Right after the presidential election, I argued
that the crisis facing Democrats, which was at least a decade of electoral losses in the making, boiled down to a failure to show voters any clear differences between the parties when it comes to propping up a failed economic system. As it now stands, it's a system in which lobbyists shower both parties with money, tax cuts for business and keeping taxes too low on the wealthy are a bipartisan goal, health care is still something to leave in the hands of insurance companies and, above all, the glory of the "free market" is extolled by Democrats and Republicans.
Until Democrats display the strength to reject the system, they'll continue to lose, and "A Better Deal" is just more of the same.
The stupefying foolishness of the plan is evident in three main points from Monday's s outline
offered in op-eds
by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and three Democratic House members in which they purport to give the broad strokes of the party's economic strategy.
Schumer specifically says the party will fight to increase "workers' incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15." He and the House Democrats also talk a lot about retraining workers to give them skills to get higher-paying jobs. Most of the rest of the mumbo-jumbo is the typical warmed-over "innovation" and "don't we all love small business" standard fare that excites elite policy wonks but is largely irrelevant to voters.
Perhaps the most glaring omission here is that none of these party leaders use the word "union" even once. That isn't entirely surprising: The typical party ethos going back to Bill Clinton has been to minimize the embrace of labor unions, beyond the occasional rhetorical gesture, except when it's election season (read: when the party needs donations and campaign troops).
But the "Fight for 15
" has been primarily funded
by unions, some of whom frankly were dragged into the battle by other affiliated organizations who were less than inspired by the Obama administration's and congressional Democrats' support for a paltry minimum wage hike to $10.10. To the consternation of the Wall Street wing of the party, the Bernie Sanders movement made $15-an-hour a central part of its economic message, and forced $15-an-hour as a goal, into the party's 2016 platform.
And if raising wages and preserving pensions is what Democrats want, they're not going to get it without growing the power of unions. Unions built the middle class. Wages are low because, over the past several decades, employers have effectively stolen the productivity gains made by workers — and only by revitalizing unions, publicly, aggressively and explicitly, will that change.
Schumer and the House Democrats compounded this problem Monday by perpetuating the myth that workers need more skills to get "high-paying" jobs and that politicians can ensure they get those skills by, you guessed it, that sure-fire election winner: giving a tax credit to companies. This has been an untenable proposition going back to the 1990s, when then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich
flogged his elitist "symbolic analysts" solution, in which workers can all find a place in the creative and knowledge economies, which supposedly fix everything.
Reality is more difficult. Skills have nothing to do with the class warfare underway in the country. Workers are not dumb. It's simple: There is no reason a retail worker, janitor or any worker who isn't "highly skilled" can't be paid a high wage, other than the lack of power to demand it through collective bargaining.
Even so, today's Democrats, with the "A Better Deal" slogan, have the temerity to channel Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" by explicitly stating, as Schumer does in his op-ed, "Our better deal is not about expanding the government." Shame on them. That position betrays a continued acceptance by Democrats of a decadeslong Republican talking point that demonizes government, adopts the idea that taxes are too high and puts blind faith in the "free market."
Our problem has not been a growing government or a spending problem. It's the priorities political leaders have set and how we raise money. And it's a continued belief in "free market" neo-liberalism: a system that relies on market mechanisms, argues against expanding the role of the state and social services, and empowers corporations and wealthy individuals at the expense of citizens.
To take the current policy debate around health care as the perfect example, a large majority of people support universal, single-payer health care, which would entail expanding government's role. Yet, Schumer is trying to short-circuit universal health care as a party priority, even though it would end up saving businesses and average people hundreds of billions of dollars.
The ideological straitjacket "A Better Deal" creates goes deeper than a neglect of history or a refusal to empower citizens. It's a failure of political philosophy and imagination. Its advocates say they want to protect the promise of Social Security and Medicare. But embracing a growing government would expand Social Security and Medicare, and, then, also fund free college education, and guaranteed annual incomes and a livable pension. We could fund some of that if, for example, we just cast off (a quarter-century after the Cold War ended) the government's bipartisan priority to underwrite a bloated military and maintain the country's prominence as the largest weapons merchant in the world, arming repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia
Of course, to do any of these things requires a political spine, and leaders who finally admit that the "free market" system cannot be fixed. Until the Democrats get this message, they might as well have a slogan closer to "Better Hygiene, Better Grammar, Better Front Lawns." At least it won't mislead.