly, basic economic justice measures like raising the minimum wage or providing universal healthcare often fail not on their merits (evidence strongly shows they would improve lives and even help the economy), but because of party-line dogmas about “big government” or “socialism” that have been drilled into the public by partisan media. The result: systemic neglect persists, wrapped in the language of ideological righteousness.

In essence, American governance has in many ways become a performative battleground rather than a problem-solving forum. The performance – shouting on cable news, owning the libs, stopping the cons, fundraising emails about the outrage of the day – is lucrative and mobilizing for parties. But it is fraudulent to the extent it claims to be governing. It sustains what we might call a political theater, behind which the real work of tending to public needs is left undone. And when occasionally big policies are passed, they are often fragmented (the Affordable Care Act left many gaps and became a political football rather than a consensus universal healthcare solution; the recent infrastructure law is significant but one-time, whereas infrastructure needs continuous commitment). Long-term plans that span multiple election cycles – which basics provision requires – are hard to maintain in a partisan see-saw of power where each side may undo the other’s work (witness environmental regulations ping-ponging between administrations).

To call this dynamic a “fraud” is strong, but justified: voters are led to believe that electing their party will solve their problems, yet time and again the fundamental issues remain. People are told to fear the other party as the existential threat, distracting them from the fact that both parties in power have failed to secure their existential basics. The outrage that should be directed at toxic water or unaffordable insulin is redirected toward partisan hatred or scapegoats (immigrants, welfare recipients, etc.). This is political misdirection on a grand scale, and it harms us all.

Notably, the U.S. Constitution did not enshrine a party system; parties emerged as one practical reality, but the founders were wary. James Madison in Federalist No. 10 recognized the inevitability of factions but hoped a large republic could dilute their harms. For a time, it might have worked. But in the 21st century, with national media and highly organized parties, factions are nationalized and perhaps more entrenched than ever. The concept of common good has eroded in political discourse. Even issues that ought to unite – like infrastructure or clean water – become divisive negotiations.

Bipartisan failure is evident in that neither party, when holding power, declared a war-level mobilization on any of these basics. We did not see a Republican “Clean Air Crusade” or a Democratic “Safe Housing for All” plan at the scale of need. Instead, incrementalism and half-measures, often rolled back by the next administration. The parties have alternated control for decades; if either were sufficient champions of the basics, we would have seen more progress by now. This suggests that a different approach – one outside the conventional party framework – is needed to prioritize humanity over partisanship.

In sum, American party politics, as currently practiced, has proven structurally unsuited to guarantee the fundamental conditions of healthy life for the populace. This is not about the moral failings of individual politicians (there are sincere public servants in both parties), but about a system (whether currently “led” by Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or any faction/party) that incentivizes the wrong focus (electoral politics and careerism) and is hijacked by special interests (by design).

The manifesto thus argues for stepping entirely outside, and thus transcending, this model: establishing a Permanent Platform that is issue-focused and people-focused, not swayed by the tides of partisan feuds or electioneering.

We need governance that is steady, long-term, and consensus-driven on the basics – treating them as the nonpartisan foundation upon which any civilized society rests.

This sets the stage for proposing what that Permanent Platform would look like, and why it is the only rational way forward if we wish to truly fulfill the promise of America for current and future generations.

A Permanent Platform: The Only Rational Path Forward

Forget popular public personalities. Forget political parties. What are the fundamentals - the national basics - that make up the reasons to have a nation at all? All these comprise A Permanent Platform, and our focus is on elevating candidates who commit to the National Basics for all. Let's Make A World that Works.

— the author, at the launch of Permanent Platform, Leap Day 2024.

It is clear that tinkering at the margins or hoping that one of the existing parties “finally gets it right” is an inadequate response to the failures we face. Instead, we propose a Permanent Platform centered on national basics – a foundational set of commitments that stands above party politics and election cycles. This Platform is permanent in the sense that it is unwavering and non-negotiable, much like the fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Clean air, safe water, healthy food, secure housing, and related essentials must be treated as bedrock commitments of the nation, not as policy preferences that swing with the political winds.

What would governance look like if it truly served people, not parties? It would start by identifying these basic human needs as the foremost priorities of government, to which all other activities are subordinate. In practical terms, that means national goals like zero lead poisoning, zero neighborhoods with unsafe water, zero families in dilapidated housing, zero Americans unable to afford healthy food and zero homelessness. These goals would be pursued with the same intensity and continuity that the U.S. once devoted to, say, how we characterize the commitment of government in winning World War II or the Cold War – national endeavors that spanned multiple administrations until success was achieved. A Permanent Platform government would operate under a shared moral agreement: regardless of who is in office, the mission to secure the basics continues until accomplished, and backsliding is not tolerated.

Crucially, this requires taking certain issues off the table as partisan footballs. For instance, ensuring that every community has modern water infrastructure should not be a matter of debate – it’s a given commitment, and the discussion can only be how to achieve it fastest, not whether. Imagine if, analogous to how we treat national defense, there was a broad consensus that failing to protect Americans from environmental hazards is unacceptable. Defense budgets often pass with bipartisan support because both sides agree on protecting the nation (or at least projecting the sentiment of such to ostensible voters); in a Platform approach, environmental health, public health, and basic economic security would garner a similar consensus.

Of course, building that consensus is itself a challenge, but the concept is that these fundamental issues are reframed as shared national interests rather than partisan ones. This could be facilitated by institutional changes: for example, establishing independent, chartered agencies or cross-party committees charged specifically with meeting basic needs benchmarks (much as the Federal Reserve is independent in managing monetary policy). These bodies could be insulated from electoral pressure to some degree, operating on multi-decade plans to eliminate pollutants, eradicate hunger, etc., with authority and funding streams that are not constantly subject to partisan appropriations fights.

