AI will be more disruptive than COVID. Which party can seize the moment?

Democrats, bless their hearts, keep trying to figure out the magic formula to stop President Trump. But here’s a cold splash of reality: If Trump’s popularity ever collapses, it will probably be because of something completely beyond their control.

In 2020, it wasn’t some brilliant strategy that defeated Trump. It was COVID. A global pandemic. An act of God (or Wuhan).

This raises an uncomfortable thought: the next disruption — the one that might shake up the political snow globe again — will probably be much bigger than COVID. That looming disturbance is artificial intelligence.

In a recent Substack essay, Pete Buttigieg suggested that “the number one leadership challenge for world leaders, including the President of the United States, will be to manage the changes that AI is bringing about.” He goes on to note that “our president — and his opposition — have yet to make clear what their AI policies even are.”

He’s not wrong about the bipartisan lack of preparation. And for this reason, the political consequences are likely to be brutal for whichever party is in charge when the tipping point arrives and AI upends the lives of millions of Americans.

Trump still has three and a half years left on the clock — just enough time for AI to yank the rug out from under him. That’s a golden opportunity for Democrats, if they’re smart enough to capitalize on it.

But Democrats should hold off on gleefully penciling in 2028 as the year AI hands them the keys to the White House in perpetuity. Why? Because huge shocks to the system tend to empower either a) bold problem solvers or b) populist demagogues.

Lest we forget, the last seismic tech shift — the rise of the Information Age — gave us globalization, economic dislocation (for working-class Americans) and (eventually) Donald Trump.

This next disruption could be even more traumatic. AI isn’t just coming for truck drivers. It’s coming for legal assistants, graphic designers, junior software developers, even (ahem) writers. College graduates who spent decades believing their degree was a shield against obsolescence are about to get a taste of what coal miners, steelworkers, typists and travel agents have already endured.

When that happens, disenchanted moderates will radicalize, and income inequality will detonate. The people who build and control AI will obviously get filthy rich. So will superstar surgeons and elite litigators — people whose rarefied expertise and skills can’t be replicated remotely. But their legions of associates, researchers and paralegals will vanish like Blockbuster Video.

Now, for generations, lost jobs and industries were replaced by new ones — thanks to what economists call “creative destruction.” The buggy maker gave way to the auto industry and the auto mechanic, and society moved forward. But this time, the old rules may not apply — at least, not by virtue of some organic “invisible hand.”

If this shift is as severe and pervasive as many believe it will be (a huge caveat, to be sure), it won’t be solved by fiddling around with marginal tax rates or by mildly expanding unemployment benefits. It will require a vast reimagining of what the government does — the kind of thing that would make free-market purists break out in hives.

But here’s where it gets tricky for Democrats: They can’t simply hand displaced workers a check and call it a solution.

This is the core problem with universal basic income, often touted as the answer to AI-driven job losses. The modest $1,000-a-month figure that’s been floated is a joke. But even if the amount were higher, it would still have to be paired with meaningful work.

Something Democrats must learn: People don’t just want money. They crave dignity, purpose, belonging and a reason to get up in the morning.

That means thinking big and finding meaningful opportunities for the displaced to serve and provide value. Imagine one teacher for every five students in America’s public school and college classrooms. Imagine school buses with three adults instead of one overworked driver.

Imagine a national corps of well-paid nurses and physical therapists making regular visits to isolated seniors and providing full-time home healthcare.

Picture teams of young, tech-savvy Americans helping retirees navigate their iPads, iPhones, TVs and other devices — closing the digital divide for an entire generation.

Now, pair that with a bold expansion of union apprenticeships to train the next wave of electricians, plumbers and carpenters — alongside free college or vocational training in exchange for a year or two of national service.

It wouldn’t happen overnight. Managing this transition would require robust unemployment benefits — say, 90% of prior salary for a fixed period — not as welfare, but as an investment in people and a dividend on the value they’ve helped create by virtue of tax dollars (that built the internet) and data (that fuel automation). Because again, addressing the dilemma of job displacement is about more than money.

Which brings us to some important questions we had better answer.

What does it mean to be a citizen in a society when AI makes half of the labor market feel redundant? How do you retain your identity and sense of self-worth when the work you have dedicated your life to can be more efficiently done by artificial intelligence?

And how do we redeploy human beings — tens of millions of them — into roles that make life better for others and give them back the self-respect that comes from service?

AI might be the great test of our political age, and the party that passes this test will be remembered as our savior.

The party that fails this test will be remembered — if at all — as the one fiddling while Rome was automated.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”