Obama and Clinton’s Economic Populism Is As It Should Be
As they wend their way through the Midwest, candidates Obama and Clinton are laying out a detailed and useful policy architecture for addressing one of our central economic challenges: the gap between overall growth and the living standards of working families.
Predictably, they’ve taken no end of flack from the ideological maintainers of the status quo, those backwards looking critics who label someone an “economic populist,” as if the offender’s agenda is just this side of communism.
But let’s take a clear-eyed look at their arguments. Step one is defining “economic populism” in today’s context.
The term is typically used to describe those politicians who want to change economic policy to channel more resources, including more bargaining power and clout, from those at the top to the wealth scale to the rest. Policies that fall under this rubric include supporting unions’ right to organize, “fair” trade (drafting trade deals that boost the rights of workers—both here and abroad—relative to investors), universal access to health care and pension coverage, higher minimum wages, and more progressive tax policies.
Now, what’s wrong with all of these ideas? Having debated such points on CNBC’s Kudlow and Co. the other night, I’m well versed in the arguments. Basically, they reduce to the principle of unintended consequences: by trying to help those who have fallen behind, you’ll kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. These pandering populists, they say, are going to cuff the invisible hand, and it will only make things worse.
That’s not a crazy concern. It is, of course, entirely possible to implement policies that do more harm than good. So you’ve got to get down to cases and ask: what’s the likelihood that the policies which Clinton and Obama are espousing will work or backfire?
On unions, the problem is that the organizing playing field is so tilted towards anti-union forces, that organizers can’t get a fair shake. It’s hard to see how leveling the field will unleash unintended consequences, unless by that you mean more collective bargaining and less inequality.
On trade, the debate is really skewed. Obama constantly says he’s for free trade and wouldn’t try to stop it even if he could (“I don’t believe that we can—or should—stop free trade”). Clinton talks tougher on the issue, but her core belief is that the problem with our trade policies is that they tend to be agreements between our rich investors and theirs. The centrist view on trade is evolving to this: it’s not that we should trade less, it’s that we should take steps to ensure the benefits of trade flow more broadly to workers both here and there. Again, what’s wrong with that?
The D’s health care plans can be viewed in a related light: restore some of the economic security lost to globalization by re-channeling its benefits to workers through improving their access to affordable care. One way to accomplish this is through more progressive taxation, which is also part of their platforms.
On this last point, to buy the other side’s case on this, you have to believe that a partial returning of the tax code to the Bill Clinton years will lead the wealthy to close down shop and forego anymore productive activity. It’s like the scene in Annie Hall when Woody’s mom takes him to the doctor. He heard the universe is expanding and refuses to do his homework—“What’s the point?”
To put it in economese, the hyper-responders hugely overstate the relevant elasticities, suggesting massive distortions from what are generally fairly minor tweaks to a system that is severely imbalanced. There is no, none, zip, nada empirical evidence for responses anything like they imagine, and much evidence to the contrary.
And to get to the nub of the thing, many of us would argue—especially from the perspective of the rust belt—that the consequences of the status quo, intended or otherwise, have been unacceptable. What would the status quo’ers prefer that Clinton and Obama tout on the stump in these states: ending the estate tax? Making sure those hedge fund managers keep their loopholes?
So how about we forgive the good voters of Wisconsin and Ohio if they appear less concerned than the economic elites about killing the golden goose? It’s been crapping all over them for years.
And forgive the candidates if they want to provide these working Americans with a bit more than an umbrella. Politics is working: Clinton and Obama are doing what they should be doing. I hope they ignore the finger-waving, chin-stroking, chattering class. Those folks can’t even see straight looking backwards.
What's "wrong" with all that you describe is that what you describe as Clinton and Obama's "populist" positions are nothing more than the typical half-measures prescribed by centrist, corporate Democrats for decades now. And the problem with the half-measure/centrist Democrat approach is that it doesn't produce any tangible benefits worth having for regular Americans.
The interests of predatory and corporate wealth in the United States invariably claim that any measure (from the minimum wage to health care for all)is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. They have always been wrong. Always. They usually make these arguments not because they are valid or true, but because (despite all evidence) they believe it to be in their best interest to continue to deny a better life to regular Americans and they are greedy. Or sometimes they know damn well that their arguments are nothing but self-serving bullshit and they put them forward all the same for the very same reason: greed.
