SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
economics
A Different 'Abundance Agenda': Avoiding Delusions and Diversions
If there is to be a decent human future—perhaps if there is to be any human future—it will be fewer people consuming less energy and creating less stuff.
Mar 30, 2025
For the next few weeks, the buzzword in US debates on the liberal/left about economics and ecology will be “abundance” after the release of the book with that title by Ezra Klein (New York Times) and Derek Thompson (The Atlantic magazine).
The book poses politically relevant questions: Have policies favored by Democrats and others on the political left impeded innovation with unnecessary red tape for building projects? Can regulatory reform and revitalized public investment bring technological progress that can solve problems in housing, infrastructure, energy, and agriculture? The book says yes to both.
Those debates have short-term political implications but are largely irrelevant to the human future. The challenge is not how to do more but how to live with less.
All societies face multiple cascading ecological crises—emphasis on the plural. There are many crises, not just climate change, and no matter what a particular society’s contribution to the crises there is nowhere to hide. The cascading changes will come in ways we can prepare for but can’t predict, and it’s likely the consequences will be much more dire than we imagine.
If that seems depressing, I’m sorry. Keep reading anyway.
Rapid climate disruption is the most pressing concern but not the only existential threat. Soil erosion and degradation undermine our capacity to feed ourselves. Chemical contamination of our bodies and ecosystems undermines the possibility of a stable long-term human presence. Species extinction and loss of biodiversity will have potentially catastrophic effects on the ecosystems on which our lives depend.
Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard.
I could go on, but anyone who wants to know about these crises can easily find this information in both popular media and the research literature. For starters, I recommend the work of William Rees, an ecologist who co-created the ecological footprint concept and knows how to write for ordinary people.
The foundational problem is overshoot: There are too many people consuming too much in the aggregate. The distribution of the world’s wealth is not equal or equitable, of course, but the overall program for human survival is clear: fewer and less. If there is to be a decent human future—perhaps if there is to be any human future—it will be fewer people consuming less energy and creating less stuff.
Check the policy statements of all major political players, including self-described progressives and radicals, and it’s hard to find mention of the need to impose limits on ourselves. Instead, you will find delusions and diversions.
The delusions come mainly from the right, where climate-change denialism is still common. The more sophisticated conservatives don’t directly challenge the overwhelming consensus of researchers but instead sow seeds of doubt, as if there is legitimate controversy. That makes it easier to preach the “drill, baby, drill” line of expanding fossil fuel production, no matter what the ecological costs, instead of facing limits.
The diversions come mainly from the left, where people take climate change seriously but invest their hopes in an endless array of technological solutions. These days, the most prominent tech hype is “electrify everything,” which includes a commitment to an unsustainable car culture with electric vehicles, instead of facing limits.
There is a small kernel of truth in the rhetoric of both right and left.
When the right says that expanding fossil energy production would lift more people out of poverty, they have a valid point. But increased production of fossil energy is not suddenly going to benefit primarily the world’s poor, and the continued expansion of emissions eventually will doom rich and poor alike.
When the left says renewable energy is crucial, they have a valid point. But if the promise of renewable energy is used to prop up existing levels of consumption, then the best we can expect is a slowing of the rate of ecological destruction. Unless renewables are one component of an overall down-powering, they are a part of the problem and not a solution.
Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard. People—including me and almost everyone reading this—find it hard to resist what my co-author Wes Jackson and I have called “the temptations of dense energy.” Yes, lots of uses of fossil fuels are wasteful, and modern marketing encourages that waste. But coal, oil, and natural gas also do a lot of work for us and provide a lot of comforts that people are reluctant to give up.
That’s why the most sensible approach combines limits on our consumption of energy and rationing to ensure greater fairness, both of which have to be collectively imposed. That’s not a popular political position today, but if we are serious about slowing, and eventually stopping, the human destruction of the ecosphere, I see no other path forward.
In the short term, those of us who endorse “fewer and less” will have to make choices between political candidates and parties that are, on the criteria of real sustainability, either really hard-to-describe awful or merely bad. I would never argue that right and left, Republican and Democrat, are indistinguishable. But whatever our immediate political choices, we should talk openly about ecological realities.
That can start with imagining an “abundance agenda” quite different than what Klein and Thompson, along with most conventional thinking, propose. Instead of more building that will allegedly be “climate friendly,” why not scale back our expectations? Instead of assuming a constantly mobile society, why not be satisfied with staying home? Instead of dreaming of more gadgets, why not live more fully in the world around us? People throughout history have demonstrated that productive societies can live with less.
