Thursday, March 25, 2021

Can the Democrats Capture the Political Center?

In my new piece for The Liberal Patriot, I argue that they can, but it won't be easy.
"The Democrats appear to have a simple two prong strategy for capturing the political center and holding (hopefully expanding) their razor thin Congressional majorities in 2022. The first prong is to end the covid pandemic, revive the economy and deliver benefits widely within the American electorate. This approach is encapsulated in the American Rescue Plan, which has been wildly popular with the public. All communities (except the rich) are seen as benefiting from the plan—white, black, Hispanic; cities, suburbs and rural areas. And Americans across lines of race and class believe they personally will benefit from the plan. In fact, white noncollege adults are significantly more likely than their white college counterparts to believe they themselves will benefit from the plan and even somewhat more likely than Hispanics....
So….what could go wrong? That brings us to the second prong of the Democrats’ strategy: trying not to engage in culture wars conflicts. This makes sense for the Democrats’ current purposes of fast action out of the gates, passing and popularizing the American Rescue Plan and so on. It is far less clear this is a sustainable approach. Indeed, it is perilously close to assuming a problem will go away if you ignore it. The fact of the matter is that Democrats’ approach in the American Rescue Plan and their general economic approach is centrist in the sense that it corresponds to the center of gravity of American public opinion.
This cannot be said of a wide variety of cultural issues that have come to the fore in Democratic party circles and have vigorous advocates within those circles and more broadly in Democratic-adjacent nonprofits, media and academic institutions. These cannot be said to be centrist in any sense of the term and are typically embraced by only a small percentage of voters overall and are not generally majoritarian even within the Democratic party itself."
Read the whole thing at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe!

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Democrats May Not Want to Call It a "Crisis" But the Immigration Situation Still Carries Huge Political Risks

