There’s a commentary about the direction of the Democratic Party from Democratic political consultant Brendan Frasier at The Hill:
For years, there has been a debate about where the Democratic Party should go. One side is the wants the party to embrace democratic socialism; the other side supports the neoliberal framework that helped destroy America’s middle class, weakened unions and left rural America feeling abandoned.
What both sides consistently don’t see is that the Democratic Party succeeds when it roots itself in New Dealism.
In America, the term “democratic socialism” has lost its meaning. In Europe, it describes an economic system in which major industries and production are collectively or socially owned, and private capital is reduced, transformed or replaced through democratic processes rather than authoritarian ones.
This matters because saying “democratic socialism” terrifies entire blocs of voters that Democrats desperately need to win back.
and
During my time with the Ohio Progressive Caucus, I had heated arguments with members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Many believed in replacing capitalism and placing major industries under social ownership. Some even support a candidate running for Senate in Ohio named Greg Levy, who said that companies like Kroger or Procter & Gamble should be nationalized.
But these positions have almost no support among rural voters, suburban moderates, small-business owners or the very union families the party once counted as its backbone.
Does anyone else notice how nostalgic his remarks are? Perhaps more seriously, I think that Mr. Frasier is making a category error.
I wonder how Mr. Frasier reconciles his views with the modern American economy and the modern Democratic Party?
I’ll just provide a few examples of that. In 1930 trade constituted about 6% of U. S. GDP. Now it’s around 30%. We produced almost all of what we consumed. U. S. population was around 123 million when the New Deal was first announced. Now it’s nearly three times that high. Estimating household income 90 years ago is a bit tricky but most sources say it was around $2,000. Now it’s around $80,000.
The structure of the U. S. economy was different then, too. The largest economic sectors were agriculture, manufacturing, and services. Now finance, insurance, real estate, and leasing along with professional and business services and government constitute about 50% of the economy with manufacturing, education and healthcare, and other sectors trailing far behind, mostly in single digits.
The ratio of public debt to GDP was around 16% then; now it’s nearly 100%.
These are not merely quantitative changes; they imply a different political economy with different leverage points, constraints, and failure modes.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what the New Deal meant when Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed it in his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1932. I have no idea what it would mean now or how it could be effected and Mr. Frasier does little to enlighten me in his piece.
