The Democrats Once Knew The Left Had No Economic Theory. In The Last Decade, They've Been Doing Everything To Unlearn This Lesson – And They Have To Stop

 

 

In my previous entry in this series I argued that today's left 'can't comprehend politics at a second grade level'.  But compared to how they understand economic theory, they are the incarnations of Einstein and Hawking.

In other articles I've argued one of the biggest problems the Democratic Party has had in my lifetime was that there's a significant wing of their voters who argue that America should basically ignore foreign policy and focus entirely on American welfare. That hasn't changed since the Vietnam War.  Interestingly their approach to domestic policy today isn't much different then how it feels about foreign policy – and in this case it's a reversal.

When I was rereading Theodore White's Making of the Presidency: 1972 I was struck how White, who would have called himself a liberal most of his life, was stunned as to how liberalism was being redefined. Much of what he described took place during the 1960s but as so much of it was critical both to the McGovern campaign and what has become liberal theology from that point its worth looking how White viewed it – and how it appalled him. He tells us that there were three incubators of change during the 1960s: the Vietnam War, the Black revolution and prosperity. We'll focus on that one for this article and I'll put in bold the parts that I believe are most pertinent:

The Kennedy-Johnson tax laws had stimulated the greatest economic boom in American history. The nation could fight a war, rebuild its cities, explore space, corset the country in highways, clear the ghettos all at once – or so it seemed.

Production was no problem; the problem was distribution, and wise men could direct the flow of the economy to moral ends to make a safer, healthier, more noble human society. Subtly this burst of production linked itself to another phenomenon, the development of the right of the individual as a consumer equal to his obligation as a worker. In addition to his right to a job, whether he worked or not, he had a right to consume…The citizen of the new era had the means to explore his own individual instinct for self-expression whether…in new modes of dress, taste for exotic foods, manners of expression.

All wanted the government to help them express themselves – and restrict others whose self-expression they found obnoxious.

We would see much of that above reflected in the Me Decade of the 1970s and the conspicuous consumption of the rest of the 20^th century.  What White worries about is the fall out as liberal theology which he states:

"If we can spend the money to put a man on the moon, we can spend the money to save our cities, solve cancer, purify our streams, cope with drugs, cleanse our ghettoes, etc.

White calls this with scorn: "The belief that money solves all problems." And while Democratic politics has found many ways to rephrase this over the half-century that follows that is essentially at the core of every aspect of so much of their politics ever since. The Democrats never stated it that way directly, but Republicans were more than willing to – and Democrats never were willing to usher a blanket denial.

I'll deal with how White viewed so many of the programs of the Great Society which are the foundation of this orthodoxy in a different article and focus on the fact that given the results of so many elections that followed in the remainder of the 20^th century it was clear that America was rejecting it outright. The only two Democrats to win elections until the end of the 20^th century were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter was excoriated by the liberal wing of his party because he noted  (correctly) how the mood of the country had shifted away and Bill Clinton has essentially been repudiated by it in the aftermath of his presidency as a neo-liberal because of his acknowledgement of that reality. Carter was focused on balancing the budget and Clinton is the last President to finish with a surplus at the end of his term. In both cases they made the decision to raise taxes and cut spending.

Paradoxically in the minds of those who believe in liberal dogma the Republican revolution is the greatest evidence that these programs are successful or that they would work if Republican Presidents and Congress were not so determined to cut them, therefore stopping them for reach their pure effectiveness. This is part of the left's theory for basically every level of progressive dogma: the fact that the opposition is so determined to destroy it means it must be working better than their wildest dreams. In this mindset any election result proves not that there is something wrong with the philosophy but something wrong with the electorate. Because the left historically has utter contempt for the democratic process, all results of elections only make them cling even harder to the liberal theology to the point it is practically gospel.

Over the last ten years - ever since the rise of Bernie Sanders - there has been a significant wing of the party that has completely rejected what helped Democrats win elections in the past. Republicans for years have been able to win elections at every level by labeling all Democrats as 'tax-and-spend liberals' whether they were or not. Now people like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and the Justice Democrats in the House are essentially saying that this term is not an obscenity but something the party should wear as a badge of honor.  That many of them proudly identify as socialists, a label the party has spent basically since FDR's first term trying to discard as a slur, shows not only do they know nothing of history but nothing of politics or economics.

No less than six of the eight bills that were used as the foundation for the Justice Democrats are the example of the belief that money can solve all problems: Medicare for All, Free College Tuition, Workers Rights, Women's Rights (which involves Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance) Environmental Justice and Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights. The last one is labeled "Justice is Not For Sale Act' which is noble but ignores the fact that like everything else justice costs money. The policies go further in the platform, including a federal job guarantee, universal education as a right, including a free four year public college, making the minimum wage a living wage and tying it to inflation, passing the paycheck fairness act. Furthermore active social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will never be cut, and single payer healthcare will become universal.

 This is Money Solves Everything on steroids mixed with amphetamines. And it begs the question how are we supposed to pay for all this? The only hint we get at this in the entire platform is the eighth part of the platform: Taxing Wall Street. There is some talk of chaining capital gains and income tax, increasing the estate tax and ending offshore financial centers. In other words were going to raise taxes – but only on the wealthiest people in the country – and that alone should be able to pay for everything on this wish list. Oh and we won't bother to supplement it with arms sales because we won't be selling to countries who violate human rights laws.

