After decades of the business elite successfully imposing its agenda — tax cuts, smaller government, an empowered private sector — Harris and Walz are energizing a large swath of U.S. voters with a very different left-populist pitch for strong government programs, pro-labour policies, and tax hikes on the rich.
Such a pro-worker agenda, which grew out of FDR’s New Deal and prevailed in the early postwar decades, has largely disappeared in recent years as business priorities — supported by the media, academia, and conservative think tanks — have come to dominate politics to an extraordinary extent.
As a result, even left-leaning political parties have been afraid to get too far offside the business agenda, for fear of looking like they don’t understand economic realities and would be irresponsible in managing the economy.
Accordingly, Democrats in the U.S. and the NDP in Canada have reluctantly gone along with much of the business agenda — even though it’s produced a society top-heavy with billionaires, with little for working people.
But now that we’re witnessing a revival of leftish populism from Harris and particularly Walz, we can plainly see what has long been obvious but unsaid: that a New Deal-inspired agenda offers more for working people.
That explains the joyous looks on the faces of Harris and Walz as they push for policies — like a $6,000 tax credit for newborns — that would greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans.
President Joe Biden also championed pro-worker policies but had no ability to sell them. Harris and Walz are brat as salespeople.
All this stirring south of the border creates possibilities for Canada.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh signalled his intention to distinguish his party from the Liberals by breaking the Liberal-NDP supply-and-confidence deal earlier this month.
But he missed a big opportunity to do more — to move the party towards the kind of left-populist agenda pioneered by early Canadian progressives like the late Tommy Douglas, celebrated as the father of medicare in Canada.
Instead, Singh used the Liberal-NDP breakup to signal that he’s backing away from the Trudeau government’s unpopular carbon tax.
That was a foolish move, which will only bolster the credibility of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s aggressive (and misguided) campaign against the carbon tax.
Singh could have differentiated himself from the Liberals much more effectively by insisting he’d only continue to support them if they introduced a wealth tax — a truly game-changing, populist measure with the potential to raise $32 billion a year to rebuild social programs.
The NDP actually supports an annual net wealth tax, which has been part of its official platform since 2019. But you might not know that, since the party rarely mentions it (probably out of fear they might look like irresponsible economic managers).
However, the tax, which would impact only the very wealthy, is consistently popular with Canadians, with polls showing support above 80 per cent.
Business strongly opposes a wealth tax, so championing it would put the NDP in a fight against business, the Liberals and the Conservatives — as a truly populist, pro-worker party — instead of letting Poilievre, posing as a friend of the working class, steal much of that vote.
A wealth tax is also nicely in line with Kamala Harris’ support for a “billionaire minimum tax” that would impose a 25 per cent minimum tax on total income exceeding $100 million (including unrealized gains).
Instead of crushing one of Ottawa’s few measures to tackle climate change, the NDP would be far more inspiring if it pushed to extract wealth from some of the most overprivileged people on earth.