Instead of the promise of endless material abundance, which has never been consistent with a truly sustainable future, let’s invest in what we know produces human flourishing—collective activity in community based on shared needs and reduced wants. For me, living in rural New Mexico, that means being one of the older folks who are helping younger folks get a small-scale farm off the ground. It means being an active participant in our local acequia irrigation system. It means staying home instead of vacationing. It means being satisfied with the abundant pleasures of this place and these people without buying much beyond essentials.
I’m not naïve—given the house I live in, the car I drive, and the food I buy from a grocery store, I’m still part of a hyper-extractive economy that is unsustainable. But instead of scrambling for more, I am seeking to live with less. I know that’s much harder for people struggling to feed a family and afford even a modest home. But rather than imagining ways to keep everyone on the consumption treadmill, only with more equity, we can all contribute ideas about how to step off.
Our choices are clear: We can drill more, which will simply get us to a cruel end game even sooner. We can pretend that technology will save us, which might delay that reckoning. If we can abandon the delusions and diversions, there’s no guarantee of a happy future. But there’s a chance of a future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Plan for Gaza Would Make Colonial Plunder Great Again
In an interview, economist James K. Boyce discusses the relationship between war and economics, and how Trump’s talk of taking over Gaza and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is similar to the U.S. dispossession of Native Americans.
Feb 27, 2025
Can economics fuel conflict and war? Absolutely, and history is full of such examples. But economics can also pave the way to lasting peace, according to progressive economist James K. Boyce.
In the interview that follows, professor Boyce discusses the economics of war and the role that economics can play in peacemaking, including in places like Ukraine and Gaza, although he acknowledges that daunting challenges lie ahead for these two war-torn areas of the world. As for U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, Boyce puts it side by side with the dispossession of Native Americans in the United States.
James K. Boyce is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a senior fellow of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). He is the author of Investing in Peace: Aid and Conditionality after Civil Warsand editor of Peace and the Public Purse: Economic Policies for Postwar Statebuildingand Economic Policy for Building Peace: The Lessons of El Salvador.He received the 2024 Global Inequality Research Award and the 2017 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. This interview is based on his seven-part video series released by the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
C. J. Polychroniou: Conflicts across the world have surged since 2020, making this one of the most violent periods since the end of the Cold War. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have been most visible in the news, but there have been dozens of other conflicts, too. What lessons can we draw from history about the economics of war, the topic of your recent video series from the Institute for New Economic Thinking? How about if we start with the wars of conquest during the era of colonialism?
James K. Boyce: Economics is not just about mutually beneficial exchanges entered into by mutually consenting adults, though you could be forgiven for thinking so if your only acquaintance with the subject was a typical textbook. Real-world economics also is about coercive relationships in which one side benefits and the other loses. Such interactions—which can be grouped under the general rubric of plunder—involve not only outright force but also the manipulation of governments and markets, often occurring in the grey area between what is legal and what is not.
Trump often is described as “transactional” with good reason: For him, policy is about making deals.
The colonial wars of conquest were a particularly naked example of plunder. Slavery, the appropriation of lands and minerals, and the monopolization of commerce were common features of the time, thinly cloaked, if at all, by the pretense of a “civilizing” mission. But it would be wrong to imagine that plunder disappeared with the end of formal colonial rule. It remains a ubiquitous feature of the world economy, now sometimes cloaked by the veneer of “modernization” or “development.” Because plunder is inherently antagonistic—it pits the plunderers against the those whose resources and livelihoods are plundered—it can and often does morph into violence and war.
C. J. Polychroniou: What about more recent conflicts, like the wars in Bosnia (1992-1995) and Afghanistan (2001-2021)? How did economics figure into these?
James K. Boyce: Economics is not the whole story in these or most conflicts, but it is an important part of why they begin, how long they persist, and how they finally end.
Bosnia emerged as an independent nation during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Some commentators blamed “ancient ethnic hatreds” for the violence that accompanied Yugoslavia’s dissolution, but tensions arising from economic disparities among its provinces were also at play. Within Bosnia, three main “ethnic” groups lived side by side—Muslim Bosniaks, Catholic Croats, and Orthodox Serbs—and the fighting largely devolved along these lines (I place “ethnic” in quotation marks, because apart from religious origins the three were hard to distinguish). But another underlying axis of conflict was the deep economic gulf between urban Bosnians (often Bosniaks), who benefited in Yugoslavia from good education, health, and pension systems, and rural Bosnians (often Serbs), who were excluded from the benefits of engagement in the formal economy.
