Center-Left Betrayal

[CallMeTyler]

I think the issue with this analysis is that it treats these changes as inevitable. The policies that allowed WalMart to rise and Americans to have access to more goods, at what cost did those policies come in other areas?

Has it been good to have Amazon and WalMart absolutely decimate small businesses?

Has that been good for Americans’ buying power? What about their sense of self and community?

There are other paths before us at all times. The policy choices we make today have drastic implications for the future world that we inhabit.

The dogmatic embrace of free trade and neoliberalism in the 1980s has had dire consequences for the health of the climate and the health of the global working class.

I'm not a free trade proponent at the expense of the worker's quality of life. Far from it. I'm just trying to acknowledge that what folks like to argue as bad policy would be almost impossible to reverse given the reliance on those outcomes. And whether we like it or not, people of all socio-economic classes have access to goods and services typically outside their economic range because of free trade.

A person can own a big screen TV, an iPhone, produce and steaks without having to choose. Recall a big-screen CRT television costing north of $10k or more? Now you buy an 85" from Costco for $1,500. Imagine an iPhone in 1985 and what that might've cost compared to $6/month over 2 years with contract. Steaks used to be premium; now you buy a filet for $14.

All that said, I much prefer locally owned, locally sourced. I can't stand chain retail/big box.

I also agree that a sense of community is upended when we incorporate our society and is awash in homogenized development. Our environment is suffering in many ways because of the choices we've made.

There are no easy, pain-free choices to be had here but I don't think we can dispute that quality of life across the board has risen with free trade.

 

[rodoheel]

That was one of the biggest policies but it wasn't. The only one. Free trade was growing before Clinton and after Clinton. And I support free trade but I don't support the policies that killed the unions.

What, other than free trade, do you see as "policies that killed the unions"? State "right-to-work" laws championed by conservatives?

 

[Paine]

I'm not a free trade proponent at the expense of the worker's quality of life. Far from it. I'm just trying to acknowledge that what folks like to argue as bad policy would be almost impossible to reverse given the reliance on those outcomes. And whether we like it or not, people of all socio-economic classes have access to goods and services typically outside their economic range because of free trade.

A person can own a big screen TV, an iPhone, produce and steaks without having to choose. Recall a big-screen CRT television costing north of $10k or more? Now you buy an 85" from Costco for $1,500. Imagine an iPhone in 1985 and what that might've cost compared to $6/month over 2 years with contract. Steaks used to be premium; now you buy a filet for $14.

All that said, I much prefer locally owned, locally sourced. I can't stand chain retail/big box.

I also agree that a sense of community is upended when we incorporate our society and is awash in homogenized development. It sucks.

I'm not sure there are easy, pain-free choices to be had here. I just don't think we can dispute that quality of life across the board has risen with free trade.

I guess it depends on whether you think having low cost consumer goods is equal to quality of life.

Personally, I’d rather have universal healthcare, good schools, and good paying manufacturing jobs over cheap TVs.

You’re right though, there are no pain-free options. Especially now that the toothpaste is out of tube.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I guess it depends on whether you think having low cost consumer goods is equal to quality of life.

Personally, I’d rather have universal healthcare, good schools, and good paying manufacturing jobs over cheap TVs.

So would I. We would have an impossible task of selling that vision to people who simply want to pay the lowest price possible in exchange for a reversal on those policies.

 

[Paine]

So would I. We would have an impossible task of selling that vision to people who simply want to pay the lowest price possible in exchange for a reversal on those policies.

If one’s thing for sure, it will take some bold and creative solutions to get us to a sustainable place as a country and as a planet. I’m worried we’re past the point of no return.

 

[rodoheel]

I guess it depends on whether you think having low cost consumer goods is equal to quality of life.

Personally, I’d rather have universal healthcare, good schools, and good paying manufacturing jobs over cheap TVs.

You’re right though, there are no pain-free options. Especially now that the toothpaste is out of tube.