That so many seemingly intelligent people are willing to take AOC and Ro Khanna seriously as Presidential candidates considering how fully they embrace this platform can only be explained that after the 2016 election much of them decided to throw away all historic and statistical evidence and basically agree that the Democrats lost in 2016 because they didn't go far enough to the left.  Trying to pass anyone of these six bills on the Justice Democrat platform, never mind carrying it out into law, involves the kind of magical thinking that can only be described as progressive fanfiction. And its telling that all of these legislators have not managed to get one of these bills out of committee nor than any state or city has even tried to pass it.

The left has long since rejected any ideas of economic policy when it comes to cost, always phrasing it in terms of 'investing in our future' or 'how can you put a price tag on that'. The problem is that just because something is free to a consumer doesn't de facto mean it costs nothing to produce.  So for that reason the left basically chooses to phrase all its arguments against policy in terms of bigotry or racism which in their mind ends the argument, even if it only does by turning undecided people against the idea.

And if the left's idea of consuming something is not based in reality, getting the money is based in fantasy.  The idea that all of this can be paid for by taxing just the top one percent – and no one else –  argues that the money of that people alone can provide services for a nation of 350 million people spread over 50 states.

Even more they constantly confuse 'assets' with 'income'.  Now let's not kid ourselves when ever anyone on the left says "Tax the rich" what they really mean is we need to take every single dime the Zuckerberg's and Bezos's and Musk's of the world have and give into the government. Even this is a false concept because it makes the assumption that they their assets are not only all liquid but for all intents and purposes in Scrooge McDuck money-bins which are right next to their mansions.  The only thing keeping you or I from just taking it from them is…well, I don't think they've progressed that far in their thinking. Of course the reason the elected officials don't do it is because they're all in their pockets. Every single one of them. Apparently even Bernie and AOC because they haven't done it themselves in all their years in office.

And just to be clear it is only when the government itself pays this money to help the masses that it is a moral and right thing to do. If any other individual does it, even if it is a charity or foundation or grant, even if it is financed by many of those one percent, it doesn't count somehow. I guess the government has to launder it through taxation and government programs for it to be clean.

I need to be clear that the last three paragraphs are facetious. I think for many of these people and their acolytes they wish it was that simple. Because as we're seeing play out in California and New York, Governor Newsom and Mayor Mamdani are finding out just hard it is to do in action. California is trying to put a 'billionaire tax' on the ballot and because they have to do it in public, the billionaires in California are aware of it. That's how democracy works. Newsom can't just call in the National Guard to raid the house of Sergei Brin and Tom Steyer. He has to put it on a ballot and that takes a lot of time and energy.

Time, to be clear, that the billionaire class can use to do two things: use their money to try and defeat the bill – which could work, California may have progressive ideas but it has a hard time making them into law – or leave the state altogether so even if it passes they'd be exempt from it.

Mamdani can't quite do the same thing: he has to get the bill passed by the New York Assembly and City Council and then get it signed into law by the governor. How long this process will take is anybody's guess: much of upstate New York and Long Island is a lot redder than the city and both houses of the legislature are pretty evenly divided among both parties with some of the Democrats not being the kind that can vote for this and keep office.  The overwhelming majority of both parties in the state is not entirely wild about Mamdani in the first place and he can't do this by executive order.

All of which is to say is that it will be a long drawn out process which the wealthy in New York will do everything to drag out and stop and even if it passes, they will likely have enough time and resources to leave New York.

In both cases the one percent have the advantage that wealth gives you: the freedom to move about the world at will, which they always have and always will. That's  one of the perks of being that rich; you can afford to leave if conditions become unfavorable. It doesn't have to be a mob with pitchforks; it just be an elected official threatening to tax you and either way they have the means and opportunity to take themselves – and more importantly, their money – to a more favorable state or country.

All of this to be very clear is a lot of time and energy that has to be expended just to do something that will almost certainly not produce the results that the left-wing of the party says it will. When you shout 'Eat the Rich' at the top of your lungs on TV, the rich can hear you. They may be many things, far too many of them not good, but their senses work and they can read a room. Many of them may see enemies everywhere, and it doesn't help when you make it public that you are one of them. If nothing else, it takes away the element of surprise when you're trying to take the one thing they value the most and will protect.

I say all of this, to be very clear, as a Democrat and a liberal in the mold of White and who agrees with the majority of left wing ideas.  I'm no secret ally of the wealthy (if nothing else my arguments on Hollywood's politics should end that discussion) and I'm neither a DINO nor a MAGA. (Though I know I will be called both.) But I don't believe Money Solves Everything should be the policy of any government because it won't.

You can't get rid of society's ills just by throwing money at the problem. That's kind of how so many of the one percent tend to parent their own children and we all know how badly that screws them up. I'm not sure yet if I have a solution to any of the problems the world has but I know from painful experience that trying to get elected as a Democrat in my lifetime implying this policy or speaking about it directly has yet to elect a President, a governor or enough elected officials to even get part of their platform into law.

And if the Justice Democrats think otherwise, need I remind them the main reason they don't have a lot of office holders is because they won't spend money to get enough elected officials to make a majority in either house of Congress. In that case money may not solve everything but it does get you in a position to solve somethings. If you can't accept that…well, your own electoral record more than bears me out.