Once war broke out, opportunities for plunder became a key driving force in the conflict. Hardliners who engaged in ethnic cleansing—killing minorities and driving them out—not only sought to establish homogeneous enclaves for “their” people but also to gain personally from seizing the businesses, homes, land, and other property the victims left behind.
Economic incentives, in the form of promises of postwar reconstruction aid, played a key role in the end of the war, too, persuading the warring parties to sign the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord. Dayton, in a sense, was an aid-for-peace bargain. So economics was very much implicated in all phases of the Bosnian conflict.
The 2001-2021 war in Afghanistan was in many ways a resumption of the 1979-1989 war, with the difference that now it was the United States instead of the Soviet Union that occupied Kabul while the countryside largely remained under the control of the Taliban and regional warlords. As in Bosnia, pronounced economic disparities between urban and rural areas fueled the Afghan conflict, and the Taliban tapped into rural discontent. Wide disparities between Kabul and the rest of the country predated the Soviet and American invasions, and were further exacerbated by the wartime influx of foreigners and their money. Meanwhile, by controlling the opium traffic and taxing cross-border trade, the Taliban built a viable economic base of their own.
Economics played a central role in the U.S. war strategy, but it was not a pretty picture. In 2002, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld instructed his senior aides to come up with “a plan for how we are going to deal with each of these warlords—who is going to get money from whom, on what basis, in exchange for what, what is the quid pro quo, etc.” The U.S. government poured nearly $1 trillion into Afghanistan—$145 billion in reconstruction aid plus $837 billion in military expenditures—this in a country with a GDP of less than $20 billion. War “became the Afghan economy,” as The New York Times put it. The Afghan leadership, unsurprisingly, was more attentive to the demands of foreign donors than to the needs of their own citizens. Massive corruption fueled by external assistance fatally undermined any possibility of building a legitimate and effective state. “Our money was empowering a lot of bad people,” a senior U.S. official recalled. “There was massive resentment among the Afghan people. And we were the most corrupt.”
Today 85% of Afghanistan’s people subsist on less than one dollar a day. Whether the Taliban government or the so-called international community will act to address their deprivation and build a lasting peace is an open question.
C. J. Polychroniou: What role can economics play in peace building?
James K. Boyce: There is much to be said on this topic—it is the focus of the video series—and space precludes a full answer here. Let me highlight just two points.
First, economic policies can either reduce inequalities and the accompanying tensions or exacerbate them. This means not only “vertical” inequality between rich and poor, but also “horizontal” inequalities between groups defined on another basis, such as region, ethnicity, race, or religion. A single-minded focus on the total size of the economic pie—the conventional goals of growth and efficiency—is misplaced when conflicts over how it is sliced threaten to smash the pie.
Second, economic policies can either strengthen or weaken the bargaining power of pro-peace forces vis-à-vis those who seek to perpetuate the conflict. In Bosnia, for example, a crucial postwar issue was the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their former homes. In some municipalities, local leaders welcomed them; in others, they actively obstructed returns, in part to protect their ill-gotten loot. In its “Open Cities” program, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees used reconstruction aid to reward municipalities that welcomed returns and to induce leaders on the fence to come down on the pro-peace side. The program’s implementation was not perfect, but the idea was sound. Again, “who” matters as much as “what.”
C. J. Polychroniou: How can we apply economics to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Can economic policies help to drive peace in those two war-torn areas?
James K. Boyce: The Trump administration’s “America first” stance seems likely to lead to a U.S. pullback from engagement in the tasks of peace building and state building in war-torn societies. In part, this reflects a disillusionment born of the dismal failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as those experiences suggest, disengagement may not be entirely a bad thing. But Ukraine and Gaza continue to loom large on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
Trump often is described as “transactional” with good reason: For him, policy is about making deals. In both Ukraine and Gaza, economic considerations will be a big part of any deals we see. But it is by no means clear that forging a lasting peace will be the top priority for the dealmakers. If not, the end of the current wars could merely set the stage for future ones.
The Ukraine war is exhibit No. 1 of the dangers of fossil-fueled oligarchy. In addition to enormous environmental costs, fossil fuels carry a high political cost: They enable the autocratic rulers of petrostates to govern with little accountability to either their own citizens or norms of international law. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a case in point. As Ukraine illustrates, fossil fueled-oligarchy can metastasize into fossil-fueled war.
Putin has oil and gas; Netanyahu has the United States.