It could be facilitated in this way, but I think it gets started at the other end of forging a nation and a government, far from state capitols and Washington D.C. It begins with movements; a movement of a critical mass of people demanding it, and demanding it now.

A truly people-focused governance would also elevate science, data, and expert planning in policymaking. When the goal is actually to solve problems rather than score ideological points, evidence becomes paramount. If data shows that investing $1 in lead paint removal yields $10 in societal benefit, a rational government driven to action by a movement enacts that investment without delay. A Permanent Platform would entail a technocratic aspect: use the best knowledge to achieve outcomes, much as one would in a public works project or a moonshot. In fact, one can analogize the Platform to a series of moonshot missions: a clean energy grid (to ensure breathable air and climate stability), a nationwide broadband and transit system (connecting people to opportunities while reducing pollution), etc. These are long-term but measurable projects.

Non-partisan commitment also means continuity across administrations. A new President or Congress would not abandon the clean water agenda set by their predecessors because that agenda is part of the unassailable Platform. Instead, they would be judged by how well they advance it. Think of it like a relay race – each leadership passes the baton on these missions, rather than changing direction. This might require formalizing the Platform through legislation that sets binding targets (e.g., net-zero lead pipes by 2030, air quality standards that must be met by law, etc.), much as some countries have binding climate change targets that survive government changes. It could also involve public pledges or even constitutional amendments guaranteeing rights to a healthy environment, housing, healthcare, and so forth, which would outlast any one regime.

A radical reimagining of the role of government is implied: the government’s core role is to secure the conditions for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in a tangible sense. This is not a new idea – Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his 1944 State of the Union, proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” including the right to a decent home, a good education, adequate healthcare, and gainful employment. He understood that political freedoms are hollow without economic security.

Too bad for all of us he did not live to see that enacated.

Our Permanent Platform echoes that philosophy, updated for the 21st century’s specific challenges (like environmental toxins and climate change). Under such a paradigm, budgeting and policymaking would treat things like education, healthcare, and environmental protection not as expenses or special interests, but as investments in national strength.

Just as a Platform government would never shortchange the military if the nation were under attack, it would not shortchange public health infrastructure when our populace is under attack from pollutants or disease. The ethic shifts from short-term cost-cutting to long-term capacity-building. For example, spending generously now to replace all lead water lines is cast not as “big government spending,” but as fulfilling the duty to protect citizens – the same way we justify spending on homeland security against terrorism. It’s prevention and protection, which are fundamental government functions.

Critically, non-partisan does not mean no debate. There will still be debates – but the debates will be about how best to accomplish agreed ends, not whether to pursue them. This elevates the level of discourse. Instead of ideological deadlocks, we’d have pragmatic arguments: do we solve housing via public construction or subsidies to private builders? Do we clean the energy grid via nuclear power or renewables? These are healthy debates where all sides accept the goal (clean, affordable energy) and bring evidence for their method. The resulting policies could even vary by region or state, allowing tailored solutions under a national framework.

To get there, one might ask, what mechanism forces parties to adopt this Platform? Ultimately, it would be public demand and a social movement that installs this as the new common sense of governance.

If enough people, across party lines, insist that “we want results on these basics, not excuses,” politicians will adapt or be replaced. This manifesto itself is an example of rallying such a movement – arming the public with facts and framing to demand action. Ideally, a critical mass of voters could essentially vote for the Platform, whether via reforming existing parties or through independent candidates who vow to adhere to the Platform regardless of partisan affiliation. Over time, the distinction between left and right on these issues could blur, with a pro-Platform consensus versus an isolated fringe that still resists it. (We can imagine a future where it would be as politically toxic to oppose clean water funding as it is to, say, oppose disaster relief – because the public overwhelmingly expects it.)

In a Permanent Platform model, accountability is key. Because we’ve already given the government $100 trillion in this century alone, with nothing fundamental to show for it. Because goals are clear and data tracked, the public can hold leaders accountable not for their rhetoric or tribal loyalty but for outcomes. Did child asthma rates go down? Did cancer clusters disappear because pollutants were removed? Did life expectancy in poor counties rise? These become the metrics for success (much like how a company would measure KPIs). Right now, accountability is diffuse; politicians take credit or assign blame often irrespective of real outcomes. A Platform narrows the focus: if you were in charge and the basics aren’t improved, you failed, period. This clarity could actually attract a different kind of person to politics – problem-solvers and statesmen rather than just ideologues or performers.

A non-partisan commitment to basics also encourages cross-sector collaboration. Government doesn’t have to do everything itself; it can mobilize the private sector, civil society, scientists, and communities in a unified effort. For instance, achieving healthy housing for all could involve partnerships with construction firms, community organizations, and banks (for financing), coordinated by government. When the objective is non-controversial, broadly supported as is driven in its immutability of commitment through movements that elect Platformists, everyone can row in the same direction, breaking down the reflexive private-vs-public antagonism that often stymies American problem-solving.

One might worry that politics cannot ever be truly above partisanship. But we have precedents: certain issues like Social Security and Medicare, once established, became so popular that both parties more or less protect them (until recently, no major party ever even came close to openly campaigning on eliminating them). Clean air and water laws in the 1970s initially passed with bipartisan votes, as there was a sense of shared purpose. So it is possible to create durable policy regimes that aren’t subject to constant partisan reversal. The key is mass public support and a moral framing that these are part of the national identity. If Americans come to see having the world’s best infrastructure, healthiest population, and highest standard of living as a point of patriotic pride, then maintaining that becomes like maintaining a strong national defense – a baseline expectation of any government, regardless of its political leanings otherwise.

In summary, a Permanent Platform is about institutionalizing common sense and compassion.