The basic facts are clear. David Leonhardt:
"After taking office, Biden...announced a 100-day halt on deportations (which a judge has blocked). He allowed more migrants — especially children — to enter the country, rather than being detained. And Central American migrants, sensing that the U.S. has become more welcoming, are streaming north in the largest numbers in two decades....
Republicans have pounced, accusing Democrats of favoring an “open border.”....Some Democrats are unhappy, too. Biden’s policy “incentivizes droves of people to come, and the only way to slow it down is by changing policy at our doorstep,” Representative Vicente Gonzalez of Texas told The Washington Post. Henry Cuellar, another House Democrat from Texas, said the administration was sending “a terrible message.”
It all stems from the fact that the Democratic Party no longer has a clear policy on immigration."
But they desperately need one! Leonhardt notes the difficulties Democrats are having coming to terms with the tradeoffs involved in articulating a clear policy.
"There are potential policy solutions....The U.S. could increase legal immigration. It could build more detention facilities with humane conditions. It could do more to improve conditions in Latin America and to push Mexico to control its own southern border. The Biden administration is pursuing many of these policies.
But if Biden and his aides appear to be less steady on immigration than many other policy areas, there is a reason for that: They are less steady.
Congress appears unlikely to increase legal immigration levels by much. And polls show that while public opinion favors a pathway to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants, it also favors rigorous border security and the enforcement of existing immigration laws.
I’m not even sure that these views should be described as conservative. Historically, many progressives supported immigration restrictions as a way to keep U.S. wages high. Today, working-class Americans — including many Asian-American, Black and Latino voters — tend to favor more restrictions than progressive Democrats, who are often high-earning professionals, do. This contrast may play a role in Republicans’ recent gains among minority voters.
“Unfortunately, the way the debate plays out too frequently feels like, ‘Everybody should come and the border should be open,’” Cecilia Muñoz, a longtime immigrant advocate and former Obama adviser, told me. “And that’s the thing that makes Americans anxious.”
One of the advantages to the Democrats’ old approach to immigration was that it was easy to describe: Be firm at the border, be generous to people who have lived in the U.S. for years. The new approach also has an abiding idea: Be more welcoming to people who want to enter the country. But Democrats still have not figured out the limits to that idea, which has created an early problem for the Biden presidency."
And this problem, if allowed to fester, carries grave political risks. Andy Levison, in a strategy memo at The Democratic Strategist, outlines these risks and offers an interesting approach to the problem that Democrats should consider.
"Democratic officeholders and candidates who plan to run in 2022 and 2024 need to face a simple, brutal fact – many will lose their next elections and will return control of government to the GOP if they do not offer a more plausible strategy for reducing the surge of immigrants at the border than the ambivalent, and contradictory set of policies that Biden and the administration have been offering since the election.
These policies and messages have tried to somehow “split the difference” between promising migrants more humane treatment and yet at the same time discourage any substantial increase in immigration. Unless the flow of migrants actually stabilizes and then begins to decline in the coming months, which it is extremely unlikely to do, this position will become increasingly untenable…..
Many Americans do genuinely sympathize with immigrants and recognize that violence, disastrous crop failures and depressed economic conditions are the fundamental forces driving the vast migration to the border. But this does not lead them to support the call for “open borders” or make them willing to passively accept a major, constant increase in the flow of migrants in the coming months and years.
It is necessary to face the basic reality: To have any chance of surviving in 2022 and 2024, Democratic candidates in many districts across America will need to have a convincing political alternative to the GOP’s demonization of immigrants – a plausible alternative that goes beyond “The GOP is mean, we’re nice.”…
What Democratic candidates need is an alternative to the GOP strategy that treats the immigrants themselves as criminals – a perspective that does not demonize immigrants but which offers a plausible, serious strategy to significantly reduce illegal immigration….
Here is how Democratic candidates can aggressively re-frame the debate:
“Immigration is not just a flow of individuals walking across Mexico. It is also a multi-billion dollar criminal business that involves thousands of workers and vast profits. It employs rumor mongers, con-men, drivers, scouts, coordinators, bribers, high tech surveillance equipment, night vision scopes, 2-way walkie talkies, telescopes, safe houses, cars, trucks, boats, radio stations and rural development banks. “
Any serious proposal to control our borders has to attack the vast, multi-billion dollar “human smuggling” industry. I have a serious four-point plan to do this, my opponent does not. His only strategy is just to call immigrants nasty names.”
The way to reduce illegal immigration is to reduce the flow before immigrants reach the border. Attacking the human smuggling industry will do this. Separating families or forcing people to live in tents on the border will not.
In the long run the only real solution to the immigration problem is to improve the conditions in the immigrants’ home countries. The administration is working on this approach but it is a long-term task. Attacking the human smuggling industry is a strategy that will produce results and that we can apply right now.”
An aggressive campaign along these lines will not prevent all losses in 2022 but it can make a substantial difference. It does not demonize the immigrants themselves but still suggests a militant and forceful approach. It allows a Democrat to be genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants themselves but still present a “tough” and realistic approach to the border and what will be required to get it back under control. This is the balance that most Americans want to see achieved."
Levison could be on to something! And the Democrats need to think creatively so surmount this very real challenge.
May be an image of text that says 'Half Voters See a Crisis at the U.S.-Mexico Border Share of voters who say the illegal immigration across the บ.S. U.S.-Mexico border is ... Crisis Problem, but not a crisis All voters Neither 50% Don't know/No opinion Democrats 34% 31% 9% 8% 48% Independents 11% 50% 9% Republicans 33% 9% 9% 74% MORNING CONSULT POLITICO 16% 6% 4% Poll conducted March 19-22, 2021, among 1,994 registered voters, with margin error'

It's an Ill Wind That Blows Nobody Good: A Positive Way the Pandemic May Be Remembered

At The Liberal Patriot, Peter Juul considers how the pandemic may figure in history. He argues that the misery visited by the covid pandemic may fade for future generations, as the devastation of the 1918-19 flu pandemic did, but developments sparked by the pandemic may leave a greater mark.
"But if future generations remember the COVID-19 pandemic, it’ll probably be because it heralded a major and fundamental shift in America’s domestic political economy. One major reason we still recall the Antonine Plague, for instance, is that it likely set into motion the centuries-long process that ended in the disintegration of the western Roman empire. The Black Death remains in a class of its own, its sheer scale enough to throw any society into existential disarray. It’s already clear that COVID-19 won’t likely have similar effects on American society, but all the same it’s accelerated the country and its politics beyond the model of political economy that’s prevailed since the late 1970s.
Forged by policymakers and politicians scarred by their experiences with stagflation in the 1970s, that model of political economy focused intently on fighting inflation and reining in federal budget deficits – except when it came to cutting taxes for the wealthy. A typical episode occurred in 2015, when the Federal Reserve under then-Chair Janet Yellen – now President Biden’s Secretary of the Treasury – raised interest rates amidst a still-weak recovery from the 2008 financial crash in order to ward off the phantom menace of potential inflation. Likewise, President Barack Obama found it politically necessary to find ways to ensure his signature legislative achievement – the Affordable Care Act – essentially paid for itself through tax increases, budget cuts, and other offsets.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, though, the wheels had started to come off this model of political economy. Persistently low interest rates even amidst large and sustained budget deficits throughout the 2010s led a number of economists and policymakers to conclude that their earlier ideas were outdated, if not outright wrong.
But it took the pandemic to truly shift the mindset of political leaders and policymakers in Washington. As COVID-19 made its way to the United States in February and March 2020, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell opened up a “fire hose of lending” intended to keep the economy afloat. Over the past year, Congress has passed pandemic three major relief packages – the CARES Act in March 2020, a $900 billion bill in December 2020, and the American Rescue Plan Act this month – worth a combined $4.8 trillion and one of the world’s largest fiscal policy responses to the pandemic. Even so, Powell repeatedly called for more public spending to support the economy – and has given no indication that he intends to take his foot off the economic accelerator any time soon, saying that the Federal Reserve “will continue to provide the economy the support that it needs for as long as it takes.”
Muted and incoherent Republican resistance to President Biden’s relief legislation should be seen as a sign of the changed political times....
While it’s too much to expect that COVID-19 will leave behind a legacy of solidarity and common purpose akin to the Great Depression and World War II, it’s already shifted how many of us think about the role of government and our responsibilities toward our fellow citizens. That may not be apparent amidst the discord we’ve all seen and heard over the past few years, but it’s present – and it’s something liberal patriots should aim to build on moving forward."
Real the whole piece at The Liberal Patriot!