Oil and gas revenues have sustained the Putin regime, notwithstanding international sanctions. The sanctions do, however, drive a wedge between the world market price and what Russia receives, so the prospect of lifting them could act as an incentive for Russia to accept a negotiated settlement. But if the Trump administration eases the sanctions without a peace agreement, while at the same time cutting military and financial aid to Ukraine, this will tilt the terms of the settlement in Russia’s favor.
On the Ukrainian side, the prospect of large-scale reconstruction assistance—as well as an end to the carnage—may provide an incentive, too. It now appears that the responsibility for funding Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction will fall mainly on Europe; whether the European nations will be willing and able to shoulder this burden remains to be seen. In an effort to shore up U.S. support, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has offered a minerals-for-aid deal that would give the U.S. access to Ukraine’s deposits of lithium, uranium, and other critical minerals. But the minerals will be in the ground regardless of who controls the land above them, and it is not evident that the Trump administration will care much about that.
In Gaza, the latest war tragically illustrates what I call the “partition dilemma.” The 1994 Oslo Accord sought to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing the Palestinian Authority as a step toward a two-state solution. In the short run, partition can be an appealing way to stop the shooting. But in the longer run, it can set the stage for renewed conflict, as demagogues on both sides invoke fear of the other to enlist public support from their own people. Partition severely undermines the viability of leaders and parties that would appeal to pro-peace constituencies on both sides.
It is not surprising that 30 years after Oslo, we find Hamas on one side and the Netanyahu government on the other. The two feed off each other in a de facto alliance, each holding up the other as justification for its own politics of demonization. This helps to explain why the Netanyahu government not only tolerated but actively facilitated the flow of cash from Qatar to Hamas. In a candid moment back in 2015, Bezalel Smotrich, who is now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s finance minister, said that “Hamas is an asset.”
The chances that partition will lead to a lasting peace grow even slimmer if one side receives large-scale financial and military support with no strings attached—without peace conditionality—while the other does not. By emboldening one side and embittering the other, the resulting imbalance is a recipe for renewed conflict. Putin has oil and gas; Netanyahu has the United States. Rather than a negotiated settlement, the Israeli government now appears to be seeking a winner-take-all victory. Under the new U.S. administration, Netanyahu will face even fewer constraints than under the last one.
Trump’s talk of taking over Gaza and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is reminiscent of plunder during the colonial era, including the dispossession of Native Americans in the United States. Yet in purely economic terms it makes a certain amount of sense: Beach resort development would indeed be a more profitable use of the land than maintaining Gaza as a place of confinement for 2 million refugees. Where other politicians see territory, Trump sees real estate.
The problem, of course, is what to do with Palestinians. There is one place that many of them might go willingly: the land of their grandparents, Israel. The fact that option this is unmentionable, even unthinkable, tells us a lot.
If the war in Gaza and ongoing displacement in the West Bank do not end with the complete expulsion or annihilation of the Palestinians—a prospect that still seems inconceivable—the eventual outcome will be a single state in which the surviving Palestinians have a subordinate and marginalized status. Their struggle will then become one for equal rights. Economic policies could prove helpful at that point, but history suggests it will be a long, hard road.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kamala Harris, Candidate of Economic Change, Breaks With Old Democratic Thinking
The key question remains: have voters heard her?
Nov 04, 2024
In mid-June I went to Nashville for a reunion of old friends who were activists with the Southern Student Organizing Committee, a group founded in 1964 by young Southerners inspired by the sit-in movement and devoted to dismantling racism all over the South and the nation. Like Martin Luther King Jr., we also went to work to end the war in Vietnam. In Nashville we shared stories about having stood up early—when it was dangerous—for racial justice and against a tragic war.
But today, decades later, we were staring into the vacuum of a terrifying potential disaster: Donald Trump—candidate of fascism and racism, enemy of women’s rights, friend of American billionaires and Russian oligarchs, and the guy who wants to dismantle U.S. democracy—could be (re)elected President.
My old friends—who stood up to George Wallace and Richard Nixon back in the day—were all committed to defeating Trump. But back in June many shared a troubled question about the Democratic incumbent. “Biden did a great job in the White House, but isn’t he too old to make the case against Trump—and for a better future—in this election?” Only a few months later—after Biden bravely stepped away and Kamala Harris and Tim Walz began energetically taking on Trump—celebration and optimism have reigned on our follow-up Zoom calls—because now we had a candidate who could talk with the American people—about making life better for working Americans. And many SSOC veterans, especially those in Georgia and North Carolina, have been working hard to build the movement that we hope will win in those key swing states.
