Fealty to Neoliberalism and Corporate-Friendly Trade Policy Is Why the Democrats Lost

"The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of 50 years of neoliberalism,” Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy wrote days after the election. “We cannot be afraid of fights, especially with the economic elites who have profited off neoliberalism.”

Indeed, the results of the 2024 election left many Democrats reeling. Once again, the very real frustrations many American voters have with their place in an increasingly complex and unequal global economy were exploited by a billionaire con man with a horrendous, hate-fueled agenda full of sweeping corporate giveaways.

Voters Wanted Economic Change

With the smoke cleared, we can see that there were a number of factors working against the Harris campaign and numerous pathways to victory that fell short. But it is undeniable that economic policy and messaging played a major role. Countless exit polls showed that dissatisfaction with the economy was the number one deciding issue for voters.

Take the three Rust Belt swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, for instance, where an average of 31% of voters said the economy was the most important factor in determining their decisions. Of these, 76% voted for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. Sixty-six percent felt the economy was in bad shape, and of this group, 70% voted for Donald Trump.

It would be preposterous for Democrats—in the name of fighting Trumpism—to revert back to the corporate-dominated rules of free trade agreements that contributed to the economic damage felt by working people and drove them toward right-wing populism.

And then there’s Trumbull County, Ohio, home of the Lordstown GM plant where Trump had promised thousands of autoworkers he would save their jobs. And though all of those jobs went to Mexico during his presidency and he did nothing to stop it, Trump overperformed his 2020 numbers there by nearly four percentage points, while Vice President Kamala Harris underperformed President Joe Biden’s. Trump also overperformed his 2020 numbers to beat Harris in Racine County, Wisconsin, where he had promised 13,000 manufacturing jobs back in 2017 that never arrived. Worse, Harris underperformed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 total vote percentages in every Rust Belt state except Indiana.

The Rust Belt got its name because of bad trade deals. It’s where a lot of good manufacturing jobs used to be before the era of neoliberal corporate-trade policies arrived in the late 80s. Back then, Republican and Democratic leaders alike pushed the myth of free trade onto a working class that had just endured a wave of skyrocketing income inequality and attacks on unions by Ronald Reagan.

U.S. trade policy plays a central role in these voters’ dissatisfaction. Deep feelings of betrayal left behind by the era of free trade fueled all three of Donald Trump’s campaigns and allowed his litany of lies and false promises about protecting manufacturing jobs to win over many working-class voters.

Recognition of “Free Trade” Harms

President Biden, previously a supporter of traditional free trade deals, learned some important political lessons from 2016, and the 2020 Democratic primary pushed him to incorporate parts of the economic populist platform endorsed by the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren campaigns. Many of the same swing-state voters who went to Trump in 2016 responded to that message and delivered the White House to Biden in 2020.

During Biden’s presidency, thanks to key personnel like U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, the U.S. began moving away from the corporate-dominated deals of the past and made significant progress toward enacting a new “worker-centered” trade policy. And Biden matched this new approach with historic investments in new U.S. manufacturing to counteract job loss caused by past trade deals.

Instead of concluding free trade agreements, the administration promised that U.S. trade policy would serve, rather than undermine, these massive spending programs. There was more investment in new manufacturing facilities in the U.S. under Biden-Harris than at any point in more than three decades.

Trade Progress Uncelebrated

The Harris campaign could have told a powerful story about turning the tables and standing up for workers against corporate greed. They could have built a campaign, like Biden did in 2020, that took seriously the demands of the progressive wing of the party and the voters they inspired. They could have leaned into and promised to expand these progressive economic and trade policies. But the consultants and party strategists who helped guide them chose not to.

Instead, the campaign failed to credibly speak to the economic pain communities have been suffering and missed many opportunities to emphasize the very real progress the Biden administration made on that front. In speech after speech, Harris fell into Trump’s trap, arguing against tariffs that are supported by 56% of all voters, not just those in factory towns.

The campaign repeatedly attacked these popular tariffs, even disingenuously calling them a “sales tax,” despite the fact that the Biden-Harris administration had also strategically used tariffs to protect U.S. industries and manufacturing jobs.

With the Harris campaign not consistently communicating a populist economic agenda, Trump was once again able to sell his hateful brand of right-wing populism, falsely claiming that he alone was looking out for American manufacturing workers.

The Way Forward

It would be preposterous for Democrats—in the name of fighting Trumpism—to revert back to the corporate-dominated rules of free trade agreements that contributed to the economic damage felt by working people and drove them toward right-wing populism.

Instead, they should clearly and passionately outline a progressive, populist vision for trade that they will boldly implement when they retake power. They should demand large-scale changes that transform how our country works for working people.