By John Hirschauer
Friday, September 27, 2019
Joe Biden had a revealing exchange with a reporter at a
campaign stop in Iowa last week, one that put the ideological divide between
him and his fellow Democratic primary candidates into stark relief. The
reporter asked Biden — who by this point in the interview was visibly exhausted
— why Iowans should vote for him or, indeed, any other Democratic candidate
with the statewide unemployment rate at well below 3 percent under the Trump
administration. As the Obama legacy’s apparent heir, the former vice president
replied that Trump had inherited a recovering economy from Obama. “They were
employed before [Trump] got elected,” he said, “He’s not the reason for that
employment rate being down.”
The former claim isn’t strictly true — the unemployment
rate in Iowa was 3.4 percent when Trump first took office, and at last count
was down to 2.5 percent — but the local reporter, if she knew that, did not
point it out. Instead, she responded by asking why, even if Biden’s
claims were true, “people [should] want to make a change” at all. After
(parsimoniously) insisting that it is “up to [Iowans] to decide,” she pressed
Biden yet again: “Make your case.” Biden, running out of steam, dejectedly
insisted “I’m not going to.”
Putting aside the bizarre spectacle of a presidential
candidate who refuses to make a case for himself, and the related and
much-remarked-upon specter of Biden’s declining public lucidity, it’s worth
examining the significant rift between Biden and the other leading Democratic
candidates that this episode suggested.
If the other Democratic frontrunners — Elizabeth Warren
and Bernie Sanders in particular — had been asked about the putative economic
successes of the Trump administration, they would have followed a predictable
script in keeping with their past remarks, attacking the premise of the
question. They would have dismissed the numbers out of hand, invoking stagnant
wage growth and rising inequality as evidence that the traditional indicators
used to measure the health of the domestic economy — GDP, unemployment rate,
and, to a lesser extent, inflation — are insufficient. They would have argued
that those indicators fail to capture the brutality of a system that works for
“the rich and powerful,” don’t consider the costs of health care, and,
centrally, fail to account for the distribution of the spoils of growth. Any
assertion to the contrary — that declining unemployment numbers and improved
growth indicators portend a generally healthy economy — is a sign, to a certain
type of Democrat, that you don’t understand what the “real economy” looks like.
Here, for example, is Sanders on Twitter:
Despite what President Trump says,
it is not “a hot economy” when 43% of households can't afford to pay for
housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone without
going into debt. That is not a hot economy. #SOTU
Here’s Warren on MSNBC:
There was a time when saying, ‘Hey
the unemployment rate has gone down,’ that [was] a great thing. But you know,
when people are working at minimum-wage jobs that won’t support them or they’re
working two, three, or four jobs to try to pay the rent and keep food on the
table, then simply saying ‘The unemployment rate figures have gone down’ just
doesn’t get you there.
And here’s Cory Booker on CNN:
I love that Trump is taking credit
for a recovery that started under Obama, but the substance [is] this: Who is
this economy going to work for? And we had a tax plan that was all about giving
the wealthiest people more, more of a break. My vision for this country is that
we will target things like a massive increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit
to actual workers. We’ve got to make sure that this is a shared recovery,
because right now, it definitely is not.
It’s almost too obvious to note that this basic narrative
— that the economy is not what it seems, that the official figures on growth
and jobs are, at best, oblique indicators of economic reality — has percolated
through the organs of progressive thought for some time and has recently become
a central feature of Democratic politics. Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez famously insisted that the only reason the unemployment rate was
so low was “because everyone has two jobs,” which, of course, betrayed a
complete misunderstanding of how the rate is actually measured. With similar
distaste for the established metrics of economic success, Senate minority leader
Chuck Schumer floated a proposal to require the Bureau of Economic Analysis to
track the distribution of income growth coincident with its work tracking gross
levels of economic growth. “This legislation,” said the press release, “seeks
to cut to the heart of the matter and present a clear and accurate picture of
who the economy is really working for.”
Both amount to the less-intelligent version of the
picture painted by the Economic Policy Institute and similar groups, which
contend that wage growth for the ordinary worker has stagnated since about
1973, with productivity well outpacing the expected returns to the labor force.
Of course, if you measure productivity differently, you’ll get different
results. But whatever their merits, these paradigmatic critiques of the economy
— which, of course, have a long history — have filtered down from, inter alia,
the blogosphere, Thom Hartmann’s radio show, and the progressive think-tank
world to the mainstream of the Democratic conversation and the vernacular of
all its presidential front-runners.
Well, almost all its presidential front-runners.
There is still Joe Biden, who, by lapse or intent, seems not to be running a
campaign built for the economically dark world his fellow partisans describe.
The proposed policy reforms outlined on his website are, much like his public
rhetoric, more narrow than systemic, more cautious than bold, more practical
than idealistic. They are not the platform of someone who thinks the economy
and the country are in dire straits. That almost all of his presidential rivals
seem to think those things makes for a primary campaign between two starkly
different visions of where the country is and where it should go. The outcome
will tell us precisely which vision the Democratic base subscribes to.
No comments:
Post a Comment