Clearly, the Harris team (and Democratic operatives) have made saving democracy and reclaiming abortion rights as their key issues. When your opponent is a self-declared fan of Hitler and an enemy of democracy—and brags about getting rid of Roe v Wade—clearly saving our democratic political system and guaranteeing reproductive rights have got to be key to your primary message to voters. She and Tim Walz have been doing that—with joy and energy. And supporters are working hard to get all those folks who understand the Trump threat to come out to vote.
But an even larger group of Americans keep telling pollsters that the economy is their major concern. Many have faulty memories— of Trump’s White House years as a time of prosperity—and of the Biden-Harris years as COVID-driven chaos and inflation. As a result, many Democratic Party operatives and media pundits have pushed Harris to distance herself from Biden—and, to some extent, she has done so.
Even in the narrow context of today’s political debate, many Americans just don’t want to remember how big a medical and economic mess Trump left for Biden and Harris to clean up.
But this “Don’t talk about Biden” strategy has prevented Harris (and Democrats) from being able to tell a powerful story about the Biden-Harris presidency—and it has limited her ability to talk about what is wrong about the economic system—and to about what kind of economy agenda we need to build for working Americans.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris literally saved the U.S. and the world economy. They won the White House in 2020 in part because Donald Trump showed voters he was incompetent in the face of the COVID pandemic. And as a result of that pandemic-driven economic shutdown, Biden and Harris had to take on and reverse the most serious recession since the Great Depression. The amazing thing is that they actually pulled it off. When Biden and Harris took office, Americans had endured 8 months of official recession—and four years ago, the Trump unemployment rate was 9.2 percent. Deaths from COVID, which began in Trump’s last year in office, far from getting better, were at a deadly all-time high when Biden was sworn in.
Today, as a result of very ambitious policies that Biden and Harris put forward—and got passed through a divided Congress—the U.S. unemployment rate came down to below today’s 4.1%, and—if the Fed doesn’t blow it (or if Trump doesn’t win)—interest rates are coming down and inflation is stabilizing at 2.1% annual rate (down from the peak of 9.06% in June 2022). This Biden-Harris economic recovery is the envy of many other advanced nations that are still struggling to reduce unemployment. And we needed to remind voters that Biden and Harris surprised many economic experts by achieving a “soft landing”—getting jobs growing and bringing inflation down without tipping the economy into another recession. Ronald Reagan didn’t have such a great record when he ran for re-election declaring it was “Morning in America.”
Now clearly, working class Americans, white and black, don’t feel like it is Morning in America. But that feeling that the country is on the wrong track is not a recent development. For decades now, the very wealthy have gotten astronomically richer, and corporations have gained greater and greater control of our political and economic system, while middle-class and working-class people have seen declining real wages and fewer opportunities for themselves and their kids. Americans have been worried about their economic prospects for decades.
But even in the narrow context of today’s political debate, many Americans just don’t want to remember how big a medical and economic mess Trump left for Biden and Harris to clean up. And, since Democrats have been instructed to not talk about the Biden years, voters are now hearing just one explanation from Trump about what caused the post-COVID inflation: “Biden and Harris did it.” In other words, Trump blames the very Biden-Harris policies that helped Americans get through the COVID recession—and got the economy growing robustly.
Although not too many voters have heard it, Democrats have a different explanation: As the pandemic—worsened by Trump’s idiotic failures—literally shut down the global economy, the fragile international supply chain network froze up. And during the long period when the global factory system shut down—everything from food to cars to computer chips were stuck in container ships circling the globe or stuck in ports, huge parts of the U.S. economy were either forced to shut down—consumers experienced major shortages on store shelves or car dealers. Biden and Harris worked successfully to untangle these supply chain problem -- but the temporary shortages created huge opportunities for American corporations to raise prices and keep prices high (known as price gouging) for months and months. The painful result: higher prices for groceries, gas and oil, housing, and other essentials.
The Biden stimulus worked—the economy is growing and the inflation rate has come down for a rare “soft landing.” The Biden economic program wasn’t the cause of inflation. And without the Biden-Harris economic agenda, over the past few years Americans would have been struggling with the worst of both problems: high unemployment AND inflation.
Having revived economic growth and gotten the overall inflation rate going down—now at an annual rate of 2.1%—Kamala Harris took over as the Democratic nominee and began to lay out a positive agenda to take on corporate price manipulation and real shortages in food, housing, energy, and health care.
