The editors of the Economist have a number of good remarks in their recent piece, the thesis of which is that the Democrats need some better ideas. So, for example:
Perhaps worse, considering the defining place it occupies in American debate, the Democrats failed to think critically about the issue that divides conservatives and progressives most, the role of government. Endlessly pushing publicly-funded solutions that Americans find unsatisfactory has made them the party of bad government.
and
“There’s still a feeling that if we just redistribute wealth, everything will be all right,†says Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.
Actually, I think there’s a chance it would help. However, I don’t think that redistributing wealth from the ultra-rich to the merely rich is nearly as benign as its exponents may claim and redistributing wealth among the members of the upper middle class does next to nothing. There is so much that needs to be done that doesn’t require the redistribution of income we might consider those things for a change. It tends to persuade one that redistribution is the end rather than the means to an end.
Or this:
The new ideas on offer mostly involved swelling the size of a government which the Republicans’ latest tax cut has made even more unaffordable than it was.
Here’s some food for thought:
Here are three reasons why fresh thinking is needed on the centre-left. First, moderate Democrats need better arguments to explain why the all-government solutions preached by Mr Sanders are not merely unaffordable but bad. There is otherwise a risk they will mistake seething anti-Trump resistance with a desire for Mr Sanders’s similarly fervent pitch.
Second, even if the Democrats could reclaim power with a divisive Sandernista agenda, they could not implement it. The reality is that neither party can bring big change without some support from the other. Hence, Barack Obama’s executive record has been easily shredded by the Republicans, and they now struggle to pass laws.
The third, overarching, reason is that the contempt voters feel for both parties is grounded in those failures. To mitigate their disdain will above all require much better government. The Democrats trying out presidential pitches all seem to want that: their shortcomings are not to be compared to Mr Trump’s cynicism and greed. Yet they are some way from suggesting the requisite turnaround in Washington is a realistic prospect.
In my view a key problem is that Democrats have conflated repeating the same ideas they’ve been flogging for the better part of the last century for new ideas. A key example is the $15 minimum wage. It’s obvious that too high a minimum wage just doesn’t take into account the economic differences among different parts of the country. Less obvious is that its run-on effects might overwhelm its intended effects. If a $15 minimum wage in Seattle increases homelessness, is it really having the intended effect?
My view continues to be that we don’t need less government or more government, higher taxes or lower taxes, but different government and different taxes. The national debate needs to be less like a football game. No matter how long you play the distance between the yardlines remains the same.
Hard to see the Democrats changing as long as the donor class controls the agenda.
To me, the biggest problem is the disconnect on governance – the Democrats prefer government intervention and solutions to most problems but, at the same time, they are completely uninterested in good or effective governance. It’s a disconnect I still don’t really understand because it doesn’t make sense to support government solutions only to see them fail because of government ineffectiveness.
I agree with that but see it slightly differently. Democrats frequently ask “The Europeans do this—why can’t we?” There’s an answer to that question they might not like to hear. The Europeans follow the rules better than we do. It’s a cultural thing.
There’s another answer that will become increasingly important in the years to come. Historically, European countries have been much more ethnically homogeneous than we are. Social cohesion affects what you can accomplish. I suspect that Democrats will continue to push for us to become more like France even as France becomes more like us.
But the Académie française would never put up with the pronoun crap.
In response to this:
Political appointees just don’t know how to make things happen in the real world of government. I’ve seen that too much at first hand.
The editors themselves can’t think of a good argument to continue the neoliberal project, which is why they’re demanding someone else think of something.
Nor do they appear to understand the cultural, political or economic history of this country. The concerns over distribution of wealth go right back to the Founders, particularly Jefferson, Madison and Adams.
That’s something I’ve been thinking about posting on. Short version: unless you believe in a hard currency and a head tax, you’re a socialist. With a hard currency and a head tax we can’t support a standing army, DoA inspectors, Social Security, or the FDA. In other words just about everybody believes in some form of redistribution these days.
I have grave disagreements with the form that redistribution has taken. Rather than giving money to the poor, we’re purchasing services which will presumably be used to benefit the poor. I don’t think we’re getting the bang for the buck.
I think it’s safe to say Adams and the others were for redistribution too, but they envisioned a self-employment economy rather than a capitalist economy with concentrated capital ownership. Land was the primary meand of production at the time, and for a century there was a policy of distributing it to as many Americans as possible so they could sustain themselves, living as free people. We need a 21st Century version of this, not more capitalism or more handout-ism.
I agree with the general thrust of that comment and see how it fits in with your ideas about money.
The objectives are very much mine but I struggle on how to get there.
What’s today’s equivalent of land? Money doesn’t really fit the bill. Neither does education. What about a medical degree? A Harvard MBA?
The Democrats have the Italian Flu (“FACTBOX: Italy votes for 62nd government since World War Two” – that was in 2008). This is the major structural flaw in a coalition of interest groups. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. When you’re driving an 18 wheeler and all of the wheels are squeaking it makes for one hell of a racket, and a severe shortage of grease.
I think the equivalent is along the lines of voting shares in a corportion, one without a board of directors, or at least a board of directors who can be voted out at any time. Google has an employee ownership program that might serve as a sort of model. Some ownership and control of the place you work, and equity shares for all Americans when a business uses publicly-developed technologies to create a product. If capital income flows broadly because ownership is broad it means more independence.
The naïveté is cringeworthy.
” The Europeans follow the rules better than we do. It’s a cultural thing.”
Maybe, or maybe it is our form of government. With a parliamentary government they can pass into law what they really want to pass, not what takes 60 senators. They don’t have to worry about stuff being sabotaged (as much) at the state level. Certainly seems like there is less sabotage of laws they cannot overturn but don’t like when they come into power. So maybe the rule making process matters as much as following the rules.
More broadly, the GOP has run on the same ideas for 40 years, and now they added nativism for that final push to get into power. The Democrats have run on the same ideas also. The sad part is they probably own the White House again if they run anyone other than Clinton for POTUS.
Steve