The half-measurists, of which both Clinton and Obama are, and their approach start off putting the interests of regular person and their families at a distinct disadvantage. Despite knowing that their "golden goose" argument is a crock, they seek to mollify the insatiable greed and insecure need for control of the wealthy and powerful. Moreover, they continue to extend the harm those malevolent influences have on our families and our future---not just as individuals but as a nation. Look where this cowardly centrism has brought us for God's sake!
So, I'd have to agree that it really makes ya wonder why anyone would call Clinton and/or Obama populist on anything when they clearly are serving up the same old remedy's that don't work for our people, but that keep them pacified while serving the interests of predatory corporate wealth and power.
What's truly startling is that so few of those Democrats in Congress or in a position to become President have the courage and vision to recognize that we are never going to move forward again unless and until we clearly identify who is responsible for the vast majority of problems we face as a nation and for the growing difficulties we all face in trying to bring up our families and maintain some sort of acceptable standard of living. Senators Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are not among the few with vision and courage. They are among those who raised the most money and that's what got them to the point they are at. It certainly was not populism of any kind.
February 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary CEO of youtube downloader free
December 21, 2010 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 20, 2011 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, oleeb, I'll bite. You say that Obama and Clinton are recommending only half measures, and you deride them personally as "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee," but you don't provide any indication of what "full measures" you advocate. So what exactly do you want? And assuming no one has been advocating the measures you have in mind, what makes you think those measures would be so popular with voters that a winning presidential campaign could be based on them?
I, too, would like to see a radical shift from the United States' present course, internationally and domestically. But given the state of our country now, I don't see Obama's and Clinton's proposals as either inconsequential or contemptible. Ending the war in Iraq, moving toward univeral health care, re-tilting the tax code to benefit the poor and middle class, taking our share of the responsibility for the environmental health of the planet--these would be significant steps toward a more just and humane America. And both Obama and Clinton promote these and other progressive causes.
February 19, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I'm not running for President so I don't think my personal platform is of great interest.
However, you offer up the very same reasons that are always offered up for not actually doing anything to break the monopoly of power in this country. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm tired of the "realism" and "pragmatism" of those who have told us all our lives that we cannot and should not pursue what we know is required in this country because of the political climate and so on. This is the same argument they handed Martin Luther King and he responded that justice delayed is justice denied. He was right. Had he just bought the accomodationist argument, black people would still be stuck in a much more unequal position in this society. King wouldn't take no for an answer and forced the issue. At some point, someone in politics is going to actually have to exhibit that kind of leadership by having the balls to start talking about real solutions to the nations problems and no longer counseling patience and to wait until the time is right or to go slow, etc...
One of the biggest reasons that more effective and appropritate, liberal remedies aren't proposed or discussed or even considered viable is because our elected Democratic officials are so removed from the reality of their constituents and so captured by the trappings and perquisites of power. Quite often, as is the case with single payer nationa health coverage, the people are waaaaaay ahead of the political leadership and prepared for and want such a plan to be implemented. But who fights for that? Obama? Someday he says. Clinton? Maybe, kinda, who knows. More accomodation, more cowardice, more delay. Pretty soon it's our grandchildren debating the same empty excuses for injustice and inequity.
Kucinich offered the best set of proposals for dealing with our national problems, but he never had a chance given the image obsession of our culture. Kucinich's unabashed liberalism exhibits a guts and honesty that more powerful and pretty polticians ought to adopt but they don't because they are chicken. They are afraid to fight the powers that be.