She vowed to break the power of corporations to take advantage of shortages to raise prices and keep them high. This dynamic is most obvious in the food sector (where corporate concentration gives corporations great power) and in the health care sector, where she and Biden have already begun to force pharmaceutical companies to compete on the price of essential drugs. And public health insurance, like Medicare and Obamacare, are still too dominated by corporate insurance companies. In housing, although interest rates are going down, Harris pledges to fight for a long-term project to build more housing, break the power of speculators in the rental market, and help first-time home buyers with up to $25,000 to cover their down payments. And in energy, where the prices of gasoline and other fuels have come down, she also pledges to continue to support alternative sources of power, like solar and wind, and hydro—all of which will bring down prices for individuals and for utilities.
Keep in mind that Donald Trump has advanced no ideas at all for reducing inflation. He did meet with oil industry CEOs to demand $1 billion to finance his campaign in return for massive huge policy giveaways – and if you think that would lower energy prices, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on all imports would increase inflation dramatically, according to economists right, left, and center.
A Harris presidency would work to reorganize each of these key sectors to bring down prices—while creating new public systems to help families with other basic needs, like free or subsidized child care (and in home senior care), the costs of which is now borne almost entirely struggling middle class and poor families.
Based on polling that shows inflation and the economy are the top issues for many voters, some progressive analysts have been arguing that Kamala Harris and her campaign are not talking enough about her economic agenda.
Pollster Stan Greenberg has been making the case that the Harris-Walz campaign would be pulling strongly ahead if they were doing more to educate voters on Harris’s economic plans. He cites a TV ad tested by the super PAC Future Forward that garners strong support when tested with working people:
In that ad, (Kamala Harris) said, ‘When I am elected president, I will make it a top priority to bring down costs. We should be doing everything we can to make it more affordable to buy a home and more than 100 million Americans will get a tax cut. I will help families; letting you keep more of your hard-earned money. As president, I will be laser focused on creating opportunities for the middle class that advance their economic security, stability and dignity.’
Greenberg argued “Closing positive with Harris battling for the middle class and helping everyone on their very top issue will engage and unite the Democrats’ base. That will shift the trajectory of this race.”
Certainly, the next two days will tell if he and other progressives are right.
How Harris could have distanced herself from Democratic orthodoxy
Kamala Harris has been constantly pressured—by the media and some Democrats—to show how she would distance herself from Joe Biden and Democratic orthodoxy. As we have seen, the Biden economic agenda was remarkably successful—and that may be one good reason why she refused to attack the Biden-Harris economic strategy. But in response to this pressure, she has shifted her campaign to attacking Trump as an extremist. Greenberg and other progressives argue that she should have campaigned more on her anti-inflation plans and the larger economic agenda she has put forward.
Here's another approach: Kamala Harris—as candidate and as our new President—could distance herself from several generations of Democratic leaders. For decades now, several generations of activist movements have pushed energetically for a new economic agenda for the Democratic party. It has been a hard slog, but we have made progress even with party elites.
1. Inflation killed the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, who was the last Democrat who had to deal with high inflation. Prices were rising by 9.9% and remained high throughout his term. Shorly after he took office a coalition of progressive groups called Consumers Opposed to Inflation in the Necessities met with Carter and made the case that he should fight inflation in the key “basic necessities” sectors where increasing prices were driving inflation. Carter ignored us and instead listened to more conventional voices, and he tried various experiments in “deregulation,” none of which worked. Finally Fed Chair Paul Volker raised interest rates to 19 percent, precipitating a recession. And Carter lost his election to Ronald Reagan, who attacked him for 13 percent inflation and high unemployment. The good news is that Kamala Harris (and Joe Biden) took another path—and that new approach is working.
Kamala Harris—as candidate and as our new President—could distance herself from several generations of Democratic leaders.
2. Trade Policy advanced by conventional Democrats has ignored the economic pain and devastation caused by treaties like Bill Clinton’s NAFTA and his sponsoring of China joining the World Trade Organization. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama both fiercely promoted another, even more ambitious treaty, known as the The Trans-Pacific Partnership. Eventually, both realized that voters hated these job-killing trade deals, but not until they greatly damaged the Democratic brand with heartland working class voters, and they gave up on the TPP. Many people remember the 1999 “Teamsters and Turtles” demonstrations in Seattle that brought together over 50,000 protesters—union members, environmentalists, family farmers, indigenous rights activists, faith-based groups, and solidarity organizations—to confront global elites attending the ministerial meetings of the WTO. Slowly, those groups have moved Democrats to understand the need for a trade policy that preserves and creates good jobs, reduces global warming and creates prosperity. The Harris campaign has broken with the old “free trade uber alles” agenda of the Democratic Party. And just in time, because she will forge a more functional trade regime that is more progressive than the mindless and opportunistic trade agenda of Donald Trump.