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Degrowth: Still the Worst Idea on the Left since Communism

I've written about this before but it's still around and still a dumb idea, so I thought I'd point people to this very useful item in Bryan Walsh's Axios Future newsletter. It includes a lot of useful links that you might find useful as well.
"Some environmentalists and economists are pushing for "degrowth" — stabilizing or even shrinking the economy — to avert environmental catastrophe.
The big picture: Degrowthism may seem like the only reasonable response to the climate challenges we face, but the experience of enforced economic shrinking during the pandemic indicates the pain would outweigh the benefits — especially for the world's poorest....
How it works: However accidental, 2020 represented perhaps the best example we've ever experienced of degrowthism in action.
* For degrowthers, simply cleaning up the global economy by switching from fossil fuels to zero-carbon sources of energy isn't enough. Economic growth — the goal of essentially every government everywhere — is itself the problem.
* Environmental activist Greta Thunberg summed up the argument when she chastised delegates at a UN climate summit in 2019: “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
* The movement now has its own dedicated academic journals, associations and conferences.
The catch: The very real human pain of 2020 — and the political fallout it created — should be taken as a warning sign to degrowthers.
* A new Pew Research Center analysis found the ranks of the global middle income — those who live on $10.01 to $20 a day — fell by 54 million in 2020 compared to the number projected before the pandemic, while the number of global poor rose by 131 million.....
Between the lines: The strongest argument around degrowth is one rooted in a goal that its own advocates strive for: global equity.
* In a piece posted earlier this week, economist Max Roser of Our World in Data estimated the amount of global growth required to bring everyone in the world up to the level of poor people in the fairly rich nation of Denmark would be 410%.
* Whether or not global poverty can be truly conquered — meaning getting everyone at least to the minimum of the developed world — "overwhelmingly depends on whether the average incomes in those countries that are home to the poorest billions of people in the world will increase or not," Roser writes....
The bottom line: To paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy, the pursuit of growth has its faults, but it still may be the least worst way to organize an economy."