It says: we agree that in America, in the 21st century, no one should be poisoned by their water or air, no one should die because they can’t afford medicine, no child should be stunted by hunger or lead, no willing worker should be destitute, no everyday taxpayer should be part of giving the national project trillions and trillions of dollars, with no basic results.

These are as fundamental as saying no one should be enslaved in any context, or censored in their speech by government – they are human rights in practical form. By formally committing to these and creating structures that persistently work towards them, we move from the futile pendulum of partisan governance to a steady march of human progress.

The Platform is not a panacea for all political conflict – we will still debate taxes, foreign policy, cultural issues. But it takes off the table those issues that are so basic that to debate them is absurd, akin to debating whether to allow cholera in the water supply. The only rational path for a country as rich and capable as the U.S. is to ensure its people can thrive at a fundamental level. Anything less is irrational – it squanders human potential and moral authority. Therefore, we assert that embracing this Permanent Platform is not only morally right, it is rational governance. It is evidence-based, cost-effective (preventing problems is cheaper than fixing damage later), and democratically stabilizing.

Let me now, then, outline concrete demands that flow from this Platform – immediate steps that must be taken to begin this transformation. These demands represent the application of the Platform’s principles in actionable form. They are radical only in contrast to the inertia of the status quo; in light of the data we have presented, they are simply logical and overdue.

Demands

If we accept that a Permanent Platform centered on national basics is necessary, what specific policies should we enact right now? The following are policy demands in the sense that they are uncompromising and ambitious, matching the scale of the problems. Each is rooted in evidence and the moral urgency we have outlined. These demands form a comprehensive blueprint for securing Level 1 essentials (survival needs like air, water, food, shelter, safety) and Level 2 essentials (healthcare, education, mobility, and economic security). They are “radical” only compared to the timid incrementalism of recent decades – in substance, they are common-sense investments in our people and future.

Importantly, they create for everyday citizens the simple, undeniable list of questions to ask people who week elected offices, local to global, that represent you; the extent to which they affirm these demands, and say that they will prioritize them over everything els,e is the extent to which they are Platformists, are committed to the Permanent Platform, and to forging a nation worth caring about:

