Why Bidenomics Matter

We Need More Scranton and Less Wall Street

Among the most idiotic and irritating MAGA tropes is that America is a republic not a democracy. It is idiotic because, of course, the United States was intended to be both and the concepts are not mutually exclusive. It is irritating because these nit wits who peddle this nonsense do so with patronizing condescension—despite the fact that they are wrong.

There is something worse about them peddling such hogwash, however. It is the intention behind the misinformation. They are pushing the idea of “republic” so they can take swipes at the idea of “democracy.” They are actively opposed to the idea that power be shared by everyone in our society. It is a centerpiece of their agenda that it not be.

This is the secret to how the very rich—whose opposition to democracy centers on the idea that they can have more power so they can acquire more wealth—can exploit the impulses and prejudices of the dumb and the odious, who want to exclude from power those whose presence threatens them—people of color, women, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, city folks, Democrats, etc.

That is how you get poor people across America—suffering from the deep geographic economic inequities in our country—advocating for candidates whose tax and regulatory agendas are rocket fuel for growing inequality. It’s how you get the residents of red states that depend more than others on federal government support standing up against the federal government programs on which they depend because those programs are presented as manifestations of big government interference in their lives, as programs that may help people of color, as programs that are distant cousins of other government efforts they oppose like collecting tax or regulating guns.

The rich on the right get the numbers they need to get candidates elected who will support their pocketbook agenda by harnessing the ignorance and prejudices of the folks who will later be most hurt by the policies those candidates will support.

Of course, the “republic not a democracy” bullshit is linked to some aspects of our Constitution. When the country was founded the majority of Americans were not enfranchised (women, slaves, indigenous Americans, etc.) The fact that we later remedied this because it was wrong galls them no end and they are doing what they can to reverse the past 250 years or so of progress. (See SCOTUS’ Shelby County decision.)

The Constitution also does grant disproportionate power to the residents of the least populous states (states that happen to be more “red” in our current political era). This is an anachronism that screams out to be changed. Unfortunately it is also one that given the way amending the Constitution works, makes it almost impossible to change. Which is not only a pity, it is directly contrary to the core principle that the authors of the Constitution thought would keep it relevant and that is the ability to regularly update it via amendments.

Not “Strict Constructionists”, They’re "Strict Contortionists”

Here we get into another of the techniques for advancing their agenda of the anti-democracy, anti-social equity and fairness crowd. They love to wrap themselves in the Constitution and present themselves as its protectors. They champion the idea of “strict construction” to say they are defending its integrity. But of course, they are the real judicial activists, perverting the meaning of the document’s words and twisting legal traditions and principles to suit their purposes.

Rather than “strict constructionists” they are “strict contortionists.”

They have not only twisted the idea that we are both a democracy and a republic to suit their needs. They have also hijacked and distorted beyond recognition the Second Amendment while regularly seeking to ignore the Constitutions intended separation between church and state. They find the Constitution grants corporations with all the rights it grants people but that it prohibits laws that might level the playing field for people who are regularly discriminated against. They say it grants states great powers unless it is in their interests to assign those powers to the federal government (see how these states rights champions handle federal abortion or marriage mandates going forward.) On other occasions they may seek to limit the executive branch’s right to regulate industry (see the current Chevron deference case and its likely outcome) while simultaneously seeking to grant powers and special privileges to the president. They ignore precedent. They cherry pick from legal history.

And low and behold, they have advanced a legal agenda that like their economic policy agenda brings us right back to what Americans were rebelling against in the first place, a super empowered oligarchy presided over by a president with kingly (unitary executive) powers.

The question then becomes, how do you resist that if you value the ideals and aspirations on which the country was founded?

First, it is essential to be able to distinguish between principles (the inviolable ideas, like the basic rights and freedoms to which all of us are entitled) and doctrines or slogans or faux-theologies that have been granted with similar status by those doing so to advance a narrow agenda that is contrary to those principles. For example arguing that the Constitution is very nearly the unchangeable word of God only when it suits you. Or embracing a theocratic defense of “free markets” or “capitalism” when the words are used to defend steps that make the markets less free, that concentrate more power and special advantages in the hands of the few.

While we’re at it—and we are seeking to have a sensible discussion about our current situation—it might be good to strip away the political baggage with which other terms and ideas useful to our discussion have been weighted down. Guaranteeing health care to all as a right is what all developed countries other than our own do. But because some here call it “socialized medicine” it is verboten in America. But “socializing” something doesn’t make it bad and indeed, if our minds were open we would realize that many elements of the social contracts in countries that embrace the term are far superior, fairer and more consistent with our ideals than our own approaches (that promote inequality). (For example, in the financial crisis of 2008, two car companies went bankrupt. In the US, GM required a costly government bailout because we had no social safety net adequate to taking care of the millions who would be dislocated by its failure. In Sweden, Saab was allowed to fail because everyone knew that those put out of work would be retrained and had social programs in place to assist them until they could be reemployed. Which country lived up to “capitalist” ideals? The one that had to go against the will of the market and bail out the big automaker or the one that let the consequences of competition run their course?)

So, please, going forward, at least in the community surrounding the discussion here at “Need to Know” let’s be able to criticize the Constitution and American capitalism and be open to taking ideas that others might call socialist and to recognize that doing so is consistent with many of the ideas on which America was founded and with many others that have helped the country grow and evolve along the way.

The Man from Scranton

Fascinatingly and to me, surprisingly, the greatest steps forward we have made in combatting distortionary doctrines and addressing economic and political inequality in a constructive way have come by way of an unlikely champion.

Joe Biden was about as plain vanilla a politician as Washington has produced over the past 50 years. He was a Democrat and enjoyed considerable success as a party leader in the Senate and later as Vice President. But when he became president there was little to indicate he would be the most revolutionary force in the party since FDR. Little that is, except his personal story and character.

Because he was, as we all know now, a true product of America’s middle class and of the New Deal programs that saved the country (and by extension much of the world) in the years immediately before and after he was born. And when he became president he did a remarkable thing. He did not embrace the Wall Street-lite, neo liberal policy teams that had guided Obama or Clinton. Rather, he brought on a group of people, led by under-appreciated Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and other capable folks (a shout out to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo who has been a huge success story), who quietly did some radical things.

As they engineered the recovery from COVID, they focused more on the economic well-being—beginning with jobs—of average Americans and less about Wall Street. They ignored pleas to let unemployment go higher so that inflation could be managed and instead sought to create jobs and simultaneously bring down inflation when it arose. They have been so successful that the U.S. recovery from the COVID downturn has been acknowledged as the world’s strongest—and many of the pressures causing momentary inflationary upticks were actually acknowledged as coming from corporate profiteering and costs associated with disruptions linked to the war in Ukraine.

They also tossed out doctrine that said the U.S. government should not interfere in any way in markets and instead did as other countries do embracing competitiveness policy, investing in the infrastructure and technologies we need to compete. Further, they have called for major new taxes on the wealthy, steps to bring more equality into our system.

While that major tax reform hurdle has yet to be cleared, a big Democratic win in November may give it a chance. And such a step would be one of the most important we could take in combatting the unfair advantages the super rich have been seeking for themselves for these many past decades.

Not only have these policies created tens of millions of new jobs and produced a rousing economic recovery but we have actually also seen a small tick in the right direction on inequality. It went down in 2022 for the first time in 15 years. It’s just a start. More changes are needed to remedy the efforts of the right to twist our system into an oligarchy for the past 40 years. Many more. And it will take a great deal of time.

But, fortunately, for the first time in our adult lifetimes, we are both moving in the right direction and being able to have a conversation in which we are, finally, questioning the dictates of those with the most in our society in order to address the concerns, needs and hopes of all the rest of us.

In later posts, we will consider what the next big steps we must take to ensure we end the Age of Stupidity…and of out of control greed and incipient oligarchy…in America.