Substack Critics, Heal Thyself

In the latest iteration of unhinged media wars, a bunch of not-particularly-popular, but very woke Substack writers are agitating to get a group of much more popular heterodox writers kicked off the platform. This type of illiberal attempt to suppress those with whom you disagree should be opposed of course (and I doubt Substack will cave on this) but it's also important to try to understand why this is happening and what it tells us about the very unhealthy atmosphere in today's media world.
Freddie DeBoer nails it on his excellent Substack (well worth subscribing!)
"Media Twitter does not hate Substack because it’s pretending to be a platform when it’s a publisher; they don’t hate it because it’s filled with anti-woke white guys; they don’t hate it because of harassment or any such thing. I don’t think they really hate it at all. Substack is a small and ultimately not-very-relevant outpost in a vastly larger industry; they may not like it but it’s not important enough for them to hate it. What do they hate? They hate where their industry is and they hate where they are within their industry. But that’s a big problem that they don’t feel like they can solve. If you feel you can’t get mad at the industry that’s impoverishing you, it’s much easier to get mad at the people who you feel are unjustly succeeding in that industry. Trying to cancel Glenn Greenwald (again) because he criticizes the media harshly? Trying to tarnish Substack’s reputation so that cool, paid-up writer types leave it and the bad types like me get kicked off? That they can maybe do. Confronting their industry’s future with open eyes? Too scary, especially for people who were raised to see success as their birthright and have suddenly found that their degrees and their witheringly dry one-liners do not help them when the rent comes due....
[H]ow do things get better...? Only through real self-criticism (which Twitter makes impossible) and by asking hard questions. Questions like one that has not been credibly confronted a single time in this entire media meltdown: why are so many people subscribing to Substacks? What is the traditional media not providing that they’re seeking elsewhere? Why have half a million people signed up as paying subscribers of various Substack newsletters, if the establishment media is providing the diversity of viewpoints that is an absolute market requirement in a country with a vast diversity of opinions? You can try to make an adult determination about that question, to better understand what media is missing, or you can read this and write some shitty joke tweet while your industry burns to the ground around you. It’s your call.
Substack might fold tomorrow, but someone would else sell independent media; there’s a market. Substack might kick me and the rest of the unclean off of their platforms tomorrow, but other critics of social justice politics would pop up here; there’s a market. Establishment media’s takeover by this strange brand of academic identity politics might grow even more powerful, if that’s even possible, but dissenters will find a place to sell alternative opinion; there’s a market. What there might not be much of a market for anymore is, well, you - college educated, urban, upwardly striving if not economically improving, woke, ironic, and selling that wokeness and that irony as your only product. Because you flooded the market. Everyone in your entire industry is selling the exact same thing, tired sarcastic jokes and bleating righteousness about injustices they don’t suffer under themselves, and it’s not good in basic economic terms if you’re selling the same thing as everyone else. You add that on to structural problems within your business model and your utter subservience to a Silicon Valley that increasingly hates you, well…. I get why you’re mad. And I get that you don’t like me. But I’m not what you’re mad about. Not really.
In the span of a decade or so, essentially all professional media not explicitly branded as conservative has been taken over by a school of politics that emerged from humanities departments at elite universities and began colonizing the college educated through social media. Those politics are obscure, they are confusing, they are socially and culturally extreme, they are expressed in a bizarre vocabulary, they are deeply alienating to many, and they are very unpopular by any definition. The vast majority of the country is not woke, including the vast majority of women and people of color. How could it possibly be healthy for the entire media industry to be captured by any single niche political movement, let alone one that nobody likes? Why does no one in media seem willing to have an honest, uncomfortable conversation about the near-total takeover of their industry by a fringe ideology?
And the bizarre assumption of almost everyone in media seems to have been that they could adopt this brand of extreme niche politics, in mass, as an industry, and treat those politics as a crusade that trumps every other journalistic value, with no professional or economic consequences. They seem to have thought that Americans were just going to swallow it; they seem to have thought they could paint most of the country as vicious bigots and that their audiences would just come along for the ride. They haven’t. In fact Republicans are making great hay of the collapse of the media into pure unapologetic advocacy journalism. Some people are turning to alternative media to find options that are neither reactionary ideologues or self-righteous woke yelling. Can you blame them? Substack didn’t create this dynamic, and neither did I. The exact same media people who are so angry about Substack did, when they abandoned any pretense to serving the entire country and decided that their only job was to advance a political cause that most ordinary people, of any gender or race, find alienating and wrong. So maybe try and look at where your problems actually come from. They’re not going away."
Exactly.

What's the Deal with Larry Summers?

Larry Summers' bizarre intervention around the American Rescue Plan, waving the bloody shirt of an impending inflation spike, reminded me of something I wrote last July. Here it is, along with a link to the excellent article by Bob Kuttner that inspired that post.
The Ballad of Larry Summers
I wonder what that would sound like? At any rate, I recommend this profile of the Amazing Larry Summers (how can we miss him if he won't go away?) by Bob Kuttner. It's really quite a tale; the many, many policy mistakes that Summers has sailed through with complete self-confidence and without ever admitting error. How does he do it? I'm not sure Kuttner satisfactorily explains this, but it's a great read anyway. This article can and perhaps should be read in conjunction with Reed Hundt's A Crisis Wasted, within which the ubiquitous Summers has a starring role.
Now of course Summers is a born-again aggressive Keynesian who sneers at deficit-phobes and shouts his support for big spending from the rooftops. And he's managed to worm his way into the Biden camp's circle of economic advisors. Should we trust this man? Well, people do change but...I dunno, his record makes me very, very nervous.