3. Industrial Policy is closely related to trade. For years Democrats joined Republicans to denounce any kind of industrial policy (except for military spending) aimed at making American industry more productive, cleaner, and more competitive—or to help create new high-tech industries that can anchor economic development and replace jobs lost to mechanization. But there has been a citizen movement demanding action. And polls show that most Americans—especially blue-collar workers—strongly support smart industrial policies. Biden and Harris made huge strides in this new direction with the passage of The American Recovery Act, which helped revive all sectors of the economy. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022—to rebuild our semiconductor industry. The Inflation Reduction Act—which included $369 billion for a climate initiative to reduce greenhouse emissions and promote lean energy technologies. This legislation put an annual cap of $2,000 for out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for those insured by Medicare—and helped improve Obamacare, which was a beginning of an industrial policy for the huge and costly American health industry.
4. Investing in a Stronger Social Contract for Middle-Class and Working People—by Ending Austerity, Taxing the Rich, Growing the Economy.
The creation of Social Security by Franklin Roosevelt and Medicare by Lyndon Johnson marked major milestones in the ongoing quest to put an economic floor under the lives of working folks and poor people. After many battles which pitted the vast majority of Americans against Republicans (and conservative Democrats) who wanted to cut benefits or “privatize” these beloved social insurance programs, a new generation of activists have learned to stop attacks—and many are now working to expand and improve Social Security and Medicare, long harmed by conservative governments. And while we must protect the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans are working to transform Obamacare into a more comprehensive and less expensive system of health care.
If we want to live as well as the social democratic countries of the world, we will need to greatly improve our health care system.
Most advanced capitalist countries guarantee child care, pre-care education, paid family and medical leave, and in-home or community care for seniors and people with disabilities and their families. And if we want to live as well as the social democratic countries of the world, we will need to greatly improve our health care system.
Today there is a growing movement to win these expanded social insurance plans that can help make individuals and families more secure—and people who work for small businesses and corporations more productive.
Our crazy system of financing college and trade school education was so bad that when young people started talking about wiping out student debt—and making state universities tuition free, the idea took off like a rocket in the political debate—and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris became the champions of this big change. If Kamala wins the White House, we can expect her to keep pushing.
Popular programs like these are expensive. But our corporations and billionaires pay less in taxes than most other wealthy countries. Big coalitions like Americans for Tax Fairness are working for fair taxes—and an end to the Trump tax giveaways to the rich and corporations—that would provide us the resources we need to invest in a stronger social safety net.
5. Donald Trump thinks global warming is a hoax, but most Americans know we must act boldly to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, for years Democratic leaders tried to achieve this by putting a tax on energy consumption—which would have raised costs to working Americans. Bill Clinton tried to pass a carbon tax in 1006, but even Democrats wouldn’t vote for it.
Eventually, after being schooled by climate activists—and by labor unions, who came to understand that transforming our energy system will mean good jobs—the Biden team proposed and got passed a historic legislation that used Federal funds to invest in energy conservation and new forms of green energy production. Those investments are producing millions of new jobs, many of them union jobs.
6. American workers have a right to be represented by a union. This proposition is increasingly popular today as billionaires and monopolies have come to dominate the economy and work places. The best unions have become creative about helping workers organize to secure rights at work and better lives for their families. And the Biden-Haris administration has not only taken important symbolic steps to support worker struggles—like Biden and Harris’s support for the historic United Auto Workers strike— they have made real change—for example by appointing Jennifer Abruzzo to the post of general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. She has charted a dramatic new path to strengthen and defend workers rights to organize and to challenge anti-labor employers. Democrats have long given lip service to passing a new labor law—known as the Pro Act—to strengthen worker rights. And if Kamala Harris wins the Presidency—with a Congressional majority, she should be expected to write and pass an even tougher labor rights bill that can begin the process of guaranteeing that American workers have the kind of rights at work that workers in other advanced countries won years ago.
If we want a government that works for a better life for Americans, we must get big money out of politics.