Clean Air For All – Now: Implement immediate, nationwide clean-air mandates. This includes enforcing the strictest achievable limits on air pollutants (fine particulates, ozone, NOx, SO2, air toxics) based on current science – for example, updating EPA standards to the levels recommended by health experts. Rapidly phase out coal-fired power plants and diesel buses/trucks in favor of clean energy and electric vehicles to cut emissions at the source. Impose heavy penalties on any industrial facility that violates emissions permits and increase funding for EPA enforcement by an order of magnitude so that no polluter goes unchecked. Launch an emergency program to distribute high-efficiency air filtration systems to schools, daycares, and homes in high-pollution areas (especially important with wildfire smoke seasons worsening). We demand clear air quality improvements year over year, measured by fewer “unhealthy air” days and a decline in pollution-related mortality. No American should have to fear that the simple act of breathing is causing them harm.
Clean Water For All – Now: Enact a crash program to ensure universal access to safe drinking water. This means allocating whatever funding and manpower needed to replace every lead service line within five years – an acceleration of the current, slower plans. Simultaneously, establish stringent standards for PFAS and other emerging contaminants: the EPA must set near-zero maximum contaminant levels for the major PFAS chemicals and enforce filtration at water systems serving impacted communities (with polluting companies held financially liable to pay for cleanup). Invest in modernizing water treatment plants and distribution networks nationwide, prioritizing systems with repeated Safe Drinking Water Act violations (often small rural systems and aging urban ones). This should be financed as well as we finance highways or defense, if not better – through federal leadership and grants, not just local water bills. Additionally, implement transparency in robust monitoring: every water system’s quality data should be public and updated in real-time online, with randomized checks by third-party evaluators in a blind, automated process, so no Flint-like cover-up can even happen. Fund the cleanup of polluted aquifers and rivers that feed water supplies, and protect source watersheds by cracking down on agricultural runoff (with support to farmers to adopt better practices). Our demand: by the end of this decade, 100% of U.S. residents should have water from their tap that meets all health standards, including new ones for PFAS and lead. Boil-water advisories and contaminated taps must become relics of the past.
Clean, Healthy Food For All: Mandate a sweeping overhaul of food safety and nutrition policies. As part of this, ban the use of the most dangerous pesticides on farms – especially those known to cause cancer or neurological harm and already banned in other advanced nations. Support farmers in transitioning to regenerative and organic practices through subsidies and technical assistance, so that pesticide use can be dramatically reduced without hurting livelihoods. Strengthen the FDA’s oversight: close the GRAS loophole by requiring all new food additives to undergo independent review and approval. Ban or phase out additives that other countries have disallowed for health reasons (such as certain food dyes, brominated vegetable oil, etc., which are linked to behavioral or thyroid effects). Set ambitious targets to slash added sugars and sodium in processed foods – if voluntary industry measures fall short, move to mandatory limits. Meanwhile, address hunger and nutrition security: expand SNAP benefits and make healthful foods more affordable through vouchers or pricing subsidies on fruits, vegetables, and whole foods. Ensure every child gets a free, nutritious school meal (breakfast and lunch) modeled on dietary standards that emphasize fresh, minimally processed ingredients. The goal is twofold: eliminate food insecurity and shift the population’s diet toward health. We demand that no one in America go hungry (in a nation that wastes massive amounts of food, hunger is a solvable distribution issue) and that diet-related diseases start to decline by measurable amounts annually (e.g., childhood obesity rates should fall, not climb). Food corporations will be held responsible for products that harm health – if they want to sell here, they must prioritize safety and nutrition over cheap profits.
Safe and Secure Housing For All: Launch a national 22nd Century Healthy Homes Initiative on par with the Interstate Highway build-out of the mid-20th century. This includes a federally funded program to remediate every home with lead paint or lead pipes (test and fix all pre-1978 housing for lead hazards, offering grants to homeowners and enforcing landlord compliance – no child should be in a leaded home by 2030, ideally sooner). It also means investing in weatherization and repairs: fix leaky roofs, poor ventilation, and mold issues via grants and super-low-interest loans, targeting low-income and rental housing stock. Establish and enforce a national healthy housing code that sets minimum standards (e.g., functioning heat/AC, no pest infestations, safe electrical systems, etc.), and support local code enforcement departments to actually inspect and compel improvements. Establish new building codes that demand that houses not only meet the aforementioned standards, but are always built with solar, wind, geothermal and graywater systems and ecologically sound materials, technologies invested in broadly and nationally as to also lower the cost of them with the intent of makign them components of what we call “affordable housing.” In parallel, address affordability to end homelessness and overcrowding: massively increase the construction of affordable housing (through public housing revival and incentives for private development of low-cost units) so that everyone can afford a decent home without spending over 30% of income. Utilize hotels and vacant properties as interim housing to get people off the street immediately – homelessness in a country of our resources is unacceptable. Abolish the primacy of single-family homes incentives in new construction, and quadruple incentives for mixed-use, mixed-income community building. Also, abolish the use of toxic materials in new construction (no more asbestos, formaldehyde-laden wood, etc., which still appear in some products) and incorporate healthy design (good ventilation, sun lighting/solar mirroring) as a standard. We demand measurable outcomes like zero children with lead poisoning in the next few years, a significant drop in asthma ER visits due to home triggers, and the elimination of unsheltered homelessness. Housing must become a source of stability and health, not stress and sickness.
Healthcare as a Human Right: Guarantee universal healthcare coverage for every person in America, without financial barrier. It is a travesty that millions are uninsured or underinsured in a wealthy nation. Whether through a single-payer Medicare for All system or another mechanism, the outcome should be the same: everyone can get the care they need (preventive, acute, mental health, dental, vision) without fear of bankruptcy. Include bold public investment in preventive care, because a lot of our basic-needs failures manifest as health issues (for instance, treating asthma without fixing air quality is futile – both need addressing). The Platform approach to healthcare focuses on outcomes: longer healthy life expectancy, lower infant and maternal mortality (where the U.S. lags horribly), and equitable health across racial and economic lines. Negotiate drug prices aggressively, invest in medical staff and rural clinics, and leverage technology like telemedicine to reach all communities. Health is a foundational pillar – without it, people cannot function as full citizens. So our demand is free or truly affordable care for all, as a right, immediately. Today. No more rationing insulin or GoFundMe for surgeries; the system must be people-centered, not profit-centered.
High-Quality Education for Every Person, Across Every Lifetime: Make education a top national basic – from early childhood through college and on into lifelong learning and cerfitications if one chooses. This means fully funding public schools in all zip codes to provide small class sizes, safe facilities (no lead in school water fountains either!), and well-paid teachers. It also means addressing disparities: schools in low-income or minority areas should receive more - much more! - resources to overcome challenges, not less. Invest in healthy school meals, nurses, and mental health counselors in schools, recognizing the interplay between health and learning. Guarantee at least two years of free post-secondary education (whether community college or trade school), moving toward making public colleges tuition-free for families below a certain income. Education empowers individuals to escape cycles of poverty and engage in society; it is an “essential service” just like utilities. We demand that every child, rural or urban, rich or poor, has access to an excellent public education that prepares them for modern jobs and informed citizenship. This also means eradicating environmental hazards in schools (aging buildings with mold, lead, asbestos must be renovated). We should see rising graduation rates, narrowing achievement gaps, and better life outcomes as key metrics of success.
Mass Transit and Mobility: Transportation is often overlooked as a basic, but it’s crucial for accessing jobs, food, healthcare – essentially, opportunity. We call for a massive expansion of public transit (buses, trains, subways) that is efficient, clean (electric vehicles), and either free or very low-cost to riders. In cities, no one should be cut off from economic opportunity or fresh groceries for lack of transportation. Build reliable transit networks in every metro area and regional rail connecting towns – this also reduces pollution and greenhouse gases, feeding back into cleaner air. Additionally, invest in pedestrian and bike infrastructure for local mobility that promotes health and reduces car dependence. The platform’s vision is that mobility should not be a luxury; a person’s ability to move about the community shouldn’t depend on owning a car or on living in one of the few cities with decent transit. Freedom of movement, in practice, within one’s own country is a basic capability, so let’s treat it as such and fund it accordingly. This can create jobs and save commuters time and money (the average American loses dozens of hours in traffic annually, a hidden cost on quality of life). We demand a national transit revitalization akin to the Eisenhower highway project – but focused on moving people efficiently and sustainably.
Living Wages and Workers’ Rights: Ensure that every worker earns a living wage sufficient to meet basic needs without poverty. Immediately raise the federal minimum wage to a realistic level (e.g., $30 or more, indexed to inflation) – note it’s been stuck at $7.25 since 2009, which is absurd. Strengthen labor rights so workers can unionize and bargain for fair conditions (history shows unions were key to eliminating exploitative child labor and securing the 40-hour week – empowering labor is crucial to sustaining basics like reasonable work hours and safety). Implement policies like guaranteed paid sick leave and parental leave nationally, which support public health and family stability (the U.S. is one of the only rich countries without paid maternity leave by law). Consider a form of basic income or vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit to ensure even those outside traditional employment (caregivers, gig workers, etc.) have an income floor. The principle is that if you work in America, you should not be poor or unable to afford food, shelter, and healthcare. Full stop. We demand an end to poverty wages – no company should profit off full-time workers and leave them needing food stamps to survive (a practice that effectively subsidizes corporations at taxpayer expense). We also demand enforcement of workplace safety (so workers aren’t breathing toxic fumes or risking deadly accidents, tying back to clean air/health).
Beyond the Nation-State – Global Human Rights: Finally, looking outward, we acknowledge that basics should be guaranteed for all humans, not just within one country. While this manifesto focuses on the U.S., our vision extends to a world where people can move freely in search of a better life, just as capital and goods move freely. We call for an international approach where wealthy nations cooperate to eliminate extreme poverty and environmental degradation globally. Specifically, the U.S. should lead by example and work towards policies that allow greater mobility of people – expanding legal immigration pathways, protecting refugees, and ultimately recognizing that a person’s opportunity in life shouldn’t be dictated solely by the accident of where they were born. Borders should not be death sentences or iron curtains locking people into desperation. This is admittedly radical in today’s climate of xenophobia, but it is a logical extension of human rights. Goods and money cross borders in seconds; people face walls and years of waiting. A Platform committed to human dignity would push to reconcile that disparity. We demand humane immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented residents contributing to our society, and increased quotas for those fleeing violence or climate disasters. And internationally, reallocate some of our enormous resources (perhaps from bloated military budgets) to fight global hunger, pandemics, and climate change – because in a globalized world, their problems become our problems (as COVID-19 and climate-driven migration demonstrate). Ultimately, the Permanent Platform philosophy is one of solidarity: all people deserve the basics. Nations can be an instrument to achieve that, but they must not hoard wellbeing behind arbitrary lines on a map.