I'd rather have all of those things too, but the people who would benefit most from those policies have been brainwashed into rabidly opposing them. Democrats aren't without blame in failing to fight hard enough for those things, or in not messaging about them effectively enough, but it's pretty clear which side of the political spectrum is responsible for ensuring that we don't have them.

 

[Paine]

I'd rather have all of those things too, but the people who would benefit most from those policies have been brainwashed into rabidly opposing them. Democrats aren't without blame in failing to fight hard enough for those things, or in not messaging about them effectively enough, but it's pretty clear which side of the political spectrum is responsible for ensuring that we don't have them.

Yeah, that’s where we stand today. I think it could’ve been different if Dems in the 80s and 90s had pushed for workers rights instead of neoliberalism, but we’re past that point now.

I get what you’re saying about people being brainwashed, but I find it hard to blame the voters/citizens for all this crap we are in today. Someone had to do the brainwashing after all.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What, other than free trade, do you see as "policies that killed the unions"? State "right-to-work" laws championed by conservatives?

State right to work laws, championed by Republicans and let's not forget Southern Democrats who eventually became Republicans, are the big ones and deserve most of the blame, but Democrats in the '70s and '80s weren't particularly effective at fighting against those laws.

But more nuanced, policies that allow for big unions in the United States are actually anti-worker in many ways. You might think a big union would give unions more bargaining power against management, and that's true, but it also has problems. The leadership of unions are incentivized to work with management to keep workers working and the dues flowing. They might give concessions instead of demanding more and forcing a work stoppage along with a dues stoppage.

Unions in the United States are much bigger and richer than the unions in Europe and that's because of labor laws championed by mostly Democrats. Unions in Europe essentially compete for workers which leads to better conditions for those workers. I'd like to see unions come back in a big way but there needs to be reform on the union formation side as well.

 

[CallMeTyler]

If one’s thing for sure, it will take some bold and creative solutions to get us to a sustainable place as a country and as a planet. I’m worried we’re past the point of no return.

Sometimes I feel that way too. It's easy to be overwhelmed and even feel some sense of dread. I think a lot of that anxiety is driven through our connection to 24 hour media which simply emphasizes every unfortunate story, not just in our community, but across the globe.

Where before we had to worry about our own community, maybe even the greater area through the local news and then some national issues, we get exposure to every global concern regardless of its impact on us specifically. Humans aren't meant to process everyone's problems every single day. We have to keep things centered and focused on what we can control.

But ... I also have a lot of hope in the human spirit, where we achieve really spectacular things when our backs are against the wall. Think about nuclear war; humans have had the ability to destroy the world 10x over for decades but have avoided doing so. We recognize the inherent dangers and choose alternatives.

Look at the progression of EVs, renewable energies, cleaning our oceans, sustainable farming, improvements in medical care. We find ways to improve and alter the world around us. We essentially feed an entire population of humans. Wheat in Ukraine feeds Africa. Corn in the US feeds India. Beef in Brazil feeds China. We offer vaccines at a global level to eliminate disease. Measles, smallpox, polio. These could not have been possible even 100 years ago.

I think free trade, to some extent, was inevitable because the global community required it. Our entire economic system demands interconnection to ensure all have at least some equitable access which drives an increase in quality of life across the globe.

 

[StrangePackage]

Which makes no sense as the right doesn't support labor.

Even though I heard a historian give trump some credit for changing NAFTA, but he did labor no other favors and was ready to pass a national "right to work" bill if sent to him.

If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah, that’s where we stand today. I think it could’ve been different if Dems in the 80s and 90s had pushed for workers rights instead of neoliberalism, but we’re past that point now.

I get what you’re saying about people being brainwashed, but I find it hard to blame the voters/citizens for all this crap we are in today. Someone had to do the brainwashing after all.

To be clear I'm very much blaming the brainwashers moreso than the people who are brainwashed (though the latter don't get let off the hook entirely, IMO).

 

[Paine]

Sometimes I feel that way too. It's easy to be overwhelmed and even feel some sense of dread. I think a lot of that anxiety is driven through our connection to 24 hour media which simply emphasizes every unfortunate story, not just in our community, but across the globe.

