I never thought I’d write this. The best analysis of both Republicans and Democrats I’ve read in a long time comes from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, reported here at the Daily Beast by Michael Tomasky:
His posture toward Trump is not one of total opposition. He’s skeptical and suspicious, certainly. In addition to thinking Trump has gone Wall Street as president, Trumka fears that Trump will gut labor safety regulations and thinks he probably can’t bring jobs back to the coal fields in huge numbers. That said, he’s mindful of the fact that Trump spoke compellingly to a portion of his rank and file, so he’s keeping a semi-open mind. “We’re just telling [members] every day what he’s doing to help them or hurt them,†he says. “If he does something to help ’em I say it. If he does something to hurt ’em I say it. They can decide for themselves who’s friend and who’s foe.â€
and
“The Democratic Party quite frankly had no coherent economic message,†he said. “Workers have been facing stagnant wages, dropping benefits, and economic security being taken away from them over a 40-year period. Trump said a lot of stuff—hasn’t followed through on it, but said it, and they were willing to take a chance.â€
The problems, he said, started under Bill Clinton. “I think that was the beginning of the schizophrenic days, when they needed workers’ votes but wanted Wall Street money, so they tried to serve two masters but were successful at neither,†says Trumka.
But didn’t Bill Clinton do a number of good things? I mean, 22 million jobs?
“People still weren’t getting wage increases,†he says. “The economy was still moving away from us.â€
Read the whole thing. And I fully endorse this:
“The economic message should hold everybody together,†he says, “so that when you say ‘this person’s a Democrat,’ three or four things come to mind. And it shouldn’t be this or that social issue, it should be economics.â€
I strongly suspect that he and I would differ on what those “three or four things” should be but I agree that they should all be economic policies.
My single greatest dissatisfaction with the Democrats under Barack Obama is that by March 2009 they had turned their focus away from the economy, never to return.
That the Democratic leadership has made some errors is a matter of empirical fact. It can be measured in the number of Senate seats held, the number of House seats held, the number of state legislative houses with Democratic majorities, and the number of Democratic governors. I think the gravest error is not focusing on the economy.
IMO, democrats may use the economy as a “talking point,” but do relatively little in seriously “growing” the economy, addressing the deficit or debt in their policy decisions, or creating a better business environment in which more jobs can be cultivated.
Instead, dems have focused on social issues that have been unsettling, divisive, fomenting intense intolerance between differing groups based on race, class, and gender. Consequently, the turmoil in this country is at heights I personally don’t ever remember it reaching before now.
As one congressmen recently summed it up — “the inmates seem to be running the institution.”
Furthermore, when you observe the less than peaceful or productive “paid for” protests, the ludicrous behavior of democrat representatives, such as Maxine Waters and Pelosi — behavior which is supported and egged on by the petulant hard left base –one can realistically predict nothing beneficial for the people will get done, as all congressional energy is being solely expended on political gamesmanship.
I disagree. I think they’re frustrated because of Republican opposition to their preferred strategies.
I also think that many Democrats are predisposed to using the wrong conceptual model for the economy. They want to think of it like manufacturing when actually it’s more like farming. In manufacturing if you buy (or make) the parts for 200 widgets you can make 200 widgets. In farming if you plant 100 acres with wheat sometimes you get 5,600 bushels of wheat, sometimes you get 4,000 and sometimes you get 6,000.
BTW, if Nancy Pelosi’s performance on the Sunday talking heads programs today is any gauge, the Democrats really need to give her the gold watch and thank her for her service.
IMO the GOP is using the economy as just a talking point in order to justify what they always do, cut taxes for the wealthy. Those big money donors are going to get their money’s worth, and of course Trump and family will benefit.
Steve
“I also think that many Democrats are predisposed to using the wrong conceptual model for the economy.”
I liked your manufacturing vs farming example.
Extending the farming example further — to the first 100 days — I see the administration’s actions being more like planting seeds rather than harvesting legislative successes. Unlike other administrative start-ups, this president seems to be meeting with a diverse array of the public — from A to Z in their positions and public capacities. These meetings have been solidly described as listening missions, collecting data as to what is needed to energize the economy and create jobs.
It obviously still remains to be seen as to whether or not these numerous encounters will produce the effects the president wants. However, what is happening is that people — ordinary people — seem to feel they are being asked to take part in economic solutions, rather than just dismissed as mere bystanders to bureaucratic decision-making.
“IMO the GOP is using the economy as just a talking point in order to justify what they always do, cut taxes for the wealthy. Those big money donors are going to get their money’s worth”
Steve,
The wealthy already pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes. Consequently, some will probably benefit from lowering taxes. However, if loopholes are significantly closed, some of “wealthy people” may actually have fewer deductions to buffer their tax bite — even at a reduced rate — causing them to pay more taxes. Nonetheless, in the 1983-1989 years of Reagan lowered taxes, the percentages of gain, by the top and lower 20 percentile of taxpayers, were about the same.
As for all those “big money donors” — like Warren Buffet, Bezos, facebook, Microsoft, Apple, google, and myriad of tech, Hollywood giants — hopefully they will pay their fair share of taxes (Buffett certainly has avoided it), and bring their assets back from overseas depositories to invest here. Also, if you explore who major money donors give their money to, Steve, it’s the dems who attract the big bucks, including wall street, investing in their campaigns. Just look at the cash raked in by Obama and Clinton.
Washington Post story about Obama-Trump and drop-off voters:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.87a07b65b899
jan- 61 out of the top 100 donors in 2016 donated to the GOP. In general, the wealthy donate predominantly to the GOP. (You can actually go look this stuff up directly yourself and not just take the word of partisan pundits.) For the 2012 election it was 59 to 41 favoring the GOP. This varies some by election, but in general, for presidential elections the wealthy donate to the GOP by a 10% margin or so.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
The wealthy pay the lion’s share of income tax, but then they also have the lion’s share of income.
On Reagan you are flat out wrong. It is actually in 1980 when the increase in income inequality started.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
Steve