Each of these policies is ambitious, yes. Detractors will ask: How can we afford this? But as this manifesto has shown, we are already paying the price many times over for not doing these things – in healthcare costs, lost productivity, environmental cleanup, and social turmoil. Redirecting funds from reactive spending (like endless medical costs or disaster relief after infrastructure failure) to proactive investment is smart and efficient. Moreover, the U.S. GDP is about $25 trillion a year; it is simply a matter of priorities. We found trillions to bail out banks and stimulate the economy during crises; we allocate nearly a trillion annually on the military. The money is there – the will has been lacking. Under a Permanent Platform, funding these basics becomes the first allocation in budgets, not the last.

We also assert that these policies are rightsizing government’s role. It is not “big government” for its own sake; it is effective government doing what it should – safeguarding life and liberty. In many cases, it also unleashes the private sector by creating healthier, better-educated workers and new markets for innovation (for example, retrofitting the nation’s buildings and energy systems is a huge job creator and technological catalyst).

In demanding these changes, we are aware that vested interests will resist. Industries that profit from the status quo – whether polluters, certain corporations in the food and pharma sectors, slumlords, etc. – will lobby and propagate fear of change. It will require public mobilization and perhaps conflict (political and legal) to overcome them. But the moral high ground and data are on the side of these demands. The majority of Americans, when asked issue by issue (clean water, healthcare, good jobs, etc.), support these ideas. It’s the fragmentation of our politics that has prevented their realization. Thus, the Platform movement must galvanize that latent majority and make these demands non-negotiable.

To summarize the demands in a single sentence: We demand a nation where everyone can breathe clean air, drink safe water, eat healthy food, live in a safe home, get the care they need, learn without barriers, move freely, work with dignity, and pursue happiness – and we demand it now, not in some distant future.

This is the only level of ambition that matches the ideals America espouses. Anything less perpetuates failure and injustice. These policies form an interconnected web – progress on one helps the others. For instance, better housing and air quality means better health, which means lower healthcare costs and more productive education and work. A living wage means less stress and better family life, reducing issues like crime and improving mental health. It all reinforces a virtuous cycle of thriving.

We have outlined the blueprint. The final section is a rousing call to action – the choice we face at this juncture of history, and why we must choose to thrive rather than continue down the path of managed decline.

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

The United States at 250 years is at a crossroads. The evidence is overwhelming that without a dramatic change in course, we will continue to see preventable suffering, rising inequality, and democratic decay. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We began by asking, “Why have a nation at all?” The answer is: to do what we can accomplish together that we cannot achieve alone. Ensuring the basics of a good life for all is the highest purpose of our union – a purpose we have yet to fulfill.

The choice before us is stark: Thrive or perish. That may sound apocalyptic, but consider the stakes. If we perish along the current path, it won’t necessarily be a sudden collapse (though climate change or pandemics could trigger abrupt crises). It may be a slow stagnation and fragmentation: life expectancies dropping further behind peer nations, infrastructure crumbling under the weight of inaction, communities poisoned and abandoned, extremism rising from the cracks of social breakdown. It would be the steady erosion of the American promise, until the idea of American exceptionalism becomes a bitter joke even to ourselves. If basic needs remain unaddressed, the social contract could disintegrate to the point where the U.S. as we know it – a stable democracy – indeed perishes, either literally or in spirit. One need only look at failed states or historical empires that fell when internal injustices and weaknesses hollowed them out. We are not immune to such an outcome.

On the other hand, if we choose to thrive, the benefits would be immense and multigenerational. Imagine an America where no child goes to bed hungry or wakes up coughing from pollution. Where entrepreneurs and artists emerge from every background because they had education and health support. Where our cities shine with modern infrastructure, and our rural areas are vibrant with connectivity and services. Where the color of your skin or the town you are born in does not dictate your chances of living a long, healthy life – because the baseline is high for everyone. In such an America, the energy currently drained by illness, distrust, and hardship would be redirected to innovation, community, and global leadership. Our example would once again inspire the world, not because of our military might or flashy consumer culture, but because we managed to truly secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for our people. That is genuine national strength.

This manifesto has made an irrefutable argument: we have the knowledge and resources to solve these problems. All that’s missing is political will and a unifying framework – the Permanent Platform is our proposal for that framework. Now, it falls to us – the people – to demand it and make it reality.