Where before we had to worry about our own community, maybe even the greater area through the local news and then some national issues, we get exposure to every global concern regardless of its impact on us specifically. Humans aren't meant to process everyone's problems every single day. We have to keep things centered and focused on what we can control.

But ... I also have a lot of hope in the human spirit, where we achieve really spectacular things when our backs are against the wall. Think about nuclear war; humans have had the ability to destroy the world 10x over for decades but have avoided doing so. We recognize the inherent dangers and choose alternatives.

Look at the progression of EVs, renewable energies, cleaning our oceans, sustainable farming, improvements in medical care. We find ways to improve and alter the world around us. We essentially feed an entire population of humans. Wheat in Ukraine feeds Africa. Corn in the US feeds India. Beef in Brazil feeds China. We offer vaccines at a global level to eliminate disease. Measles, smallpox, polio. These could not have been possible even 100 years ago.

I think free trade, to some extent, was inevitable because the global community required it. Our entire economic system demands interconnection to ensure all have at least some equitable access which drives an increase in quality of life across the globe.

I 100% agree about free trade being good for the globe overall. The issue is the capitalist pretenses it exists under today.

Thanks for making me feel a bit better. Putting things in perspective does help. Like you, I have faith in the human spirit overall. It’s so easy to get trapped in a cycle of doom and gloom.

 

[rodoheel]

Sometimes I feel that way too. It's easy to be overwhelmed and even feel some sense of dread. I think a lot of that anxiety is driven through our connection to 24 hour media which simply emphasizes every unfortunate story, not just in our community, but across the globe.

Where before we had to worry about our own community, maybe even the greater area through the local news and then some national issues, we get exposure to every global concern regardless of its impact on us specifically. Humans aren't meant to process everyone's problems every single day. We have to keep things centered and focused on what we can control.

But ... I also have a lot of hope in the human spirit, where we achieve really spectacular things when our backs are against the wall. Think about nuclear war; humans have had the ability to destroy the world 10x over for decades but have avoided doing so. We recognize the inherent dangers and choose alternatives.

Look at the progression of EVs, renewable energies, cleaning our oceans, sustainable farming, improvements in medical care. We find ways to improve and alter the world around us. We essentially feed an entire population of humans. Wheat in Ukraine feeds Africa. Corn in the US feeds India. Beef in Brazil feeds China. We offer vaccines at a global level to eliminate disease. Measles, smallpox, polio. These could not have been possible even 100 years ago.

I think free trade, to some extent, was inevitable because the global community required it. Our entire economic system demands interconnection to ensure all have at least some equitable access which drives an increase in quality of life across the globe.

I think all of this is right, and I will add that the most underrated benefit of a global economy is that it is the best protector of world peace. A global economy where every significant nation relies on multiple others for a variety of goods and materials makes all major world leaders rightfully hesitant to launch into significant geopolitical conflicts (and rightfully desire to keep such a thing from happening, including by pushing back against aggression from other countries). A retreat into more protectionist economic practices will absolutely increase the chances of another world war, IMO.

 

[rodoheel]

State right to work laws, championed by Republicans and let's not forget Southern Democrats who eventually became Republicans, are the big ones and deserve most of the blame, but Democrats in the '70s and '80s weren't particularly effective at fighting against those laws.

But more nuanced, policies that allow for big unions in the United States are actually anti-worker in many ways. You might think a big union would give unions more bargaining power against management, and that's true, but it also has problems. The leadership of unions are incentivized to work with management to keep workers working and the dues flowing. They might give concessions instead of demanding more and forcing a work stoppage along with a dues stoppage.

Unions in the United States are much bigger and richer than the unions in Europe and that's because of labor laws championed by mostly Democrats. Unions in Europe essentially compete for workers which leads to better conditions for those workers. I'd like to see unions come back in a big way but there needs to be reform on the union formation side as well.

Thanks. it looks like we agree that conservatives deserve most of the blame for anti-union policies.

Can you elaborate a little on (1) what you think are the "more nuanced policies that allow for big unions in the United States," and (2) how Democrats are responsible for those policies? (Genuinely asking so I can better understand your argument.)

 

[Paine]

State right to work laws, championed by Republicans and let's not forget Southern Democrats who eventually became Republicans, are the big ones and deserve most of the blame, but Democrats in the '70s and '80s weren't particularly effective at fighting against those laws.

But more nuanced, policies that allow for big unions in the United States are actually anti-worker in many ways. You might think a big union would give unions more bargaining power against management, and that's true, but it also has problems. The leadership of unions are incentivized to work with management to keep workers working and the dues flowing. They might give concessions instead of demanding more and forcing a work stoppage along with a dues stoppage.

Unions in the United States are much bigger and richer than the unions in Europe and that's because of labor laws championed by mostly Democrats. Unions in Europe essentially compete for workers which leads to better conditions for those workers. I'd like to see unions come back in a big way but there needs to be reform on the union formation side as well.

I will say that, in the American political context, having large unions is advantageous for the working class under the current campaign finance system. Large unions are one of the only counterbalances to the massive amounts of money that billionaires and corporations pump into the system.

 

[SnoopRob]

Yeah, that’s where we stand today. I think it could’ve been different if Dems in the 80s and 90s had pushed for workers rights instead of neoliberalism, but we’re past that point now.

I'm curious what specific things you would have had the 80s/90s Dems support or oppose that they did not. Thanks.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Thanks. it looks like we agree that conservatives deserve most of the blame for anti-union policies.

Can you elaborate a little on (1) what you think are the "more nuanced policies that allow for big unions in the United States," and (2) how Democrats are responsible for those policies? (Genuinely asking so I can better understand your argument.)

Yes. Republicans are definitely more to blame for anti-union policies.

But policies that allow unions to get big haven't worked as advertised for the reasons I described. Just like big companies can be less responsive to their customers than the smaller companies doing similar things, unions can fall into the same trap. If workers don't have anywhere else to go, why are the unions incentivized to improve?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I will say that, in the American political context, having large unions is advantageous for the working class under the current campaign finance system. Large unions are one of the only counterbalances to the massive amounts of money that billionaires and corporations pump into the system.

Possibly true but couldn't smaller unions that end up representing more members use those dues to effectively advocate for policy?

I'd rather have 70% of the population represented by 10,000 unions than 30% of the population represented by 100 unions if I'm looking for campaign donations.

 

[Paine]

Possibly true but couldn't smaller unions that end up representing more members use those dues to effectively advocate for policy?

I'd rather have 70% of the population represented by 10,000 unions than 30% of the population represented by 100 unions if I'm looking for campaign donations.

That’s a fair point. I can see arguments for both.

 

[Paine]

I'm curious what specific things you would have had the 80s/90s Dems support or oppose that they did not. Thanks.

The Clinton and Carter administrations should not have massively deregulated the airlines, telecoms, and financial industries to start.

The response of the Democratic Party to Reaganism was to move further to the right on economic issues. A leaner meaner government, the era of big government is over, etc.

I think Dems should’ve embraced the power of government to provide material good to the American people instead of buying into right wing framing about the federal government being too powerful, spending too much, etc.

History has shown that these deregulatory policies were utter failures, and they’ve only allowed the far-right to gain even more ground as I mentioned earlier.

When the ostensibly left party embraces gangster capitalism, it opens up a lot of space for the right to point out all the issues inherent within such a system.

Of course, the right has no answer to the plight of working people. But, for much of my life, neither have the Dems.

When people see government programs working for them, it changes their opinion about the government and what is possible.

Because of decades of propaganda and perverse policy, by the Democrats and the Republicans, a lot of working people think that government spending is bad. Or that the government doesn’t do anything good, it’s all red tape and bureaucracy.

Democrats need to get back into the business of using government to deliver material improvements for the lives of working people and messaging to tie these improvements to government policy.