SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
What's notably missing from both candidates' messages is a truly progressive vision that acknowledges the failures of past policies and proposes fundamental changes to address systemic issues.
The stage was set for a clash of titans at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. In what could be the only face-off of the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump squared off in a debate that was as much about America's future as it was about its past. For nearly two hours, the candidates traded barbs, outlined policies, and made their case to the American people in a high-stakes political showdown.
On the surface, Harris and Trump presented dramatically different visions for the country's path forward. Yet, as the dust settled and analysts began to parse through the debate's key moments, a surprising commonality emerged. Both candidates, despite their contrasting styles and policy positions, revealed a shared reliance on nostalgia and a yearning for idealized versions of the past. This backward-looking approach, masked by rhetoric of change and progress, could have profound implications for the upcoming election and the future trajectory of American politics.
Donald Trump's appeal to voters was, characteristically, rooted in an explicit call to return to what he portrayed as the golden era of his first term. Throughout the debate, Trump painted a picture of pre-Covid-19 America under his leadership as a time of unparalleled economic strength, global peace, and national greatness.
"We had no problems when Trump was president," he declared, attributing the quote to the autocratic leader of Hungary Viktor Orbán. This statement epitomizes Trump's campaign strategy: presenting his potential second term as a restoration of a supposedly idyllic recent past.
His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.
Trump's vision, however, is largely disconnected from the realities of his presidency. His claims of economic prosperity ignore the growing income inequality and the impact of his trade wars on American farmers and manufacturers. His assertion of global peace overlooks escalating tensions with Iran, North Korea, and China during his tenure.
The former president's rhetoric doesn't promise a better future so much as it pledges a triumphant return to a mythologized past. This approach resonates with a segment of the electorate that is fueled by fear, offering them a comforting, if illusory, promise of turning back the clock.
Trump's nostalgia is more overt, promising a return to a time just before the Covid-19 pandemic upended American life. It's a powerful message for those who feel that recent years have brought unwelcome changes to their communities and way of life. However, this vision ignores the ways in which long-standing economic and social policies have contributed to current inequalities and challenges. His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.
Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, explicitly framed her candidacy as forward-looking. She repeatedly emphasized the need to "turn the page" and "move forward," positioning herself as a representative of a "new generation of leadership."
Harris' debate performance was widely regarded as stronger than Trump's. She appeared more composed, better prepared, and more focused on substantive policy discussions. Her rhetoric emphasized unity, hope, and the possibility of progress, echoing themes that have been successful for Democratic candidates in recent elections.
While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary.
However, a closer examination of Harris' policy proposals and overall message reveals a vision that is less about charting a new course than it is about returning to a centrist, pre-Trump status quo. Her economic policies, for instance, rely heavily on market-based solutions and tax incentives reminiscent of the Clinton era. Her emphasis on "unity" and bipartisanship harks back to the Obama administration's early optimism about bridging partisan divides.
In essence, Harris is offering a return to a romanticized version of recent Democratic governance—a time before the disruptions of the Trump era, when political norms were more stable and progress seemed more achievable through incremental change within existing systems.
Harris' nostalgia is subtler but no less present. Her rhetoric evokes the perceived stability and respectability of pre-Trump politics, appealing to voters who are exhausted by the former president's confrontational style and norm-breaking behavior. While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary. Her vision, anchored in centrist Democratic policies reminiscent of earlier administrations, may not be sufficient to address the scale of challenges facing the nation, from wealth inequality to the climate crisis.
The reliance on nostalgia by both candidates reflects a broader trend in American politics. It speaks to a widespread sense of dissatisfaction with the present and anxiety about the future. Both Trump and Harris are tapping into a collective yearning for a time when things seemed simpler, more stable, or more aligned with voters' values and expectations.
However, this reliance on nostalgic visions reveals a significant limitation in both candidates' approaches. By looking backward for solutions, they fail to fully address the root causes of current problems or offer truly innovative visions for the future.
The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance?
The debate highlighted a paradox in American politics: While there's a broad consensus that significant change is needed, both major party candidates are essentially offering variations on past approaches. This reflects the inherent conservatism of established political parties and the challenges of proposing radical change within existing power structures. It also speaks to the difficulty of articulating a truly new vision that can appeal to a broad electoral coalition.
What's notably missing from both candidates' messages is a truly progressive vision that acknowledges the failures of past policies and proposes fundamental changes to address systemic issues. As climate change accelerates, technological disruption reshapes the economy, and social tensions persist, the limitations of backward-looking solutions become increasingly apparent.
The debate between Harris and Trump revealed not just the differences between the candidates, but also the shared constraints of American political discourse. It highlighted the need for a more forward-looking, innovative approach to governance—one that learns from the past without being bound by it, and that isn't afraid to reimagine systems and institutions to meet the demands of the future.
The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance? It is precisely this question that progressives must begin organising around to challenge the threat of rearview politics from both parties. Only in doing so can we truly begin charting a genuinely hopeful course to the future.
Here are some of the economic facts.
This is not a tough one. First and foremost, workers are better off today because they overwhelmingly have jobs if they want them. They also are getting higher pay, even after adjusting for inflation. And they tell us they are much more satisfied at their jobs.
When President Biden took office, the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent. It is currently 4.3 percent. For most of his presidency the unemployment rate has been below 4.0 percent, a stretch of low unemployment not seen in more than half a century.
