Posts Tagged ‘politics’


Special mention

175141_600 www.usnews

The Thrilling Appeal of Incrementalism

Liberals are conducting a concerted campaign to criticize Bernie Sanders and to ridicule his supporters, arguing the only way to achieve change is to vote for the “moderate progressivism” of Hillary Clinton.


I suspect the anti-Sanders rhetoric is being ramped up precisely because, according to one recent highly respected polling organization (Quinnipiac University), the democratic socialist senator has narrowed the national gap to less than the margin of error.

Moreover, according to the same poll, Sanders is the only candidate in either major party with a positive (44-35) percent favorability rating among American voters.

That’s pretty amazing, on both counts.

So, what should we do? Whom should we support?

I’ve been having this argument with a political scientist friend—over the significance of Sanders’s success (remember, Sanders was far behind Clinton, 55 to 17, back in July) and whether or not to support Sanders going forward.

Here’s the argument I made: the continued success of Sanders, in state primaries and at the national level, is a good thing for the Left, as it strengthens the left-wing of the Democratic Party. There are a lot of disgruntled voters out there, especially young and working-class, and the mainstream of the Democratic Party has mostly shut them out. Sanders clearly gives voice to their concerns—both their resentments about the current situation and their desires for an alternative future—and that’s all to the good.

That’s why I want to see Sanders continue his campaign, emboldened by his likely large victory in New Hampshire. All of us on the Left will benefit as a result. Ideas and policies that have long been marginalized (like campaign finance reform, single-payer healthcare, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, and so on) are now on the national political agenda, and still others (like single-provider healthcare, community banking, worker-owned cooperatives, and so on) might emerge.

But, I will admit, it’s not clear to me the existing Democratic Party is ready to support Sanders in the general election—or, for that matter, American voters are ready to support Sanders’s democratic socialism. And current polls aren’t particularly useful in terms of head-to-head matchups this far out from the national election. So, there’s a good chance Sanders would lose (and, à la McGovern, lose badly) come November. And that would be very bad for the Left.

So, where does that leave us? My view, for what it’s worth, is that, the short-term success of Sanders is just one step in a long campaign to shift the political discourse in the United States, a campaign that benefits from but does not end with Sanders’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And that’s why we should all be eating the equivalent of a pint of Bernie’s Yearning, the Ben and Jerry’s ice cream featuring a milk chocolate disk covering the top of plain mint ice cream. The disc is meant to represent “the huge majority of economic gains that have gone to the top 1% since the end of the recession. Beneath it, the rest of us.”


Special mention

175008_600 174996_600


Special mention

3BA586DE-A0DC-4B87-8554-69B52D4AFE95 Clay Bennett editorial cartoon



Special mention

Iowa-Caucus-2016 B9320719765Z.1_20160129161727_000_GQKDA9P87.1-0


Special mention

174732_600 174777_600


I know what liberal ideology in economics is all about. I’ve encountered it at every turn, even before I began my formal studies in economics. The same is true of liberal ideology in politics, which has shown its ugly face once again in the current electoral campaign.

In both cases, liberal ideology is based on the idea that the existing system, while perhaps imperfect, is the only game in town. It is a conception both of what is and of how change can and should take place—gradually and without major disruption. According to liberals, the biggest threat is populism, when the masses of people challenge the existing common sense and seek radical change. It therefore works with conservative ideology, as two bookends of mainstream discourse, to limit the theoretical and policy debate to a narrow set of options.

Here’s how liberal ideology works in economics: At the microeconomic level, capitalism (or, as liberals generally refer to it, the market system) has the potential of achieving an efficient allocation of resources. As for the macroeconomy, capitalism is capable of providing stable growth and full employment. Capitalism, therefore, promises the best possible outcomes both for individuals and for the economy as a whole.

Now, while conservative mainstream economists believe that efficiency, growth, and full employment stem from allowing markets to operate freely, liberal mainstream economists argue that markets are often imperfect and therefore the only way to achieve (or at least approximate) those goals is to intervene in and regulate markets. Those are the terms of the mainstream debate in economics, from the origins of modern economic discourse in the late-eighteenth century right on down to the present.

Think about it as the difference between the invisible hand and the visible hand.

Liberal mainstream economists, of course, hotly contest the free-market doctrine of their conservative counterparts. But notice also that they hold in common both the goals and the limits of economic policy with conservatives. Liberals and conservatives share the idea that the goals of an economy are to ensure efficiency, growth, and full employment. And they share the idea that economic policy should be limited to tinkering with capitalism—in the direction of more regulation or, for conservatives, more free markets—in order to achieve those goals.

That’s it, the limits of the mainstream debate.

Liberals, in particular, believe that the appropriate set of government institutions and regulations can move capitalism toward microeconomic efficiency (within individual markets, national economies, and across the global economy) and macroeconomic stability and full employment (especially, during a downturn, with expansionary fiscal and monetary policies). Anything else, from the perspective of liberal ideology, represents an unscientific view of the economy and an unwarranted attempt to dismantle existing economic institutions.

What liberal mainstream economists don’t see is that capitalism, despite its premises and promises, fails to deliver on them. For example, capitalism holds up “just deserts” as an ideal—everybody gets what they deserve—but it actually means that most people are forced to surrender the surplus they create to their employers, who are allowed to either keep it (and do with it what they want) or distribute it to still others (the tiny group at the top that manages the way those enterprises operate). Capitalism also pledges stable growth and full employment but then, precisely because of that private control over the surplus, regularly delivers boom-and-bust cycles and throws millions out of work.

Liberals also don’t see (because they don’t want to or, given their theory, can’t see) that even the policies they endorse to make capitalism work better are frustrated at every turn. Why? Because, even when regulations are imposed (such as they were during the New Deal programs of the 1930s), they leave in place both the interest and means on the part of employers and their allies to first evade and then, eventually, overturn those regulations.

Not only does liberal economic ideology offer a limited view of how capitalism works; it is also serves to keep out of the debate both other theories of capitalism and other ideas of how the economy might be organized. It’s premised on the notion that here are the acceptable terms of discussion—capitalism is characterized by markets that work more or less well, at the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels—and that other conceptions of capitalism—which introduce things like class exploitation into the discussion—are simply wrong or irrelevant. And it limits the discussion to regulating markets and rules out of court the possibility of imagining and creating other economic institutions—ways of organizing the economy that seek, for example, to actually eliminate class exploitation.

Part of the problem is that, from the perspective of liberal ideology, fundamental changes to the way the economy is organized aren’t necessary. That’s the liberal fantasy that markets can be made to work correctly. The other part of the problem is the liberal stoking of fears that changing current institutions—dismantling some and creating new ones—leads to chaos.

The latter is the basis of the ever-present charge of populism. Creating economic institutions that give “too much” to the mass of working people—whether high minimum wages or guaranteed lifetime incomes or taking areas of the economy out of international trade or giving workers some say in how the enterprises in which they labor operate—are deemed to be too costly or simply unfeasible.

And then, when those arguments fail to work, if radical ideas appear to capture the popular imagination, liberal economic ideology casts the final die: fundamentally changing how the economy works would be so disruptive of existing arrangements that it would invite a negative reaction by those currently in charge. It would create, so the argument goes, chaos. Therefore, it is necessary to protect existing regulations and perhaps introduce a few new regulations to markets and leave things at that.

That’s how liberal ideology works in economics. And, as it turns out, that’s exactly how liberal ideology is being deployed in our current political debate—to normalize one, very limited set of options and to marginalize any discontent or desire that threatens to go beyond them.