What are We For?

The false populism of the current administration is already a source of growing conflict. Which only raises the question: now what?

For those of us who think about economic policy, an existentially important conflict is developing, one which I strongly suspect is only going to grow. At an obvious level, the conflict is borne of the yawning gap between what Trump promised and what his administration is delivering. Its manifestation is clearly visible in both early polling results, which are heading south at a rate that should alarm the new incumbents, and in town halls, where nonplayer-character Republicans are hearing heated concerns from their constituents.

But if those of us concerned about economic justice stop here, we’re toast. It’s totally predictable that faux populism would quickly collide with real populism; it doesn’t take long for people who supported you because they thought you’d help them to see that this is not your intention, especially when you’re actively hurting them (e.g., by raising prices through tariffs when voters elected you to lower prices).

The more important, or at least more forward-looking message from this conflict, is that the opposition party must quickly and publicly explain what we are for. We must simultaneously develop and explain that agenda at all levels: from 40,000 feet up on the stump all the way down to the ground level in the wonkish halls of public policy schools and think tanks.

This is a big project and a group project, not the stuff of a Substack post! But as someone who has spent a career in this very space, I hope I have a decent sense of the economic policy agenda that will reliably connect the living standards of all Americans to overall growth. Critically, the agenda must resonate broadly, with traditional constituents in blue spaces as well as with non-MAGA Trump voters who are already holding their reps to task.

Before I get down to policies, I acknowledge I’m not dealing herein with cultural differences, the depth of partisanship, the deeply problematic media, especially social media, environment, or even building the politics to bring (some version of) this agenda to fruition. All of these barriers are of course of utmost importance, but others are better equipped to address them.

What are we for?

Worker bargaining power: That’s how workers get a fair slice of the pie they’re helping to bake. Policies that get us there are full employment labor markets, unions, and institutional/legal supports like a strong National Labor Relations Board and the strengthening and enforcement of labor laws.

International trade that supports robust supply chains while not exposing us to unfair competition: This is the both/and model we (mostly) tried to pursue in the Biden admin. It avoids protectionism, eschews sweeping tariffs, trades robustly with our friends, but if a trading partner tries to export overcapacity, we block them.

Industrial policy to address market failures, such as inadequate investment in climate mitigation, that brings with it domestic production and jobs in expanding sectors.

Social policies that ensure affordable child care, housing, health care, along with poverty reduction, family/work supports (minimum wages, overtime, means-tested tax credits like the EITC, CTC), and access to quality education pre-K through college.

Regulations that promote fair competition[1], protect consumers, and guard against financial bubbles and Ponzi schemes.

Progressive taxation that puts us the nation back a sustainable fiscal path.

Immigration: Secure borders matched with welcoming, legal immigration that is sensitive to domestic capacity and resources.

Boom…that’s it!

Caveats, nuances

Okay, it’s a list, and people correctly accuse D’s of lists in this space. But I don’t think it’s particularly unwieldy, and given that a reconnection agenda in a $30 trillion economy with 340 million people isn’t a trivial bit of work, I’d argue it’s a pretty damn tight list. Also, it’s neither surprising nor sexy nor particularly creative…but I’d wager that a winning economics—again, one which resonates broadly--looks more like this than not.

The devil’s in the details and that’s where the real work comes in. Pitfalls exist in every one of these areas and there are inherent contradictions. Expanding union power is critical—I don’t buy the rap that the unionization rate can’t grow again—but some policies for which union leadership advocates lead to a protectionism that hurts more than it helps, like blocking the Nippon Steel deal or the Jones Act.

“Progressive taxation,” sure. But does that have to mean, as it did in the Biden administration that nobody below the bottom 98^th percentile ($400,000) ever sees a higher tax? That’s not a rhetorical question. People with much better political antennae than mine believe you can’t win without such a threshold. And while I myself have bridled at that threshold in countless revenue-scrounging meetings, proposing to tax people who are struggling is a great way to blow this opportunity.

Industrial policy is clearly necessary but it requires a limiting factor. It’s too easy to designate your favorite policy as required for national or economic security. Guardrails should control for mission creep both here and in the regulation agenda, where we need to meet people where they are. Based on their inherent Ponzi-scheme structures and lack of legit use cases, I’d banish non-sovereign digital currencies tomorrow. But this is an area where we’d want to be more flexible and a lot less we-know-what’s-best-for-you.

This work needs to be undertaken with urgency. The existing policy vacuum in this space is not helpful, and the growing conflict I documented above requires a multi-level response.

So, calling all policy wonks, nerds, comms folks, funders, and anyone who can help to develop this project: to your battle-stations!

---

[1] Dean Baker’s patent and copyright reforms fit here and, like full employment and greater competition, they are more free market’y—and should be sold that way—than the preferences of the opposition (e.g., sweeping tariffs).