The story looks even better if we look at the percentage of people who have jobs, since many people are not counted as being unemployed if they don’t even look for work because of a weak labor market.
In January of 2021, the share of people in their prime working years (ages 25 to 54) who had jobs was 76.4 percent. In the most recent data, it stood at 80.9 percent, 4.6 percentage points higher.
This is not just an issue of millions more people being able to get jobs. When the labor market is as strong as it has been, workers can have their choice of jobs. They can leave jobs where the pay is low, the workplace is unsafe, or the boss is a jerk.
The United States is the only wealthy country where workers have seen substantial wage growth since the pandemic. In most countries wages have fallen behind inflation.
Workers switched jobs in record numbers in the years 2021-2023. Tens of millions of people quit their jobs and moved on to better ones. One result was that workers reported the highest rate of job satisfaction on record. This is a big deal, since most workers spend a large share of their waking hours on the job.
The tight labor market also gave workers the power to resist employers’ demands that they return to the office when the worst of the pandemic was over. As a result, the number of people who report being able to work from home has increased by 19 million from the pre-pandemic level.
This shift has been largely ignored by the media, but these workers are saving hundreds of hours a year in commuting time and saving thousands on transportation and other commuting-related expenses. It’s true that the option to work from home is mostly available to higher paid workers, but 19 million people is nearly one-eighth of the workforce, not some tiny elite.
If working from home was a benefit that mostly went to higher paid workers, the pay increases disproportionately went to those at the bottom, reversing the pattern that had been in place for more than four decades. An analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that wages for workers in the bottom ten percent of the wage distribution increased by 13.4 percent from before the pandemic, after adjusting for inflation.
Wages for workers in the middle increased by 3.0 percent over this period, also after adjusting for inflation. This is not great, but it is better than what we saw over most of the prior four decades, when wages were often stagnant or falling.
And this wage growth occurred in spite of a worldwide pandemic that whacked growth and caused inflation everywhere. The United States is the only wealthy country where workers have seen substantial wage growth since the pandemic. In most countries wages have fallen behind inflation.
It is also important to realize the world-leading recovery was not something that just happened. It was not inevitable that the economy would bounce back quickly from the pandemic shutdowns. There was very rapid job growth in the summer of 2020, as most of the shutdowns ended. But job growth slowed considerably in the fall. In the last three months of the Trump administration, we were creating jobs at the rate of just 140,000 a month. At that pace it would have taken us more than five and a half years to get back the jobs lost in the recession.
The Biden administration’s recovery package got back these jobs in less than a year and a half. The rapid job growth has continued so that we now have 6.4 million more jobs than we did before the pandemic. With the economy still growing at a good clip and inflation back to its pre-pandemic pace, for workers the future is bright.
"What's at stake is we are reverting back to a system where a person's financial ability to be able to pay will determine their ability to be healthy."
The latest coronavirus vaccine costs up to $200 for the roughly 25 million uninsured people in the U.S., due to the defunding of a federal program that previously covered the costs, The Washington Postreported Tuesday.
It's the "latest tear in the safety net" as pandemic-era programs wind down, the newspaper reported. Covid-19 vaccines were free for everyone in the U.S. in 2021 and 2022, per federal policy. However, in January, congressional Republicans negotiated a deal that rescinded $6.1 billion in emergency coronavirus relief funding, which killed the Bridge Access Program, launched in April 2023, that covered the cost for the uninsured.
The latest version of the Covid-19 vaccine was approved on August 22 and costs just over $200 for uninsured patients at CVS pharmacies in Nashville and St. Louis—examples cited by the Post.
Raynard Washington, head of the Mecklenburg County health department in North Carolina and chair of the Big Cities Health Coalition, said that vaccine manufacturers Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech should lower their prices to make the shots more affordable for health agencies.
"What's at stake is we are reverting back to a system where a person's financial ability to be able to pay will determine their ability to be healthy," Washington said.
News of the lack of affordable access to the Covid-19 vaccine for uninsured people led to outrage on social media, with one X user asking "Is this the way to keep the rest of us safe?" and another declaring: "This makes me want to scream."
People covered by Medicare—which insures Americans over the age of 65—and Medicaid can still receive Covid-19 vaccines for free. But roughly 25 million people in the U.S. under the age of 65 are uninsured and left to pay the sky-high rates; people of color are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the uninsured.
Moderna, Pfizer, and BioNTech have profited off of the sale of the vaccines even though U.S. and European taxpayers heavily subsidized their development. The companies told the Post that free vaccines would be available through patient assistance programs, but provided no details.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it had identified $62 million to purchase Covid-19 vaccines for distribution to health agencies, but officials say that's a "sliver" of what's needed, the paper reported.
The Biden administration in its budget requests repeatedly tried to establish a Vaccines for Adults program aimed at providing shots, including Covid-19 boosters, to uninsured adults, but the efforts stalled in Congress. The proposal was based on a federal Vaccines for Children program that's been active since the 1990s.
The new Covid-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone 6 months of age or older. It includes a level of protection against the KP.2 variant that accounted for roughly one quarter of U.S. cases this summer.
The public health emergency for Covid-19 ended in May 2023 but the virus has killed tens of thousands of people in the U.S. since then and can cause long-term complications.