History teaches that entrenched systems change only when pushed by collective action. The Progressive Era reforms came because muckraking journalists exposed the horrors of tenement housing and tainted meat, and citizens organized for change. The civil rights movement achieved legal equality through grassroots mobilization demanding the country live up to its creed. In our time, we need a national basics movement – a coalition of environmentalists, public health advocates, labor unions, civil rights groups, faith communities, parents, youth, and all citizens who simply want a fair and healthy society. We must press every candidate, every office-holder: Where do you stand on these basic needs? What is your plan – not rhetoric – to ensure every American has clean air, safe water, etc.? And if their answers are insufficient, we must be prepared to replace them with leaders who will champion the Platform.

This is not a partisan movement – it is a human movement. We should welcome allies from all political persuasions, because needing clean water isn’t liberal or conservative; it’s universal. In fact, forging unusual alliances (for example, rural and urban communities both suffering from water issues finding common cause) will be key. The millions must commit to the Platform NOW, as the conclusion title urges. There is urgency: every year of delay is another cohort of children injured, another chunk taken out of our nation’s vitality.

So what can you, the reader, do? First, spread the word. Share the facts from this manifesto with friends, family, and on social media – cut through the fog of partisan noise with the clarity of truth. Second, organize locally: perhaps start a community campaign to test your town’s water or demand removal of lead paint, linking it to the broader Platform goals. Third, hold elected officials accountable in every forum – town halls, letters, votes. Fourth, support policies and referenda that align with the Platform (for instance, bond measures for infrastructure, or candidates who prioritize public health). Fifth, consider direct action if necessary: peaceful marches, demonstrations, and even strikes to highlight that without basics, we cannot “business-as-usual” anymore. Imagine a nationwide “General Strike for General Welfare” where people pause work to demand Congress finally address these fundamentals.

The call to action is to commit – not just passively agree that these things are important, but actively pledge to fight for them. Change at this scale is difficult; it requires sustained effort, possibly over years. But momentum can build. And there may come tipping points – perhaps a particularly egregious disaster or a charismatic leader adopting the Platform – that accelerate the changes. We must be ready.

Importantly, this fight is patriotic in the truest sense. We are striving to make our country better and stronger. Those who say such sweeping changes are unrealistic forget how many times America has reinvented itself when faced with challenge. We ended slavery, granted women the vote, built the Hoover Dam and the interstate system, went to the moon – all were monumental tasks once deemed “unrealistic.” But Americans made them real through will and work. The crises of our basics demand a similar boldness.

At semiquincentennial, it is fitting to recommit to the foundational question: What is government for? The Preamble of the Constitution provides the answer: to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…”. Note, “promote the general Welfare” – what could be more central to welfare than the air, water, food, health and shelter of the people? We have drifted from this mandate. But drift can be corrected.

The journey from here, if we choose to thrive, will not only avert the perils we’ve discussed; it will also release an outpouring of American potential. When people are not weighed down by basic worries, they can dream bigger, participate more fully in democracy, and band together to tackle even higher aspirations (like exploring new frontiers in science or space, or leading global efforts for peace and sustainability). Meeting basic needs is the floor upon which a great society stands. We have to build that floor solidly, once and for all, so we can reach for the stars without leaving anyone behind on the ground.

In closing, let this manifesto be a declaration of intent: a modern Declaration of Interdependence, recognizing that we all depend on these basics and on each other to secure them. It is a call for unity of purpose. The problems are man-made, and so are the solutions. Future generations will ask what choice we made at this inflection point. Let us be able to say: We recognized the failures, we united, and we acted. We chose to uphold the dignity of every person and in doing so revived the soul of our nation.

The time for half-measures is over. The era of factions must give way to an era of common purpose. We either commence the Permanent Platform now – this unwavering commitment to humanity’s basics – or we continue down a path of national fragmentation and decline. The choice is truly that stark.

We choose to thrive.

Now, together, let’s make it happen. Millions strong, armed with truth and fueled by compassion, we can ignite the greatest renaissance of the common good in American history. The platform is set – it’s time to build upon it, permanently.

Let this be our Semiquincentennial legacy: that in 2025, the people of the United States confronted reality and insisted on a new birth of freedom – freedom from want, freedom from fear of the basics – and that they launched a movement that transformed the nation for the better, for all time.

The work begins now. Will you join us?

