Center-Left Betrayal

[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.

 

[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).

 

[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.)

 

[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.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

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.

I'll disagree with this. I think deregulation of the airlines And telecoms has been a net positive for Americans. And note that those two industries are heavily unionized so deregulation didn't heavily harm those unions.

I do think deregulating the financial industry has been a much bigger problem for Americans.

 

[SnoopRob]

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.

I mean this kindly but truthfully...that's a lot of words but not a lot of substance.

The only real policy you mentioned there is about deregulation and you failed to tie that into unions and the working class in any meaningful way.

When it comes to good governance, the devil is in the details. What exactly, in terms of specific policies, would you have had the 80s/90s Dems do differently rather than what they did?

 

[superrific]

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.

Labor policy gets formulated primarily at the NLRB. The president appoints members to the board. There were GOP presidents from 1980-1992. There was little that Dems could do to "push for worker rights."

The reason that Dems were getting CLOBBERED in presidential races from 1980-1988 was that Dems were perceived to be too far left, too much in the pocket of organized labor. And then Clinton won in 1992, by doing his "neoliberal" thing. And then we started getting some better union policies out of the NLRB.

To say, "neoliberalism killed unions" is exactly wrong. Unions were getting killed, and were going to continue to get killed. What you call "neoliberalism" saved the unions.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Someone could make a killing explaining unions to Gen Z...those kids will eat it up.

My Bernie Bro son already does.

 

[superrific]

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.

Maybe people like big TVs. I mean, are we really going with "brainwashed" as the explanation for why Americans like to buy things? Is that something that is capable of brainwashing?

Brainwashing is possible for things that depend on knowledge. The knowledge can be skewed and twisted and sometimes just outright denied. It's less clear that "brainwashing" can affect people's fundamental values and desires. You need a better theory than "brainwashing."

I am a fan of Marcuse's book One-Dimensional Man, which is basically an exegesis on consumer capitalism. He approaches it the right way -- that consumerism is a cultural issue, in a reinforcement loop with capitalist enterprise and especially the increasing sophistication of advertising and marketing over the course of the 20th century. Brainwashing makes it sound like intentionality. It wasn't. It was systemic.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

A few weeks old, but good read,

"The most important reason is that the center-left, from Bill Clinton to Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder, ideologically shifted away from policies that were favoring labor."

Star Economist Acemoglu Discusses Trump: "It's Likely To Be Much Worse Now Than Eight Years Ago"

The U.S. economist Daron Acemoglu accuses center-left parties of having betrayed the interests of their core supporters. And warns that if Trump wins the election this fall, the situation could become worse than even during his first term in office.

www.spiegel.de

Try-strangulation, perhaps?

 

[superrific]

Okay:
1. Don’t sign NAFTA into law.
2. Don’t regulate the financial industry by allowing banks to gamble with depositor’s money.
3. Don’t sign the 1994 crime bill.
4. Enforce antitrust law.

Please expand on point 2. "Banks gambling with depositor's money" is literally the economic function of banks. That's one reason we have federal deposit insurance.

As for NAFTA, tariffs do not create prosperity. Thought experiment: if tariffs against Mexico are such a good idea, shouldn't Michigan put up tariffs against Alabama? Maybe the Triangle should put up tariffs against East NC. Why not? Don't tell me that it's impossible because of the law. We could change the law. Tell me why, if NAFTA was so bad, then why do we have free trade between states?

And enforcing antitrust law? I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know much about antitrust or antitrust enforcement. It is not so easy as "enforcing' it. It can only be enforced in court, and when the courts are hostile to antitrust law, there's nothing that the president can do about it except appoint judges and wait. After all, antitrust law can also be enforced by private parties. Why were they doing such a bad job? Or maybe they weren't. Maybe the courts established policies, theories and evidentiary burdens that made it very difficult for antitrust plaintiffs of all types.

 

[superrific]

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

Do you have any evidence for this? My observations are that people who benefit from government programs like those programs. It doesn't mean they like the government. West Virginia is full of people on disability who hate government regulations because reasons. Obamacare is popular, but have you noticed Kentucky -- which had one of the most successful Obamacare rollouts -- becoming less hostile to government? I don't. I think people like their Obamacare, and that's all.

 

[superrific]

1. I’m referring to the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
2. Being anti-NAFTA doesn’t mean being pro-tariff. Tariffs weren’t the only thing implicated in NAFTA’s signing into law.
3. Who appoints these federal judges and Supreme Court justices that are so hostile to anti-trust law?
4. You would do well being a lot less condescending. I got tired of it on the other board, and I’m already tired of it here.

1. I figured that you were referring to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. There is an enduring myth on the left that Glass-Steagall was this amazing policy that was protecting everyone and Clinton just caved to big money interests in getting rid of it. In fact, Glass-Steagall was already dead when it was formally terminated. The firms that really caused the financial crisis were born in a Glass-Steagall world.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall actually helped the US weather the financial crisis. The institutions that survived the financial crisis were the ones that Glass-Steagall made possible: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America. The institutions that went belly up, like Lehman, Bear Stearns, Wachovia -- these were institutions that by and large played by the pre-1998 rules.

Glass-Steagall was bad regulation. That's not surprising, because financial regulation wasn't really a thing in those days. Laws like Glass-Steagall helped to create the field of financial regulation in economics and public policy -- and then when the professionals trained in those fields took a look at some of the Depression era laws, they came to realize that they weren't well-done. It's the same way that the US Constitution was a miracle in 1789 but doesn't work well at all in our time.

2. I am aware of what was in NAFTA. I think you're referring to the issue of non-tariff barriers. Well, non-tariff barriers are equivalent to tariffs. That's axiomatic trade law/trade economics. If you'd like me to use a more general term like "trade restrictions," fine. Answer the question. Should Michigan enact trade restrictions relative to Alabama. Why or why not?

3. The judges in question were appointed by Republican presidents because, as you might know, the presidency was controlled by Republicans from 1968-1992, with only a four year interregnum. That's 30 years of GOP judges against Carter's four, and Carter didn't even get a judge on the Supreme Court.

So it's all well and good to say, "Dems should do more for antitrust" but the reality is that Dems can't do anything if they can't win an election. I find it utterly mind-boggling for people to look at the history and say, "Bill Clinton was bad for our country." The election of Bill Clinton saved the country. If Clinton didn't win in 92, the economy would have been good again in 96, paving the way for another GOP presidency at that point. Maybe a Dem could have won in 96, but it would have been a centrist Dem whose policies looked a lot like Clinton's.

Stephen Breyer was the best judge in American history on antitrust law, in my view. Clinton appointed him in his first term. If Clinton had lost that election, we would have had a 7-2 GOP supermajority for years and years.

 

[SnoopRob]

Okay:
1. Don’t sign NAFTA into law.
2. Don’t deregulate the financial industry by allowing banks to gamble with depositor’s money.
3. Don’t sign the 1994 crime bill.
4. Enforce antitrust law.

Thanks for that answer. I appreciate it.