Jamie Galbraith is an optimist, or maybe I'm just a pessimist. According to his latest book conservative economics is exhausted, burnt out, finito, kaput. All that is needed is for liberals to recognize this, abandon their lily-livered kowtowing to conservative economics, and start pushing on an open door by advocating a return for grand progressive policy action - i.e. long range policy planning and economic standards with government at the wheel.

That is an audacious strategy, but I beg to differ. I do not disagree with his policy recommendations (the chapters on planning and standards are two of the best), only his premise. Not only is conservative economics alive and well, but progressives have not even begun the job of convincing the world that they have a better understanding of the economy.

I'm all for boldness, and there's always a possibility Jamie's strategy could succeed. History allows for flukes. The economy could also experience another "Great Depression", causing a turn to progressive policy out of desperation. That is an awful thought, but it signals the extent of progressive weakness on economics.

The sad fact is progressives need "bad economic times" to win the policy debate. No, it's worse than that. They need "terrible economic times", and even then it is not clear they win.

In good times progressives sound hollow. In bad times they get a hearing and occasionally manage a win in the form of an extension of unemployment insurance or a small increase in the minimum wage. In terrible times there might be a turn to real progressive policy a la Galbraith. But it is only a chance. Remember the 1930s. Fascism won out in Europe, and the US also had a strong fascist movement that showed its strength in 1940 with America First. The popularity of the Bush-Cheney administration in 2004 and widespread public disregard for its attacks on habeus corpus leave me worried crypto-fascism could easily win out if the US experienced a really tough time.

Am I overstating the economic weakness of progressives? I don't think so. Take a look at the five grand areas of policy debate Galbraith focuses on - the market, supply-side economics, monetarism and the natural rate of unemployment, fiscal responsibility, and free trade. In each of them there remains strong policymaker support for the underlying economic ideas, and the public also holds a mostly conservative stance.

Galbraith rightfully scorns the "free to shop" construction of the economy as grossly inadequate, but it is a widely held position that progressives do not have a sharp pithy counter to. Besides progressives should be in favor of "free to shop", but it should be "free to shop plus a lot more".

With regard to supply-side economics, it still has significant academic and professional policymaker support, but tax cut rhetoric has lost traction with the public. However, the public has not migrated to gung-ho support of a progressive alternative.

With regard to budget balance, that still has support among both policymakers and the public. The technical support is based on nonsense claims about budget deficits and interest rates. The deeper support rests on budget balance being code for small government, which is still popular.

Monetarism (control of the money supply) has been totally discredited as an operating philosophy for monetary policy, but it has been replaced by the even more odious doctrine of the natural rate of unemployment. While it is true the natural rate does not guide day-to-day policy, the underlying construct remains completely intact and guides long term policy thinking. The public also implicitly buys into its logic. Thus, most people believe higher wages will cause some unemployment, and there is no popular conception of full employment as an alternative to the natural rate of unemployment.

Finally, there is free trade (and globalization). Elite policymakers remain strongly attached to free trade, support of which is the test for joining the elite. However, the public has become increasingly skeptical. That said, the public lacks an affirmative alternative so its skepticism is more likely to turn into isolationist protectionism than internationalist progressivism.

Comprehensively winning the economic policy debate requires two things: (1) imaginative logically consistent policies; (2) control of the frame for understanding the economy and its underlying problems. To use a sports metaphor, not having control of the frame always gives the opponent home field advantage. With control, policy is an easy sell and it is also easy to introduce new policy arguments. Without control, selling policy is an uphill struggle that leaves one saddled with an increasingly stale agenda that is not up to the challenge of changing times.

I have worked in Washington DC for twelve years and have seen zero interest among Democratic politicians, labor unions, and progressive think-tanks in engaging in a sustained war for control of the frame of understanding. Compare that with American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that was set up in 1943 to explicitly defend laissez-faire capitalism from FDR's New Deal, and which brought Milton Friedman to Washington thereby launching the "Age of Friedman".

Instead, the Washington progressive establishment persistently thinks it can win by cobbling together ever longer lists of policy proposals. It may eventually do so, but if it does win it will be because working men and women have been put through the economic wringer.

That is a terrible indictment. There is a smarter way of winning. In this war of ideas Jamie Galbraith is on the side of the angels, so I whole heartedly support the audacity of his declaring victory and marching in. However, my sense is his declaration is premature.