Primary Notes & References

American Lung Association. State of the Air 2024. Washington, DC: ALA, 2024.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Air Quality Trends Report, 2023. Washington, DC: EPA, 2023.
World Bank. “The Economic Costs of Air Pollution: Estimates and Implications for U.S. Policy.” Washington, DC: World Bank, 2022.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). EPA's Air Pollution Control Delays: Congressional Mandates Ignored. Washington, DC: GAO, 2006.
United States Census Bureau. American Housing Survey: Lead and Environmental Hazards in U.S. Homes. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lead Exposure in Children: Data and Trends, 2024. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2024.
Environmental Working Group (EWG). PFAS Contamination in U.S. Drinking Water: A National Survey. Washington, DC: EWG, 2024.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Threats to Safe Drinking Water in the U.S.: A Review of Violations and Enforcement Failures. New York: NRDC, 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Regulatory Loopholes: An Analysis of Self-Approved Food Additives. Washington, DC: FDA, 2023.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Pesticides, Food Additives, and Public Health Risk in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2022.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Annual Pesticide Residue Report: Chemical Contaminants in the U.S. Food Supply. Washington, DC: USDA, 2023.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). America’s Housing Quality Crisis: A Study of Substandard Living Conditions in Low-Income Communities. Washington, DC: HUD, 2023.
Institute of Medicine. Damp Indoor Spaces and Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Asbestos Exposure Risks in Residential and Commercial Buildings. Washington, DC: NIOSH, 2023.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2023. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2023.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Public School Facilities: Conditions and Equity Implications. Washington, DC: NCES, 2023.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Economic Impacts of Lead Exposure in Children. Washington, DC: CBO, 2023.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Minimum Wage Trends and Economic Effects in the United States. Washington, DC: BLS, 2023.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Wage Stagnation and Income Inequality: A 30-Year Retrospective. St. Louis, MO: FRB, 2023.
Pew Research Center. Public Trust in Government: Historical Trends and Policy Implications. Washington, DC: Pew Research, 2023.
U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Diet-Related Chronic Diseases in the U.S.: Trends and Prevention Strategies. Bethesda, MD: NIH, 2023.
The Lancet. “Global Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates: U.S. in Comparative Perspective.” The Lancet 400, no. 10358 (2023): 785-803.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Mass Transit Infrastructure in the United States: Funding Gaps and Opportunities. Washington, DC: DOT, 2023.
George Washington. Farewell Address, 1796. The Avalon Project, Yale Law School.
James Madison. Federalist No. 10: The Mischiefs of Faction. The Federalist Papers, 1787.
Center for Responsive Politics. The Cost of Elections in the U.S.: 2020 and Beyond. Washington, DC: OpenSecrets, 2023.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Immigration Trends and Human Mobility in a Globalized Economy. Washington, DC: DHS, 2023.
Franklin D. Roosevelt. State of the Union Address, 1944: The Second Bill of Rights. The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Secondary Notes and References

Wilson et al., 2024 – This study examines the long-term distribution and frequency of poor air quality days across the contiguous United States, providing insights into air pollution trends and their projected impacts.

Calderón-Garcidueñas et al., 2024 – Discusses the public health impact of air pollution in the U.S., particularly in the context of neurodegenerative diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Flowerday et al., 2023 – A 20-year review of air quality in Utah, analyzing trends, sources of pollution, and gaps in current research.

Rives et al., 2023 – Investigates how air quality concerns evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic and their socioeconomic and demographic implications.

Emery et al., 2024 – Provides a comprehensive evaluation of air quality modeling in the U.S., including particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone pollution.

Wilson et al., 2024 – Provides climate-adjusted projections of poor air quality days across the U.S., examining the impacts of pollution and climate change on air quality.

Chen, 2024 – A time series analysis of air quality index trends across the U.S., highlighting variations in pollution levels.

He et al., 2024 – Investigates how COVID-19 lockdowns influenced air quality trends in the U.S., revealing changes in pollution levels and their health impacts.

Jaffe & Lee, 2024 – Explores the impact of wildfires on ozone levels in the U.S., showing how air pollution from fires contributes to air quality degradation.

Emery et al., 2024 – A detailed study on air quality modeling, focusing on ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution across the U.S.

Hidalgo & Bedate, 2022 – Provides an overview of the economic consequences of air pollution, including healthcare costs, productivity loss, and policy efficiency.

Zarate-Gonzalez et al., 2024 – Analyzes the economic impact of air pollution in California’s San Joaquin Valley, including healthcare expenses, productivity losses, and opportunity costs.

Xu et al., 2022 – Summarizes theoretical models estimating health-related economic costs of air pollution and explores factors affecting cost variations.

Kim, 2023 – Estimates the social costs of air pollution, particularly in urban areas, highlighting economic impacts such as medical expenses and productivity losses.

Leroutier & Ollivier, 2022 – Examines how air pollution affects economic productivity by increasing worker absenteeism due to sickness leave.

Zhang et al., 2024 – Examines how political and regional factors influence U.S. air pollution policy, including delays in regulatory implementation.

Atkinson, 2023 – Investigates EPA enforcement inefficiencies and shows that firms often profit from violating the Clean Air Act due to lenient penalties.

Cui, 2023 – Analyzes the Supreme Court case West Virginia v. EPA and its implications for EPA’s regulatory authority and enforcement of air pollution laws.

Garrett & Shrager, 2023 – Details recent EPA amendments to air pollution standards and industry pushback leading to regulatory delays.

Li, 2022 – Evaluates air pollution mitigation policies, highlighting inefficiencies in EPA regulatory frameworks and their slow implementation.

Goebel & Wardropper, 2023 – Explores public perceptions of lead exposure risks in U.S. homes, highlighting trust in government agencies and subjective knowledge as key factors.

Jacobs & Brown, 2022 – Provides an extensive review of childhood lead poisoning trends in the U.S. and the impact of housing policies on exposure prevention.

Filippelli et al., 2024 – Analyzes soil lead contamination in residential areas across the U.S., finding that nearly one-quarter of households may exceed safe lead levels.

Zartarian et al., 2022 – Discusses the use of geospatial mapping to identify high-risk U.S. communities for lead exposure prevention efforts.

Sowers et al., 2024 – Investigates lead contamination in house dust and soil, highlighting bioaccessibility differences that influence exposure risks in U.S. homes.

LeBlanc et al., 2024 – Reviews historical and emerging sources of lead exposure in children, including new risks from consumer goods, firearms, and food contamination.

Dave et al., 2024 – Analyzes lead exposure sources in children across England, providing insights into public health challenges and prevention strategies.

Schneider, 2023 – Investigates the long-term neurotoxic effects of lead exposure in children and the potential for cognitive rehabilitation.

Córdoba-Gamboa et al., 2023 – Examines the effects of lead exposure on childhood language development, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

Pennington et al., 2024 – A scoping review on the effects of low-level lead exposure in school-age children, with findings on cognitive impairments and ADHD risks.

Khanal & Elbakidze, 2024 – Examines PFAS contamination in U.S. drinking water systems, identifying spatial contamination hotspots and correlations with population density and industrial activity.

Berthold et al., 2023 – Investigates public awareness of PFAS contamination in U.S. drinking water, highlighting inconsistencies in knowledge and the need for better risk communication.

Smalling et al., 2023 – Compares PFAS contamination in private wells and public supply tap water across the U.S., revealing widespread exposure risks.

Tokranov et al., 2024 – Uses predictive modeling to estimate PFAS contamination in groundwater, showing that up to 95 million Americans rely on water sources likely to be contaminated.

Liddie et al., 2023 – Examines the sociodemographic disparities in PFAS exposure, finding that communities of color are disproportionately affected by contaminated water sources.

Hughes, 2023 – Discusses how failures in drinking water service provision, particularly in marginalized communities, erode trust in government and lead to increased reliance on bottled water.

Garvey et al., 2023 – Examines contaminant levels in drinking water from California public schools, identifying regulatory failures in ensuring safe drinking water for children.

Bae et al., 2023 – Investigates racial disparities in Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) enforcement, finding that communities of color experience longer delays in returning to compliance.

Scanlon et al., 2023 – Explores the link between social vulnerability and drinking water quality violations, revealing that high-risk communities are disproportionately affected.

Barnes & Farmer, 2024 – Analyzes how federal environmental deregulation under the Trump administration increased Safe Drinking Water Act violations, worsening compliance among public water systems.

Pomeranz et al., 2024 – Examines the loophole allowing food companies to self-regulate food additives under the GRAS designation, emphasizing the lack of FDA oversight and potential health risks.

Son & Martirosyan, 2024 – Details the GRAS certification process, evaluating its weaknesses and the need for stricter safety assessments.

Kassem et al., 2024 – Analyzes how GRAS-approved food ingredients are sometimes misapplied in other industries, such as vaping products, without proper safety testing.

Öztürk & Ceylan, 2023 – Reviews the safety of common food additives, discussing concerns over GRAS status and its implications for public health.

Lerner et al., 2024 – Investigates microbial transglutaminase, a widely used food additive, and questions whether its GRAS classification is justified given emerging health concerns.

Avanasi et al., 2023 – Evaluates the U.S. pesticide risk assessment process and its effectiveness in protecting public health.

Jahan, 2024 – Discusses the neurological effects of food additives, highlighting potential risks to cognitive function.

Jankowska et al., 2023 – Examines pesticide residues in food and their potential health effects, using data from Poland as a case study.

Leng, 2023 – Reviews how pesticides affect crop quality, food safety, and long-term health outcomes.

Pomeranz et al., 2024 – Investigates regulatory gaps in food additive safety and their contribution to public health risks.

Ṣẹ́gun Irora

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?

Ṣẹ́gun Irora

A Permanent Platform

The Common-Sense American Manifesto for a Nation Facing a Semiquincentennial Reckoning

The premise is stark: if an advanced nation with unparalleled resources cannot assure these most fundamental needs, something in our governance and political system is deeply broken. The promise of America is broken.

Researchers estimate that fine particle pollution (PM2.5) alone is responsible for about 58,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year​.

In plainer terms, our elected regulators failed to regulate.

Clean air should not be, cannot be and must not be a partisan issue – it is a basic need.

In recent years, testing has revealed widespread PFAS contamination of drinking water across the country.

Why has the world’s richest nation failed so miserably at ensuring safe water? The causes are systemic, but, ultimately, a set of choices.

Water is life – no society can claim to uphold “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if it cannot provide clean water to every community.

[A Permanent Platform] would make universal clean water a mission akin to how the Apollo program treated reaching the moon – non-negotiable, boldly led, and achieved at all costs.

The very act of eating, which should nourish us, has become a vector for slow poisoning and disease.

That is, the “legal limit” is for farmers, and corporate farming…not for a maximization of the quality of human life.

The GRAS loophole, originally meant for common ingredients like vinegar or salt, has been stretched beyond recognition.

Moreover, unsafe elements in food disproportionately impact the vulnerable.

A Permanent Platform approach to food would radically shift priorities: Public health - a right to clean food - would trump everything, including corporate profit.

This is food fraud at a grand scale: the promise of nourishment but the delivery of harmful substances and ill health.

Toxins like lead and asbestos, infestations of mold and pests, and structural decay plague a significant portion of U.S. housing stock, especially in low-income communities.

Statistics indicate that somewhere between 18% and 50% of buildings in the U.S. have evidence of dampness or mold problems​.

To put it plainly, millions live in housing that fails basic standards of habitability – third-world conditions in a supposed first-world country.

Why does substandard housing persist on such a scale in America?

Taken together, the systemic failures in air, water, food, and housing amount to a profound assault on the American people’s well-being, on the fundamental right ot live well.

Multiply these microeconomic hits across the country.

These “choices” are fundamentally undemocratic because they are dictated by deprivation, not by free will.

A nation constantly tending to untreated basic needs is like a person constantly tending to an untreated wound – they have little energy for anything else, including being better for each other or being a leader the world needs.

If we succeed, we remove a suffocating weight from the shoulders of millions, unleashing human potential and renewing the sense that we are all in this together, that the nation is for us.

This makes rational policymaking (like reducing emissions to protect air and water) much harder, because one party or demogogue might stake its/their identity on denying a problem exists.

The manifesto thus argues for stepping entirely outside, and thus transcending, this model: establishing a Permanent Platform that is issue-focused and people-focused, not swayed by the tides of partisan feuds or electioneering.

To get there, one might ask, what mechanism forces parties to adopt this Platform? Ultimately, it would be public demand and a social movement that installs this as the new common sense of governance.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?

Researchers estimate that fine particle pollution (PM2.5) alone is responsible for about 58,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year.

Statistics indicate that somewhere between 18% and 50% of buildings in the U.S. have evidence of dampness or mold problems.