Some of the things that would be comprised in an actual liberal agenda would be absolutely opposing any further wars of aggression and immediate withdrawal (as immediate as logistically possible) from our illegal and immoral war on Iraq and occupation as well as a total withdrawal of our troops from the mideast. Single payer, national healthcare like they have in all the civilized countries on earth. Repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and an increase in taxes on the wealthiest to pay the war debt. Repealing all corporate welfare starting with the oil companies. Immediate repeal of NAFTA and no further "free trade for the wealthy" agreements without guarantees that our workers and those in the participating nations clearly, demonstrabl benefit. If the benefits go only to the corporate and ownership interests, then no deal. If the benefits come only at the expense of our environment then no deal. An immediate and radical program of reasearch and development on alternative fuels with a goal of making America free of the grip of foreign oil in 15 years. Capping carbon emissions and reversing our carbon emissions to sustainable levels within 15-20 years. Without this sort of action, global warming is going to destroy our planet. It isn't going to be a modification we can cope with, it's going to be extinction and sooner than most think. The immorality of global waming is beyond description. An immediate and drastic reduction in Pentagon spending as well as the size of our military industrial complex. Such cuts and reductions would fund a major kindergarten through college initiative in education making good education available to every public school student from day one. An immediate and full scale national jobs program to employ the unemployed and train those who need additional training. A national minimum income. Adjusting unemployment compensation so that it is a) tax free, and b) adequate to sustain a family during periods of unemployment.
There's a whole lot more that could be mentioned here, but unless and until Senators Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum and all the other chickenheart centrist, corporation-loving Democrats get a backbone none of it will happen. And as long as the rest of us urge moving a little slower, continuing to "understand" what is practical and realistic justice will be denied to our people. I'm just fed up with always being sung the same song year after year after year only to find that predictably, the Tweedle Dees and Tweedle Dums have once again failed to come through.
February 19, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, why aren't you running for President?
Those who fear the consequences of giving more rights and benefits to workers should visit Western Europe more often--or maybe compare the German auto industry with the American.
February 20, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK Oleeb,
So your only "contribution" to the discussion is to say that no changes will work. You fully support the status quo in all its glory and rapidly increasing set of failures.I don't buy your dismissal of our politicians as being "trapped by the trappings of power." There are tree facts every politician needs to consider: (1) If you don't get elected you will change nothing. (2) There are rich and powerful groups in this nation who can keep any politician the focus on from getting elected. (3) Americans to do not vote for politicians demanding radical change.
Given those constraints, it is really amazing that our national Democratic politicians are even making the proposals that you deride as "half-measure/centrist" approaches that you claim won't "produce any tangible benefits worth having for regular Americans."
Any elected President has very limited power. The key issues that have to be dealt with are going to be (1) the recession, (2) getting disentangled from the Iraq War (two years would be optimistic) and (3) some form of universal health care. (If some requirements that cause everyone to be covered are passed, and if the insurance companies aren't handed government subsidies to cover their inherently much higher costs of delivering services, and if the government provides a government run health care financing program, then the private health insurers will be unable to compete and will be out of business in five years.)
The limited Presidential power? Any candidate who promises to achieve all three of those goals will find that one is all they can handle and two are a miracle.
So Dennis Kucinich offers more radical proposals. Fine. Get him elected and maybe who will not find himself totally blocked. Oh, wait. He's not running for President any more, is he? He's back fighting to hold on to his Congressional seat now, isn't he? Edwards was less radical than Kuchnich, but the only result was that he lasted a little longer in the primary race. For being less radical than K, Edwards actually may get some input into the Democratic campaign rhetoric. But he won't become President either.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Anyone who promises your desired radical change will accomplish nothing as things generally get worse on his watch.
February 20, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is not that no changes will work. The point is that centrist, accomodationist, corporate Democrats will not implement any changes that address our major social, economic, political, military or foreign policy problems in a significant, substantive manner.
Their strategy for achieving changes in the way our government operates, which are predicated on the promise of significant change while still accomodating those opposed to the changes proposed, don't work. They haven't worked for 30 years. They won't suddenly start working once Clinton or Obama is elected.
The way to produce a different result than the pathetic one the centrist, corporate Democrats have served up for many years now is certainly not to do the same thing we've been doing. In substance, neither Clinton nor Obama propose to do anything but tweak this or that aspect of a particular problem without stepping on the toes of the powerful interests who are the source of the problems and the massive imbalance of power we see in today's America. You simply cannot bring about any change worth having without stepping on the toes of the powerful in a big way. Neither one of them proposes to do this on any issue. They make vague statements about bringing about change but essentially refuse to say they will fight the corporate interests that are bleeding the nation dry.