7. We must take our democracy back from the wealthy and corporate elites. It is hugely important that we stop Donald Trump’s systematic attacks on our democratic system. But even when we defeat him—we will still have a political system that is dominated by massive amounts of money—including an obscene $134 million this year from crypto-currency investors to buy elections for House, Senate and White House. The U.S. now has a legal framework in which the Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision allows corporations and billionaires to flood elections with unlimited money—and which allows lobbyists to reward Members of Congress to do their bidding. And in order to use democracy to clean up the system we are going to have to make the U.S. Senate more democratic—by abolishing the filibuster that now requires a super majority in order to pass any significant changes. And grass-roots Democrats have discovered that we need to change party rules to prevent mysterious and evil dark money from dominating the system for nominating Senators and Members of Congress. If we want a government that works for a better life for Americans, we must get big money out of politics.
8. The rich have gotten richer and they have hollowed out the middle class.
The economic gap between the very rich and the rest of us has been growing dramatically for the past 30 years and more.
Income disparities are now so pronounced that America’s richest 1 percent of households averaged 139 times as much income as the bottom 20 percent in 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In the 1980s, when the Economic Policy Institute was founded as a think tank for working people, EPI’s early research began to demonstrate that the income and wealth of the richest Americans was pulling away from middle-class and working Americans. At first establishment economists denied the trend—or they said it was only temporary. Today everyone—left, right and center— acknowledges the problem, and the debate is about what to do about it—or about whether we can or should do anything about it. But most working people now know what growing inequality is doing to their families. And they want solutions. And one of the first battles Kamala Harris will face require us to rally the country to put an end to the Trump tax cuts for the rich and corporations that did so much to accelerate inequality of income and wealth.
All of the inter-woven movements for economic change described above aim at making the U.S. a society where there are fewer extremes of wealth and income—and where the very wealthy do not have the power to block the aspirations of the rest of us for a better life.
The New Centrism
In May, the respected New York Times senior reporter David Leonhardt wrote an important article entitled “A New Centrism Is Rising in Washington: Call it neopopulism: a bipartisan attitude that mistrusts the free-market ethos instead of embracing it.” Here’s what he wrote in his article in the Times:
For decades, Washington pursued a set of policies that many voters disliked and that did not come close to delivering their promised results. Many citizens have understandably become frustrated. That frustration has led to the stirrings of a neopopulism that seeks to reinvigorate the American economy and compete with the country’s global rivals.
A defining quality of the new centrism is how much it differs from the centrism that guided Washington in the roughly quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, starting in the 1990s. That centrism—alternately called the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism — was based on the idea that market economics had triumphed. By lowering trade barriers and ending the era of big government, the United States would both create prosperity for its own people and shape the world in its image, spreading democracy to China, Russia and elsewhere.
Winning this election is just the beginning of the work that needs to be done...
That hasn’t worked out. In the U.S., incomes and wealth have grown slowly, except for the affluent, while life expectancy is lower today than in any other high-income country.
Americans lean left on economic policy. Polls show that they support restrictions on trade, higher taxes on the wealthy and a strong safety net. Most Americans are not socialists, but they do favor policies to hold down the cost of living and create good-paying jobs. These views help explain why ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage and expand Medicaid have passed even in red states. They also explain why some parts of Biden’s agenda that Republicans uniformly opposed, such as a law reducing medical costs, are extremely popular. This is where the center of gravity in the country is.
Leonhardt is right that this new neopopulist approach to economics is very popular across the spectrum of Americans—with those who didn’t go to college and those who did, with men as well as women, with people struggling to stay middle class and with working class and poor people—white, Black, Hispanic and Asian. But this new popularity is not just the result of “new thinking” by academics and policy advisers. What he calls this new “centrism” is now making sense to voters and politicians alike because of the work of several generations of progressive activists—from my old friends fighting for civil rights and against a terrible war—to today’s generation of activists fighting for economic equality, to break the power of corporate manipulation of our political system, and to build an economic system that can build a better life for all Americans. That multi-generational movement (See the Solidarity Agenda) has helped shape the Biden-Harris presidency—and we all must hope that our work has helped to put Kamala Harris into the White House. And, after all our work, we will need to take a breath, get some rest—and then get to work to make that new agenda a reality.
Assuming Kamala Harris wins the election, it will be due in part to her campaign to fight back against the Donald Trump’s destructive attacks on women, on democracy, and against his desire for authoritarian power. But her victory will also be due to her ability to lay out an economic agenda that builds on the record of her service with Joe Biden’s administration—which represented a sharp break with Republican and Democratic neoliberalism. But winning this election is just the beginning of the work that needs to be done to create a better life for the American people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular