Orange County Register: What happened to my party?

[nonniey]

Getting away from the specific election here is an interesting opinion peace that discusses the overall state of the Democratic Party from a former dem (now independent). Socrates is going to hate this and so are the Hillary fans. I cut and pasted highlights recommend reading the article in it's whole.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-724083-democrats-economic.html

.From economic growth to cronyism and socialism

Historian Michael Lind suggests in his magisterial “Land of Promise” that, generally, all political parties have embraced the gospel of economic growth. ........

.....Today, this is changing. Liberals now constitute roughly three in five Democrats, a share twice as large as in 1992, when we elected the first Clinton. Increasingly, liberals, or progressives, are at best ambivalent about economic growth, particularly in such blue-collar fields as fossil fuel energy, manufacturing, agribusiness and suburban homebuilding. Bill Galston, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton, notes that party platform “is truly remarkable – for example, its near-silence on economic growth.” ,......Ironically, such steps will hurt precisely the blue-collar workers Sanders and his minions allegedly care most about. But the Vermont socialist’s base is not blue-collar production workers, but rather millennials, low-paid service workers and academics with few ties to tangible industries. Suspicious of broad-based economic growth’s impact on the environment, they logically favor redistribution of wealth over seriously growing the pie – in effect, contradicting nearly a half-century of mainstream Democratic thinking. The Bernie Bros and Gals think that higher taxes and more generous welfare benefits can turn America into a kind of mega-Scandinavia. They ignore the fact that, as author Nima Sanandaji has pointed out, the Nordic welfare state drew from generations of rapid growth built on small government, free markets and cultural factors, and that, in more recent years, countries such as Sweden have embraced a stronger free-market stance in order to pay for their generous welfare systems....

....The Sanders campaign has been right about one thing: the nature of the Clinton coalition. Due in part to the awful candidacy of Donald Trump, Hillary is likely to be the most Big Business-backed candidate in American history – five of the world’s 10 richest people favor Clinton. Long the belle of Wall Street, she has secured overwhelming support from increasingly powerful tech, entertainment and media oligarchies. These may acquiesce to the Left on social and environmental issues, but the new oligarchs will be happy to see the back of Bernie’s “soak the rich” platform. They can feel confident that Hillary will not threaten the tax and regulatory regime favorable to them, and some cronies, like Elon Musk or Google, can expect another flood of energy-related subsidies to enhance their already massive wealth.....

But this kind of categorical imperative seems to have won over the Democratic Party, so much so as to render it unrecognizable to some of its old adherents. Similarly, it’s hard to see how more regulations, concessions to well-connected cronies and ever-higher taxes will revive the middle class. Since the awful alternative of Donald Trump makes the GOP even more noxious, can someone please point me to the closest dumpster fire.

[Springfield]

I'll circle back to the article later, but this seems to be in line with what I posted earlier about the entire spectrum shifting right. The democrat party is more centrist than ever and the Republican Party is pulling further right. Especially when it comes to fiscal and public work issues.

Luckily, we have seen some gains in social issues over the last decade.

[nonniey]

I'll circle back to the article later, but this seems to be in line with what I posted earlier about the entire spectrum shifting right. The democrat party is more centrist than ever and the Republican Party is pulling further right. Especially when it comes to fiscal and public work issues.

Luckily, we have seen some gains in social issues over the last decade.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion from this article.

The whole thing was about the party moving/being pulled too far left.

"- Each party is being pulled to the extremes by an increasingly unruly base

- For virtually all of my adult life, I have been a registered Democrat. But as the party has abandoned critical commitments to color-blind racial equality, upward mobility and economic growth, I have moved on to become a registered independent.

- Liberals now constitute roughly three in five Democrats, a share twice as large as in 1992, when we elected the first Clinton. Increasingly, liberals, or progressives, are at best ambivalent about economic growth, particularly in such blue-collar fields as fossil fuel energy, manufacturing, agribusiness and suburban homebuilding. Bill Galston, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton, notes that party platform “is truly remarkable for example, its near-silence on economic growth"

(Note I disagree with him saying the party abandoned a commitment to color blind racial equality, as they never were for that).

[Springfield]

So when I get to reading the article, I'll actually have something to contribute, but I believe everything aside from social issues are shifting right.

[Elessar78]

That Liberals/Dems/Progressives are not interested in growing the (economic) pie is absolutely ludicrous. We just care about other things as well as the economy. A robust economy does not fix social ills like racism and intolerance, and, arguably, fixing those don't have a negative impact on the gov't. The thing Republicans **** most about, IMO, in regards to the shackles on the economy are environmental regulations. When are they going to get it through their thick skulls that we only have one planet. They'll all still make a lot of money. 

 

Growing the pie is just rephrasing the rising tide or trickle down. It doesn't work. Yes, they have a right to be worried because in their worldview—it's a zero sum game where people get left behind. Contrast that with the dem worldview that we're trying to make it so no one gets left behind—even those that lose their jobs for the good of the planet. 

 

Wealth redistribution and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. If Bill Clinton is to be believed the economy grows more robustly under Democratic stewardship. 

[No Excuses]

There's a decent amount of nonsense in there, with a few decent points sprinkled here and there.

The pull to the left from the Bernie people is troubling because a lot of them don't have a clue on how his policies will be enacted, paid for and how realistic some of the goals are (completely getting rid of fossil fuels tomorrow is a pretty blatant example).

To say that Dems don't have a plan for economic growth is a steaming pile of horse poo. There is plenty in Hillarys agenda that outlines economic growth through targeted investments in certain industries and promoting STEM education. In fact her policies on improving access to STEM education is really hashed out quite well and it's easy to see that it was written on advice from experts in the field. Training the next generation for jobs in a post-industrial economy seems like a pretty good idea.

It seems like the authors idea of a utopian Dem party is one that still favors jobs in sectors that are either being phased out or are increasingly headed toward automation. It's the same kind of nostalgic pull that both the far left and far right have for an era where people were paid well and had a good standard of living working low skill jobs.

[PeterMP]

That Liberals/Dems/Progressives are not interested in growing the (economic) pie is absolutely ludicrous.

 

There's no real evidence that there is anything that reasonable people suggest that actually grows the pie long term.  If you look at large areas with stable democratic governments (e.g the Euro zone, the US, and Canada), over long periods of time they show the same mathematical relationship for growth (a ln linear relationship).

 

If you talk about doing things that are very extreme (e.g. removing all taxes) or things that affect the stability of the country, then that might change.

 

But there is no real evidence that things like lowering the top tax rate causes long term growth in the pie.

 

Mostly, I think government actions growing the pie is a myth.

 

I'm not sure if I count as a liberal/Dem (I'm not a registered Dem, but I do support Hillary over Trump), or a progressive, but I don't worry about growing the pie.  I suspect it is a waste of time.

 

(Now, I do suspect we can affect how the pie is distributed.)

[Elessar78]

There is real evidence that untethered Republican economic philosophies don't work. See Brownback and Kansas. See Jindal and Louisiana. 

[TheGoodBits]

There is real evidence that untethered Republican economic philosophies don't work. See Brownback and Kansas. See Jindal and Louisiana.

Reagan (and everyone since then) and the United States of America. :doh:

[Zguy28]

Reagan (and everyone since then) and the United States of America. :doh:

I'm no economics expert, not even an amateur, but why do so many want to go back to the 80's version of America then? I ask because I have been asking many Trump voters what "Make America Great Again" means to them. I thought it was some idealistic version of the 1950's. It wasn't, it was consistently descriptive of the 1980's under Reagan. If his policies don't work, why do so many want them back? Maybe it has something to do with rebounding economy from the bowels of the 70's, so it seemed good to them? It wasn't good to a lot of farmers, that I know, but IDK if that was Reagan's fault. Maybe its because most of the people I know were in the military back then? IDK...

[TheGoodBits]

I'm no economics expert, not even an amateur, but why do so many want to go back to the 80's version of America then? I ask because I have been asking many Trump voters what "Make America Great Again" means to them. I thought it was some idealistic version of the 1950's. It wasn't, it was consistently descriptive of the 1980's under Reagan. If his policies don't work, why do so many want them back? Maybe it has something to do with rebounding economy from the bowels of the 70's, so it seemed good to them? It wasn't good to a lot of farmers, that I know, but IDK if that was Reagan's fault. Maybe its because most of the people I know were in the military back then? IDK...

Back? Reaganomics never went anywhere. If you look at the declining middle class wages, the growing wealth gap, etc, that was all accelerated by Reagan's tax policies. We're still going strong with a 35+ year failed experiment in trickle down economics.

[zoony]

I'm no economics expert, not even an amateur, but why do so many want to go back to the 80's version of America then? I ask because I have been asking many Trump voters what "Make America Great Again" means to them. I thought it was some idealistic version of the 1950's. It wasn't, it was consistently descriptive of the 1980's under Reagan. If his policies don't work, why do so many want them back? Maybe it has something to do with rebounding economy from the bowels of the 70's, so it seemed good to them? It wasn't good to a lot of farmers, that I know, but IDK if that was Reagan's fault. Maybe its because most of the people I know were in the military back then? IDK...

1980s boom was driven by the Fed monetary policy not Reagan

[NoCalMike]

The Reagan revolution plays a big part in the mess we are currently in.  That is what got the snowball rolling in essence.  The birth of trickle down economics.  Why do so many want to go back to it?  Well do you not see right-wing media's cult-like obsession with Reagan and his policies?  Trickle down/voodoo has been proven as a failure for the middle class.

 

Also, the argument about trickle down economics has changed from "it will create jobs" to "you're a socialist/communist if you believe in a progressive tax system." Why?  Because the conservative media can no longer argue that it actually works as an economic policy without being laughed out of the building so the entire framing of trickle down has been changed to "stop punishing success"

 

Economic policy has been pulled so far to the right that it has created a new "center,"  Haven't you noticed that when folks like Obama propose a stimulus or slight tax increase on the top earners it is immediately shouted down as "socialism?"

 

I am not sure on what planet this guy is living on to suggest actual policy has been pulled left.  Maybe the proposals have because the base is tired of having seen a pull to the right for the last 30 years, perhaps?

[Kosher Ham]

Odd part is...most people will never benefit from Reagan...nomics. yet there they are lining up to vote.

[Elessar78]

Even I'll acknowledge that St. Reagan did good things particularly handling Communism. He was charismatic as well. But people equate charismatic and handled communism with being great on all fronts. 

 

Interesting to think that two of the 80s greatest figures, Reagan and Pope John Paul II were both former actors. It's like some whacked out Zoolander prequel.

Odd part is...most people will never benefit from Reagan...nomics. yet there they are lining up to vote.

It's the nostalgia of when we were kicking ass: taking down the commies and money was flowing. Part of it was an illusion. 

[Zguy28]

Back? Reaganomics never went anywhere. If you look at the declining middle class wages, the growing wealth gap, etc, that was all accelerated by Reagan's tax policies. We're still going strong with a 35+ year failed experiment in trickle down economics.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (I really don't know). I know that a lot of those folk's answers pointed to "back to the 80's" as if it was a the best time. But then a lot were military as I said, and I do know defense was a boom town then.

[No Excuses]

Odd part is...most people will never benefit from Reagan...nomics. yet there they are lining up to vote.

 

In terms of party message, Reagonomics is dead. You don't see Trump talking much about slashing taxes for the 1%, although he parrots a BS talking point of how we are "the most taxed nation in the world". 

 

But it's still hidden in the GOP platform. Trump's tax plan, which is one of the few policy positions he's actually put out there, is a huge tax break for the wealthy and centered around classic trickle down theory.

 

I understand this as the GOP realizing that the trickle down narrative has failed at the national level. They are trying to sneak it through Trump's faux populist message.

[Larry]

Well, the 80s was pretty much when the prosperity of the middle class ended.

There's an article I found done time ago. It's very simplistic. At least borderline deceptive.

What it does is, it compared the 30 years prior to Reagan, against the 30 years after him. (And that's what I think is borderline deceptive. It kinda pretends that the ONLY thing that's changed, since the 50s, was Reagan).

BUT, a stat I remember from the article. In the 30 years prior to Reagan, the income of the bottom 90%, after adjusting for inflation, went up by 75%. In the 30 years since then, it went up by 1%. Not 1% per year. 1% total, in 30 years.

[Zguy28]

In terms of party message, Reagonomics is dead. You don't see Trump talking much about slashing taxes for the 1%, although he parrots a BS talking point of how we are "the most taxed nation in the world". 

 

But it's still hidden in the GOP platform. Trump's tax plan, which is one of the few policy positions he's actually put out there, is a huge tax break for the wealthy and centered around classic trickle down theory.

 

I understand this as the GOP realizing that the trickle down narrative has failed at the national level. They are trying to sneak it through Trump's faux populist message.

I've been reading some on this, you are actually referring to "Supply-side economics", which is only pejoratively called "trickle down" right?

Been reading some introductory stuff on wikipedia. Good info for once I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

What do you advocate, a return to Keynesian policy? If so, how do you counter the claim that it failed as well prior to Reagan?

[Elessar78]

How can we be the most taxed nation when other nations have all our taxes and then some. We have, I believe, the lowest taxes if any industrialized nation.

[No Excuses]

I've been reading some on this, you are actually referring to "Supply-side economics", which is only pejoratively called "trickle down" right?

Been reading some introductory stuff on wikipedia. Good info for once I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

What do you advocate, a return to Keynesian policy? If so, how do you counter the claim that it failed as well prior to Reagan?

 

Slashing taxes at the top of the wealth pyramid is one component of supply side economics (you can call it trickle down as well). I think ultimately the issue wasn't even so much that the taxes at the top were slashed, but that a myriad of bad and nefarious policies allowed the accumulation of wealth to remain concentrated in one specific income bracket.

 

I am ok with Keynesian macroeconomic policies as at least to my understanding they have been useful in stabilizing economies during turbulent periods. I am not sure they have much utility outside of that. 

 

Personally, I have found the most compelling case for a revised economic theory to come from Robert Reich and his book "Saving Capitalism". It's both a sobering read on how we got here and what we can do moving forward.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/robert-reich-on-why-capitalism-needs-saving-20151007

 

First of all, inequality is a bigger issue because it's more extreme. We are in a second Gilded Age. And even people on the right are beginning to agree that it is a central feature of the modern economy.

Now the next question is, what do you do about it? I think for many years Democrats and liberals have sought to correct the market with taxes and public investments and raising the minimum wage and a lot of other government regulations. Taxes and regulations and public investments are fine, and I have argued for them in the past, and will continue to argue for them. What has been left out of the debate is the actual structure of the market itself.

We don't recognize the relationship between political power and market structure. This has stacked the deck in favor of the people at the top and against average working people. The only response is that you've got to have countervailing power such as we had in the first three decades after the Second World War.

 

 

I would also recommend "Humans Need Not Apply" because I think the American public is being greatly deceived by almost the entire political system about what is coming. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Humans-Need-Not-Apply-Intelligence/dp/0300213557

 

After billions of dollars and fifty years of effort, researchers are finally cracking the code on artificial intelligence. As society stands on the cusp of unprecedented change, Jerry Kaplan unpacks the latest advances in robotics, machine learning, and perception powering systems that rival or exceed human capabilities. Driverless cars, robotic helpers, and intelligent agents that promote our interests have the potential to usher in a new age of affluence and leisure — but as Kaplan warns, the transition may be protracted and brutal unless we address the two great scourges of the modern developed world: volatile labor markets and income inequality. He proposes innovative, free-market adjustments to our economic system and social policies to avoid an extended period of social turmoil. His timely and accessible analysis of the promise and perils of artificial intelligence is a must-read for business leaders and policy makers on both sides of the aisle.

 

 

In general, I think classical economic theories are going to be fairly irrelevant in the coming decades unless they undergo serious revisions on how they view labor, employment, costs of production and wealth distribution. I don't think we have sufficient economic theories for post-industrial economies.

[NoCalMike]

I just find it interesting that the argument for Supply-Side/Trickle down/Voo doo/Reganomics etc etc has morphed over the years.  Back when it was birthed, the argument was flat out that it would create jobs because you slash taxes for the "job creators" and it will translate into them hiring people with that extra money.  After 30 years of that not happening, and it contributing to the shrinking of the middle class, somewhere along the line, the argument in favor of that economic system switched to, "well, if you make the wealthy pay more, it's class warfare and socialism, that's why!"

 

So pretty much both sides in 2016 acknowledge that trickle down does little to nothing to help create jobs, instead quite the opposite, yet it is still pushed hard by one side.  You don't hear Trump (or very many conservatives period) try to make the argument that it is going to help the economy, yet in pretty much all of their economic plans it's still always there as one of their major initiatives. 

[DogofWar1]

I agree with some that the article's argument that progressives don't care much about economic growth is not correct.  I think both sides reached a point where they had been missing the forest for the trees.

 

We swung too far towards pro-corporate, pro-rich policies and neglected the consumer class.  This philosophy has mostly become the norm, and we missed what it was doing to the consumer class.

 

The democratic party is seemingly in the process of refocusing on the consumer class (and even Trump is doing this somewhat).

 

This is, however, out of line with the previous thinking, and also appears very populist on its face, so I can understand how some would reach the conclusion that the left doesn't care about economic growth, though I think that conclusion isn't exactly accurate.

 

I will say, though, there is a danger of swinging too far the other way, and we see it in some of the Trump and Sanders platform, that is, focusing far too much on little guys via trying to save dying industries.  We may miss the forest again for some different trees.

 

A consumer focused approach which takes into account the march of globalization/automation is likely the best option, and it's something I think much of the democratic party is moving towards.

 

The adherents of that approach, or its more populist form, are less vocal about "growth," but that isn't to say their view has abandoned economic growth as a goal.

 

I've been reading some on this, you are actually referring to "Supply-side economics", which is only pejoratively called "trickle down" right?

Been reading some introductory stuff on wikipedia. Good info for once I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

What do you advocate, a return to Keynesian policy? If so, how do you counter the claim that it failed as well prior to Reagan?

 

We more or less have already returned to Keynesian policies since 2008, but it's different than it was in the 70's.  Neo-Keynesian philosophy has been mostly replaced with New-Keynesian philosophy, which operates slightly differently.