Also, as a result of the glaring vulnerabilites of both remaining corporate Dems in the race, we will not experience a massive Democratic landslide this year which means we will not enjoy a huge gain of seats in both houses of Congress that come with such victories and that means the stalemate on Capitol Hill will be same next year as it is this year. We'll gain a few seats, but not enough to change the balance of power. Translation: no evidence that there's any chance for real change anytime soon either by looking at where the numbers are likely to be on the Hill next year or in terms of what the candidates themselves propose.
I hope I'm wrong, but we've all seen this whole story play out before. I think it's simply a misread of the situation to believe anything is really different this time. Sorry.
February 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Quite often, as is the case with single payer nationa health coverage, the people are waaaaaay ahead of the political leadership and prepared for and want such a plan to be implemented.
Much as I want to see universal healthcare (single payor or not), I think a reality check is in order: every time single payor has shown up as a ballot initiative it has been defeated. The people are NOT clamoring for it, or at least they can be easily convinced that it would be a bad idea (though they do, by large maergins support healthcare for all and have never wavered in that support). The current Democratic proposals are actually very wise (though not perhaps in every last detail) in that they allow people to keep their current arrangements, while creating a fallback healthcare system in case those arrangements prove inadequete or are taken away (by employers, insurers etc.). I believe this will command strong assent from the American people, and that the GOP will find it impossible to demagogue the issue this time around. Sure, these plans may fall short, but they move the nation in the correct (I will not say "right") direction and they lay the groundwork for something more comprehensive if they change their minds and want to go there in another generation or two. And most importantly, tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of people in desperate need of help will get it.
February 19, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, JonF. These plans are pretty carefully crafted to accomplish a few laudable goals.
First, let people keep what they've got, while regulating insurers to contain costs and standardize care. They give lots of breaks to small biz. That may be lousy health care policy, but it's essential politics.
Then, create a public, Medicare-like plan alongside the private ones. It's a safe bet that the inefficiencies in the pvt system, once its regulated (and can't deny care to sick people, or only sell insurance to healthy people), will become unsustainable. If so, this ultimatley reduces to single payer.
February 19, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check right back atcha:
How do you figure any isolated state or local vote on single payer means anything whatever with respect to popular support for single payer nationally? It doesn't. What it does mean is that the insurance lobby is powerful and can easily defeat such measures on any statewide ballot they choose. That's why we need leaders with some balls in Washington to quite fearing pissing these guys off and just get the job done. Please don't assume that I'm off dreaming about the ease with which such a thing can be done. Quite the contrary, I know it will be a knock down dragout fight and one we can never win while trying to placate the greed of the insurance industry on one hand and the desire of the people to have affordable health care.
February 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we often make the mistake of assuming that because we feel very strongly about a certain issue, and we get support from like minded people here at TPM Cafe, for example, that the majority of voters also feel the same way. History shows us that there are divided opinions about most liberal agenda items. Support for those ideas tends to be very tenuous among the non-liberal majority of voters.
Anyone hoping to be elected president has to take positions that will attract enough voters to be elected. Otherwise, you are just another version of Kucinich. I, too, get frustrated by the centrism of both Obama and Clinton, and I long for a candidate that thinks as I do. But, I doubt that you would support that candidate.
So, I am happy if we can get a president who leans in the same direction as I do. That would be one who wants to move towards universal single payer health care, who doesn't believe our country should be trying to dominate smaller countries to benefit our businessmen, and who believes in the rule of law. Fortunately, both Clinton and Obama lean that way.
February 19, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your position Hoppy and it is well put as usual.
However, without real leadership (which without question requires directly and openly taking on the special corporate interests) the divided opinions of the public for liberal policies will remain. If most or all of our elected leaders are such timorous cowards that they won't actually support--in public and openly--the proposals they KNOW are better for the nation and our people and if all that people ever hear is how it can't be done, of course the support for these kinds of things will remain divided. Can you even imagine how badly Social Security would be handled by these cowardly corporate Democrats? They probably wouldn't even put a bill in the hopper they'd be so frightened. They'd piss their pants as they listened to the deafening roar of corporate and conservative opposition. They'd turn tail and run and all of us would be SOL and have to eek out our old age working until we dropped dead on the job or in an old age home for the penniless as it used to be.
