Unless the Democrats, en masse, do a complete sweep of their party’s consultants and operatives, and unless they nominate for president someone who never bought into the sales pitch of those people, the party will lose next time. And the time after that. And the time after that.
The Democrats cannot win unless they explain Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it. Obama will not (or, intellectually, cannot) do that, so others must.
Amen. But the problem is that the Democrats are just as clueless as Obama. They are reading the polls that the public is concerned with the deficit and thinking that this is the way to win elections. No one other than a handful of people actually understand the economics.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are proud that they outdid Reagan in deficit reduction and reducing federal employment. That's what HRC will run on if nominated, which at this point is virtually a certainty if she wants it and remains in good health.
Angry Bear
Why The Democrats Lost: Because they cannot win unless they explain Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it. Obama will not (or, intellectually, cannot) do that. So others must.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are proud that they outdid Reagan in deficit reduction and reducing federal employment. That's what HRC will run on if nominated, which at this point is virtually a certainty if she wants it and remains in good health.
Angry Bear
Why The Democrats Lost: Because they cannot win unless they explain Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it. Obama will not (or, intellectually, cannot) do that. So others must.
Beverly Mann
13 comments:
I sincerely hope they don't get bogged down in trying to explain Keynesian macroeconomics.
For one thing, the Dems' economic opinion elite doesn't believe in Keynesian economics. They believe in some kind of bastard New Keynesian neo-monetarism. So they will only make a hash of it.
Also, the macroeconomic perspective on the world is obtuse, inhuman and weird. It looks at everything in terms of abstract aggregate lumps and highly distilled rates that are mostly fictions. It fails to discriminate between good and evil forms of "growth", "demand" and "employment". It makes the worse mistake of assuming that because some problems can be characterized in rough, aggregate terms, they can be fixed by adjusting some aggregate parameter or rate - like an inflation rate, or an interest rate, or a deficit value.
Looking out at the cruddy American economic and social landscape and deciding the problem is that there is a "demand deficiency" doesn't even remotely begin to engage with what is happening in this world. Democrats need to start engaging with people in concrete and human terms, and drop this kind of schoolboy abstractionism.
Democrats should focus on what they actually want to do, and leave the grand blackboard theories about why those things will work back in the graduate school classrooms where they belong. What they should be saying they are going to do are things like:
- Restore the greatness and leadership of America.
- Create a secure and high-paying job for every American who is capable of working.
- Restore hope and a bright future for our children and grandchildren.
- Kick the money-changers out of the temple. Throw the crooks in jail.
- Get the debt monkeys off our backs.
- Make a quality education a right for every person willing to use their minds to make use of one.
- Pro-actively build the future instead of sitting back and waiting for the future to land on us.
- Make the US the most admired country in the world once again.
- Challenge Americans to take charge of their country and do something with it, instead of handing it over to gurus, Bonehead ivory tower academics and corporate plutocrats.
I don't think that there's any lack of progressive ideas. The problem is that progressives are stuck on the affordability issue in that they accept the government as big household analogy. So they think that either the rich have to be soaked with onerous taxes or the military has to be cut drastically, both of which are non-starters.
As far as I can see, the affordability issue is the chief obstacle to presenting a credible progressive agenda — universal health care, high-quality free education pre-school through terminal degree, equality before the law and absence of privilege, adequate social safety net and pension as aspects of right to a dignified life, and right to an income commensurate with ability, along with other civil liberties and human rights such as are set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As far as America goes, I am a human being whose nationality happens to be American rather than a nationalist. As part of this, I am opposed to neoliberal-neoconservative globalization, neo-imperialism, neocolonialism, and militarism.
Tom, I don't think any candidate for President will ever be elected in this country who thinks of his or her nationality as something they just happen to have. Americans have deep feeling for their country and want it to be great. They want patriotic leaders with the same commitment.
Also, I don't think the affordability issue is really a driving factor. That's a smokescreen. The fact is that the elite opinion leaders and difference makers in both parties are strong believers in capitalism, social hierarchy and inequality, and elite forms of government insulated from democracy and the masses whom they despise. They all know perfectly well that America is at bottom a very rich country that can accomplish almost anything it decides to accomplish.
Tom, I don't think any candidate for President will ever be elected in this country who thinks of his or her nationality as something they just happen to have. Americans have deep feeling for their country and want it to be great. They want patriotic leaders with the same commitment.
In my view nationalism is a cognitive-affective bias that is even more silly in the case of the US, where the only actually nationals are the indigenous peoples.
Also, I don't think the affordability issue is really a driving factor. That's a smokescreen. The fact is that the elite opinion leaders and difference makers in both parties are strong believers in capitalism, social hierarchy and inequality, and elite forms of government insulated from democracy and the masses whom they despise. They all know perfectly well that America is at bottom a very rich country that can accomplish almost anything it decides to accomplish.
Yes, of course. In modern "liberal" nations outright force is considered politically incorrect, so all sorts of other measures are taken to achieve the same result, but when push comes to shove, force is brought to bear. In this sense, "democracy" is a façade for command and control, and "liberalism," "freedom," and "democracy" are slogans.
Those who get this just go and do their own thing with people of like mind and heart instead of waiting for Godot.
Dan
If you are saying that the affordability issue isn't operative with our leaders I mostly agree (although plenty on the Tea Party right are very illiterate about econ and probably do think we have affordability issues) but amongst the voters I think we have a lot of earnest fools. By that I mean people who really do want whats best for most of us but are so seriously deluded about macroeconomics they really cannot understand what affordability means.
The only thing that will change this I am afraid is for these people to see what happens to their miserable lives when we start following through with balanced federal and state budgets. They are going to need to be smacked upside the head with the reality of austerity economics. Shrinking pensions, debt servitude for health care costs, lack of employment protections and widening income gaps are coming in a big way the next few years I am afraid. Even with (maybe especially with) a Hillary presidency. We are far from rejecting neoliberalism as a populace....... but we will.... when it all sinks in. If it sinks in in time..... before we are all sunk.
Greg the Tea Party right is not so much illiterate about econ as they are ignorant of authority. ... rsp
You are probably right Matt about where the ignorance originates. Flawed ideas about "personal freedoms" are certainly operative in a fealty to micro-economics, as opposed to seeing how macro trends limit our personal choices.
To the Tea Partiers macro trends are just "gods will", a result of our poor or good personal choices.
Please please please, go whole hog and big time explaining your version of the "affordability issue" to the masses. Please please.
Agree, Bob. Even if the masses understood how the monetary system operates and that affordability is not an issue in flex system, they would probably demand a return to a fixed, "sound money" system for "moral" reasons. That would be a political choice and assuming that if the public only know the facts that they would make a particular choice is just an assumption. There are good reasons to think that the majority of the voting public would not make the choices that the left assumes they would.
Yep I agree with Bob too, a lot of people would like to return to 'hard money' paradigm regardless of what would happen (because they think it would be better, just like Bob here).
I don't think a 'fixed standard' would hold up nowadays without a major war happening in 2-4 years and a total collapse of the world economy, along the rise of various fascists and state socialist regimes, and plenty of failed states and anarchies around the glove. Total chaos.
Perhaps the only way to disabuse the masses of the idea that going back to a commodity based monetary system is a very, very bad idea is to do it. The American people have a history of only learning lessons the hard way, sadly.
Post a Comment