Class warfare is undermining basic human rights

The Declaration of Independence states “that among these [unalienable rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

Simple, straightforward, basic rights — correct? Yes, but unfortunately throughout Trump’s “Me First” era, we have witnessed a steady/relentless assault on these rights, subsequently eroding their overall intrinsic value.  But why? Is class warfare the force undermining these rights? Morality versus greed? What can “We the People” undertake to safeguard them?

First, what are some of these basic/vital human obligations/rights.

To eliminate hunger. The moral imperative to provide widespread, ample, and nutritious food for low-income individuals/families is governed by legislation, which recently has sacrificed SNAP benefits in favor of massive tax cuts for the wealthy (“One Big Beautiful” Act, 2025). Class warfare? Greed? Thankfully, local food banks do provide food/supplies, but those efforts should be undertaken by governments on moral grounds, not political agendas.

To ensure adequate universal healthcare. In this regard, one is reminded of the words of Hubert Humphrey: “The moral test of government is how that government treats... the children... the elderly... the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” In the quest to ensure record profits for corporations and banks, Trump’s One Big Beautiful Act reduced Medicare payments, while increasing ACA out-of-pocket health insurance premiums. To what extent have our local, state and federal governments abandoned their “moral test” on this imperative? Class warfare? Greed?

To provide affordable housing for all citizens should also be a moral, not political issue. How can one witness homelessness and not consider such a hopeless condition in moral terms only? Is it so vital for wealthy individuals to possess more than one residence while others are living under such squalid conditions? Class warfare? Greed?

Second, how could “We the People” protect/support these obligations?

By enacting equitable/appropriate legislation and income taxing strategies which reduce wealth inequality. But morality, at times, does not always guide political outcomes. Why not?

Because greed appears to influence political decision-making, by favoring the rich at the expense of the less fortunate (The unelected ultra-wealthy outmaneuvered ‘We the People,’ Bangor Daily News, June 23, 2025). Undermining basic human rights appears to be the first salvo, signaling class warfare between the wealthy and “We the People.” A war? Yes, according to Warren Buffett  there’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war and we’re winning.”

Are they winning? Yes, because new tax legislation has created a massive redistribution of monies from “We the People” to the rich. Could a new method supporting basic human rights and equitable tax schemes be formulated?

Yes, imagine this simple solution:

Step one. In a post-Trump era, each candidate for office is evaluated divorced from any political party affiliation. 

Step two. When filing for legislative office, each candidate completes a voter-approved questionnaire, specifically designed to determine their commitment to defending basic human rights and appropriate tax legislation. Each questionnaire is evaluated by an independent citizen panel and a “moral compass score" generated. Ergo, before voting, citizens will know each candidate’s documented score on upholding/ensuring basic human rights and equitable tax laws.

Step three. Each year, every incumbent legislator will be judged by: the number of legislative acts/laws initiated; supported; and passed upholding basic human rights and useful tax code reform, as well as an audit of monies received from corporate entities/individuals. These data, compiled by an independent committee, generate a “moral legislative score.” Thereafter, during every election cycle, an incumbent’s moral legislative score will be pitied against a challenger’s moral compass score. This method would, therefore, provide voters with a more comprehensive and in-depth evaluation of each office seeker.

True dedication to basic human rights must be judged by a legislator’s verifiable results to eliminate class warfare, not only words voiced.  Ergo, this novel approach could be a step toward excluding greed as a motivating factor influencing political actions. In the future, political actions would emphasize and be governed by moral decision-making, supporting “We the People”agendas. Let us hope so.

John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He resides in Harpswell, Maine.