As long as we allow centrist, corporate Democrats to command the direction of Democratic initiatives (and progressives/liberals aid and abet these half measures) we will be faced with this problem as we have been now for decades. Does nobody notice that this approach has failed over and over again? Maybe it's time to quit playing not to lose and start playing to win the game in Washington as Democrats used to do when they weren't trying to please two masters.
Any thinking liberal/progressive, etc... who really wants to see change in this country has to stop supporting the sorts of candidates in primaries like we now have no choice but to support or we will never see anything remotely suggesting real change in this country. If we don't, we'll all end up dead without seeing any progress on any of the issues we all know clamor for solutions sooner rather than later.
I'm not that old, but I guess I'm just too old at this point to be satisfied any longer by the same old song and dance whether or not it is performed by someone who looks different than the previous infotainers we have elected. I'm simply not satisfied with settling for the gruel they'v been handing to us for years and then getting all obsessed about the details of a bunch of centrist gibberish that has no prayer whatever of becoming law.
None of the things either Obama or Clinton promises will happen. And even their alleged opposition to the illegal/immoral Iraq invastion/occupation doesn't mean we'll be seeing an end to that imperialist adventure anytime soon if they're elected. I abhor her continuing support for the war, but I see nothing in Obama's platitudes about getting out of Iraq that mean we really will see an end to that abominable war though he at least opposed the invasion initially.
The best we can hope for is that they don't bargain away the federal courts in yet another of the interminable efforts to show "bipartisanship" that have cost our nation dearly the past 30 plus years. But frankly, given the astoundingly poor record of the accomodationist, corporate Democrats in Washington I wouldn't count on that either.
Helen Keller said the following and I must say the older I get the more I agree with her assessment:
"We the people are not free. Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We elect expensive masters to do our work for us, and then blame them because they work for themselves and for their class."
Once a corporate Democrat makes it to Washington and gets absorbed by the borg of corporate wealth and privelege they become a part of that class and work for it's interest not those of the nation or it's people. Rare is the politician who can resist this and if you don't believe it is true, look at the vote on telecom immunity (just as one example) in the US Senate and you'll see the very clear evidence that this is true.
February 19, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally agree with all your stated positions on the issues, oleeb, and I'm glad to learn that you weren't just making empty condemnations of Clinton and Obama. But I also agee with the post of hoppycalif2, who cautions that one's personal and specific sense of liberal outrage isn't necessarily shared by a majority of voters.
There may be many reasons that Kucinich's campaign in the last two elections--or McGovern's in 1972--didn't attract a majority of voters, and some of those reasons may have little to do with the actual merits and appeal of his ideas. Maybe the mainstream media just didn't take him seriously enough, or maybe he just didn't "look presidential enough" (though do Hillary or Obama, by any traditional standard?). But I think it's also worth considering the very real possibility that the public in general just isn't at this point nearly as liberal or progressive or whatever as you or I, so the public didn't like Kucinich on the issues. If that's the case, then the possibility of a Clinton or Obama presidency is, given the Republican alternative, something to be welomed rather than dismissed.
Sometimes recently when I hear my leftist friends and leftist blog commenters talk about how disgusted they are with the centrism of the major Democratic candidates, I'm seeing a kind of solipsism in their outlook that I find disturbing and, yes, terribly impractical.
Personally, I'm especially encouraged by the Obama candidacy because 1) he's relatively progressive on the issues, 2) he has the kind of personal background that encourages me to believe that he does understand the plight of this country's growing underclass, and 3) a growing number of people find him exciting. That last matter is important, because popular appeal and personal charisma count for a lot in politics.
February 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining, eh?
Give each state a billion for infrastructure.
Get the bluecollars back to work pronto. Easy, quick, and good for the long-term.
February 19, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how about we forgive the good voters of Wisconsin and Ohio if they appear less concerned than the economic elites about killing the golden goose? It’s been crapping all over them for years.
I lived in the midwest for many years, and I always thought that the green poop on the grass and playing fields was from Canadian geese, not Golden geese. Live and learn, I guess. Do I still need to tell my daughter not to do slide tackles?
February 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v ball, iscsi share
April 11, 2011 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability systems
May 4, 2011 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink