The Coming Crisis of the Republican Party: An Opportunity For Democrats

Republicans Face the Prospect of Enacting the Things that Trump Promised

Now that Trump has been elected, Republicans are going to have to face the reality of his policies, and the result may well destroy their party.  Even if the party survives, the divisions within it will create opportunities for Democrats. 

The coming division within the Republican Party is rooted in the fact that the party is an uneasy coalition between the traditional, business Republicans and Trump’s radical rightists. The business Republicans fund the party, and the radical rightists provide millions of votes. The alliance has worked reasonably well because the business Republicans have controlled the party’s real, policy agenda, while Trump’s radical rightist agenda provided electoral propaganda. When elements of the radical rightist agenda have actually been implemented, the political results have not been so great for the Republicans.

The Abortion Issue: a Preview

Look, for example, at the abortion issue. As long as Roe v. Wade was in force, the issue worked well for the Republicans, but then Trump fulfilled his promise to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and they did overturn it. The result was to activate millions of women in support of their right to choose whether or not to have abortions. In 2022, the Republicans lost congressional elections, and yesterday, several states where Trump won enacted laws to protect a woman’s right to choose. Republicans split over the issue, but the party did not break up because the business Republicans don't care about the abortion issue. Companies can make money whether or not a woman’s right to choose is protected. 

This Time is Different: Tariffs

This time, Trump campaigned on issues that the business Republicans care about deeply, especially in the deeply Republican states of the Midwest and the Great Plains. One of those issues is tariffs. Trump promised to enact high tariffs on imported products. If he enacts the tariffs, the countries that lose exports to the United States will surely retaliate by putting tariffs on American goods including agricultural products. 

Farmers in places like Iowa, Missouri, Texas or South Dakota know that, and they will not want to lose the profits that come from the export trade, which accounts for about 20% of American agricultural production. So, the farmers along with big, agricultural companies like Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland will oppose the tariffs, and the result will be a deep split in the Republican Party. The tariffs may never be enacted because of Republican opposition. If they are enacted, they will damage the economies of many, Republican states and perhaps drive some big financial supporters of the Republican Party out of business. Whether or not the tariffs are enacted, the Republican Party will be split.

This Time is Different: Deporting Immigrants

The idea of deporting undocumented immigrants will be similarly controversial within the Republican Party. Grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations and automobile dealers in communities that supported Trump will not want to lose a large share of their customers. Dairy farms, slaughterhouses, factories, hotels and construction companies will not want to lose a large part of their work force. (In my state of Wisconsin, most of the large dairy farms would go out of business without their undocumented workers.)

So, a policy of deporting millions of undocumented people will be strongly opposed by influential Republicans in Republican states. If Trump tries to implement the policy (and many think that he will), the party will lose the support of many of its important financial backers. If he does not try to implement the policy, the party will lose the support of an important part of its base. Either way, there will be a crisis in the Republican Party. Meanwhile, Liz Cheney and her allies will be waiting in the wings to take advantage of the crisis when it comes. They will push to take back control of the party, and we will see the effects of their effort in the election of 2026.

Opportunities for Democrats

The split in the Republican Party will create opportunities for Democrats, and local party leaders will be best able to see what they are. However, to take advantage of them, we Democrats will have to think carefully about how we frame the issues, and I will talk more about that in next week's post.

Immigration and Social Justice

Immigration Raises Issues of Social Justice

In a post two weeks ago, I said that a loyal American must favor immigration because it has been and continues to be the basis of our national wealth and power.  Having said that, I think that we must recognize that using immigrants to grow our economy also creates significant social injustice. Immigration has costs, and they are born mainly by working-class people including both the immigrants themselves and native-born, working-class Americans, especially those with less than high-school educations who compete directly with immigrants for jobs. 

The Social Injustices of Immigration Are Important Politically

The social injustices brought about by immigration are important politically as well as morally. The Democratic Party has lost many working-class votes because the party has failed to take working-class concerns about immigration seriously. The MAGA wing of the Republican Party has attracted working-class votes by claiming to be the voice of "real Americans." Immigration is one of the areas where the Democratic Party is most vulnerable. Instead of admitting that immigration can harm some Americans, we have branded people who are anti-immigration as racists. We should not be surprised to learn that we have not attracted many votes that way.

If we are to promote immigration because it is good for our country as a whole, we will have to frame it in a way that recognizes that, while it is good for the country as a whole, it is not always good for everyone. Some people may be harmed by immigration, and we must mitigate that harm. We must also recognize the potential for harm in our framing of the issue of immigration. The framing must address potential harm to two groups of people: immigrants and native-born Americans.

Social Justice for Immigrants

If we are going to rely on immigrants for the growth of our economy, we must include in our framing a path to citizenship for them. Our economy’s need for immigrant workers has attracted a far larger number of people than our legal system can handle. The result is that we now have more than ten million undocumented immigrants living in our country. Some Republican politicians talk loudly about deporting them, but we all know that is unlikely because our economy depends on them. In my home state of Wisconsin, the large dairy farmers who are among the Republican party’s important supporters would go out of business without their undocumented workers.

However, the undocumented status of the workers makes them vulnerable to exploitation by employers. They are paid low wages, and they work under very unsafe conditions. They are afraid to complain because they are afraid of being deported. They are unable to get drivers’ licenses, but in our automobile-dependent society, they must still drive. So, they are vulnerable to harassment by local police.

Some people say that immigrants should enter the United States only in legal ways, but it must be obvious to everyone that our legal system cannot support the level of immigration that our economy demands. Some people ask why the immigrants cannot come in legally as our grandparents and great-grandparents did. The answer is that at the time of the wave of immigration in the early twentieth century, we did not have laws restricting the number of immigrants. Anyone who came was accepted legally. At Ellis Island and other places, the immigrants were sometimes rejected because they carried communicable diseases like tuberculosis but never for lack of proper visas.

It is wrong for us to build an economy on the backs of immigrants while not giving them the right to live in our country and to be treated as native-born workers are treated. It is unjust, and it is un-American. It is un-American because inconsistent with the belief that we are all created equal. We must reform our immigration laws to be consistent with social justice and with our economy's demand for labor, and in addition, we must include a path to citizenship in our framing of the issue. 

Social Justice for Native-Born Workers

While immigration benefits our country as a whole, it has a cost which is born by native-born workers who suffer from competition with immigrants who are willing to work for low wages under unsafe conditions. Workers without high school diplomas are especially vulnerable. The availability of immigrant workers keeps wages low for native-born workers who must compete with the immigrants. The fact that immigrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation weakens the bargaining power of unions and makes jobs unsafe for all workers. Reforms to our immigration system to legalize the status of undocumented workers will help all workers by taking away employers’ opportunities to hire workers who will work for less than native-born workers. In our framing of the issue of immigration, we must talk about preventing native-born workers from suffering.

In addition, we must make sure that our native-born workers are not left behind. To do that, we must provide opportunities for unemployed and underemployed workers to retrain. This means that we should provide free or very cheap post-secondary education and that we should pay generous unemployment benefits and childcare benefits to workers who take advantage of opportunities to retrain. We have a precedent for this in the GI Bill. After WWII, returning veterans were able to obtain education and training at almost no cost, and that contributed to their ability to rise economically during the post-war economic boom. Inequality declined during that period, which saw the height of the American Dream.

Providing free or very cheap post-secondary education also means increasing the tax-support for it. Over the last fifty years, we have shifted the cost of post-secondary education from the taxpayers to the students, and the effect has been to increase inequality because working-class people must take on crippling levels of debt to obtain post-secondary education. This was not always true. In the nineteen fifties, post-secondary education was extremely cheap for the students as I can attest. I attended the University of California from 1958 to 1962, and at that time, the tuition was free, and the fees were $140 per semester. Our framing of the immigration issue must stress the connection between growing our economy on the one hand and providing opportunities for our people on the other.

Social Justice in the Framing of the Immigration Issue

If our framing of the immigration issue is to be effective in appealing to working-class voters, we should stress the idea that immigration is one part of an effort to make our economy work for all Americans. Economic growth can enable us to fund the initiatives to make our country more just. We should stress our commitment to increasing opportunities for all Americans, and we should link our ability to do that to our ability to grow our economy. 

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

 This piece was written by my friend Lisa Weiner.

As a holocaust survivor I never thought I would see the day that someone like Donald Trump would run as a Republican for the greatest office in the world.

I am terribly afraid of the future-the future of my children and grandchildren.

What has happened our country?

It should have been enough when Donald Trump made fun of the disabled reporter

It should have been enough when he maligned Gold Star Mothers

It should have been enough when he told 30,000 plus lies while in office

It should have been enough when he encouraged the January 5 attack on the Capitol.

It should have been enough when he said there are “good people on both sides”

It should have been enough when he maligned John McCain

It should have been enough when he cozied up to Putin and Kim Jong Un

It should have been enough when he allowed children to be taken away from their illegal immigrant parents.

I am a legal immigrant and a proud and grateful citizen of the United States. By maligning illegal immigrants, he is maligning all immigrants who come to this great country to seek a better life.  Our country was built on the backs of immigrants.

Never forget that 6 million Jews and another 5 million ethnic and minority groups and gays were systematically wiped out by Hitler when he was elected to office by millions of people who believed his lies- some of them similar to the ones that Trump tells every day-people who thought he would cure all their ills and make “Germany great again”.  And the world was never the same after that.  The same hateful, divisive and lying rhetoric that is now common among Trump and other leaders of the Republican party is dangerously close to destroying the greatest democracy in the world.

 When is Enough Enough?   

In This Election, We Do Not Want to Be Like the Lady Who Rode on a Tiger

 Is Trump a Fascist?

We are coming down to the wire in our presidential election, and every voter is going to have to make a choice. In making that choice, we must ask ourselves this question: Is Trump is a fascist, and does the answer to that question matter? 

The "fascist" label fits Trump himself very well. Like other fascist leaders, he believes that he embodies the will of the people, and he thinks that because he embodies the will of the people, he can use military force in civil society to suppress or punish his enemies. Since he embodies the will of the people, anything that he does is by definition democratic. He has contested the results of the election of 2020 for the same reason: if he embodies the will of the people, any election that he does not win must by definition be fraudulent. The fascist label also fits the character of his appeal to his base. His campaign is full of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. He mirrors Nazi rhetoric directly when he says that immigrants are poisoning the blood our country,

Can The Republican Party Control Trump's Fascist Impulses?

The Republican Party is not a merely fascist party. It is an electoral coalition based on a tacit bargain between Trump's fascists and the traditional, business Republicans whose money funds the party. They put up with Trump's fascistic appeal because he can bring in votes for Republican candidates who - the business Republicans believe - will be able to enact policies that are friendly to business. The business Republicans have accepted this bargain because they believe that they can control Trump and his base, and they were able to control him in his first term. The main achievement of Trump’s first term was a tax cut that benefited mainly business and the very wealthy. However, Trump now appears to have taken over the party. He is now in control, and there is no predicting how far his fascistic predilections will take us.

We Should Worry

We should worry about this because something very similar happened in Germany in the nineteen thirties. German business leaders supported Hitler because they saw him as a bulwark against Communism.  The German people had been hit hard by the Depression. The German Communist Party was large and strong, and it had strong support from the German labor unions. Moreover, there had been a successful, Communist revolution in Russia only a few years earlier. So, the German business leaders were terrified of communism, and driven by their fear, they supported Hitler in the mistaken belief that he would not really do what he had said he would do. We all know how that turned out.

We now find ourselves in a very similar situation. The business Republicans are supporting a candidate who walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist. They are supporting him because they are betting that he is not really a fascist or that if he is, they can control him. That is a bad bet. It reminds me strongly of a well-known limerick: There was a young lady from Niger/Who smiled as she rode on a tiger/ They came back from the ride/With the lady inside/And the smile on the face of the tiger.

As you vote next week, remember that we don’t want to be that lady. 

Framing Immigration: A Loyal American Must Support Immigration

A Loyal American Must Support Immigration

A loyal American must always support immigration to our country. Anyone who is anti-immigrant is anti-American. If you want to deport our immigrants, you are either very ignorant of the history of our country, or you just hate America. I say this because we became, and we remain the richest and most powerful country in the world because we have always welcomed immigrants.

We Built Our Country With Immigrant Labor

America’s greatness is founded on our hospitality to immigrants. We became a rich and powerful country first by forcing immigration and later by encouraging it. We built our industrial and commercial might using immigrant labor. In 1794, the cotton gin was invented. It made large-scale cotton farming in the American South possible, but we did not have the labor to exploit that possibility. So, through the slave trade, we imported hundreds of thousands of Africans to do the work. We do not usually think of the slaves as immigrants, but they were immigrants who were forced to come here, and a huge share of our country's wealth was created by their labor. Cotton accounted for more than half of American exports before the Civil War, and the wealth created by the cotton trade was later invested in industrial development. We should not be proud of the slavery in our past, but we cannot deny its contribution to our country's wealth.

In the late nineteenth century, the United States was poised to become the world’s greatest industrial and commercial power. We had vast natural resources, endless fertile land and a marvelous water transportation network, but we lacked the labor to develop our industrial capacity. So, we turned again to importing huge numbers of immigrants. Poverty-stricken peasants from all over Europe and China were ready to leave the land that their families had cultivated for centuries to come to the United States.

In the late 1800s, people in many parts of the world decided to leave their homes and immigrate to the United States. Fleeing crop failure, land and job shortages, rising taxes, and famine, many came to the U. S. because it was perceived as the land of economic opportunity. Others came seeking personal freedom or relief from political and religious persecution, and nearly 12 million immigrants arrived in the United States between 1870 and 1900. 

Research tells us that

The large migration of immigrants to North America allowed for a huge rise in the U.S. economy. Lots of factories started up in large cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago. 

Workers Are Needed to Grow an Economy

Why were immigrants necessary for the development of our industrial economy? The answer is that the amount that any economy can produce is limited by the size of its working population. Each worker produces on average a certain amount of goods or services, and the total that is produced in a country must be the sum of all that is produced by its workers. The total amount that is produced in a country is therefore:

The total product produced by an economy = the average product per worker X the number of workers.

We can increase that total in only two ways. First, we can invest to increase the average product per worker, and second, we can bring in more workers. Increasing the average product per worker takes time. So, in the short or medium run, the only way to increase production is to bring in more workers. From 1865 until 1924, we did just that. We encouraged and even promoted immigration, and we became the richest and most powerful country the world had ever seen.

Industrial Countries Have Aging Populations

Today, we and all of the world’s rich, industrial countries face a shortage of workers due to aging populations. As countries industrialize, families become smaller. Women bear fewer children. Today, in every industrial country including the United States, the number of children born to each woman is less than the number required to maintain the current level of the population. So, every industrial country today has a population which is aging, and that means that there are fewer people of working age.  Except in the United States. Our working population continues to grow through immigration, and because of our hospitality to immigrants, our economy can continue to grow. Our economic growth rate is the envy of the world. We outstrip Europe, and we will eventually outstrip China, as well. We can do that only because we have so many immigrants.

With Immigrants, We Can Grow Our Economy and Remain Rich and Powerful

Because of our immigration, we can grow our economy more rapidly than other countries. We can continue to be the world’s richest country, and we can continue to be the leader of the free world. Without our immigrants, we could not do those things. So, if you want to see our country continue to be great, you must be in favor of immigration. If you are anti-immigrant, you are anti-American. Every loyal American must support immigration to our country.

Oppenheimer and the Problems of Today's Politics: A Need For New Framing of Issues

 Was Oppenheimer A Communist?

Was J. Robert Oppenheimer a communist or at least a sympathizer? It hardly matters now, but reading the recent New York Times review of this question reminded me of the anti-communist hysteria of the late 1940s and early 50s. I grew up in that period, and one of my early political memories is of watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on TV. As I read the article, it dawned on me that in some ways today's political atmosphere is similar to the political atmosphere of that time as I remember it.

Both periods may be characterized by extreme political divisions and by political views that are held with almost religious fervor. In those days, the supporters of the anti-communist crusade thought that their opponents were deluded, and the opponents of the crusade believed the same about the crusade’s supporters. People on both sides felt that their opponents were a danger to the survival of democracy in our country. Then as now, the political right used lies and inuendo to make their case to the public, and the left was ill-prepared to counter that strategy effectively.

People's Views Harden

The anti-communist investigations conducted by HUAC and by Joe McCarthy were political circuses designed mainly to further the political careers of the politicians who conducted them. The investigations ruined the careers of many people who were no danger to the security of the United States. Many people knew that, and the result was that all of the investigations' findings were thrown into doubt. Oppenheimer may have been a communist. I don't know, and it hardly matters now, but at the time, it was easy to dismiss the accusation because so many such accusations were known to be false. Attitudes toward HUAC and Sen. Joseph McCarthy hardened into quasi-religious beliefs that have endured until today. Hardly anyone who is old enough to remember the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s and 50s is likely to change his/her views based on new evidence.

The Same Thing Has Happened Today

We can see a similar dynamic at play in the current controversy over the 2020 election. Trump and his supporters have repeatedly claimed that the elections of 2020 were rigged. Numerous investigations have found no evidence of such rigging, but to the believers, that merely proves that the evidence is being covered up by elites or by the deep state. To the rest of us, Trump’s supporters seem either deluded or dishonest. Attitudes toward the question of whether the elections of 2020 were rigged have hardened into quasi-religious beliefs, and hardly anyone is open to changing his/her views. People who are still alive 60 years from now will probably believe just as they do today.

We Cannot Sove Big Problems Because of Ideological Divisions

None of this would matter if it were not for the fact that today as in the early 1950s, intense, ideological conflict has made it hard for us to deal sensibly with real problems. In the 1950s, the anti-communist hysteria made it impossible for us to deal sensibly with crucial issues in foreign policy like the communists’ victory in China or the defeat of the French in Vietnam. We undertook diplomatic and military commitments that led us ultimately into the war in Vietnam and that may soon lead us into another war in the South China Sea.

Today, the intense ideological conflict makes it impossible for us to deal sensibly with a warming world, with our immigration crisis or with the high and rising cost of health care. What is worse is that both sides have interests in maintaining and intensifying the conflict. On immigration, the right mobilizes its troops with visions of rapists and murderers crossing our border, while the left accuses their opponents of racism. Neither side talks about the elephant in the room, which is the millions of undocumented immigrants who have been here for decades. Our discussion of climate change and healthcare are similarly emotional and unproductive.

We Need New Framing To Move Ahead

We will be able to break out of this trap only if we do something that the left did not do in the 1950s. We will have to find new ways to frame our discussions. New frames would provide new perspectives on the key issues that we face. Such new perspectives could be important because while it is rarely possible to change people’s views of an issue through direct argument, it is sometimes possible to get them to see the issue in a new way, and that can cause them to change their positions on the issue. New frames can shake up the electorate and cause it to divide in new ways, and if we can accomplish that, we may be able to find a way around our current ideological impasse.  I have suggested that some of our big issues can be framed in terms of equality of opportunity, but that will not do for everything. I invite my readers to think about suitable frames for the big issues that confront us. The only requirement for a frame is that it must draw on a widely shared moral principle that can be used to drive the discussion in a new direction.

What Happens If We Win?

What Will Happen and What Should We Do?

It is looking very likely that Kamala Harris will win the election in November. There is still a lot of work to do to make her victory a reality, but it seems likely enough that we should ask, “What happens then?” What will the long-term result be, and what should we do?

The Republican Party Will Return to Its Business Roots

If Trump loses, he and his MAGA allies will probably lose control of the Republican Party. Their control of the party has always been based on their ability to bring in votes, and if they cannot do that, they will lose control, which will return to the business interests that controlled the party before Mr. Trump arrived. That will change the way the party presents itself to the voters. With Trump in control, the party has been able to present itself as the party of ordinary working Americans, but without Trump, the party will no longer be able to do that. It will be again the party of business.

The Democratic Party Will Have an Opportunity

The working-class votes that have supported Mr. Trump will be up for grabs. That will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party, but it is not clear that the party will be able to take advantage of the opportunity. To see, what kind of an opportunity the Democrats will have, we must first remember that the working-class voters who support Trump have real, legitimate grievances. 

When Mr. Trump says that “elites” despise the working class and ignore its interests, working-class people know in their bones that he speaks the truth. When he says that he will be a voice for voiceless people, those people flock to his banner. His populist rhetoric has always been a fraud, but for people who feel that our politicians have abandoned them, the fact that he appears to speak for them and to feel their pain is attractive, and it draws them in. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has gotten out of the habit of talking in terms of class interests. We talk about race; we talk about gender; and we talk about age; but we do not talk about class, and we do not address the concerns of working-class people as such. The lack of concern for working-class interests expresses itself in many ways. For example, we enthusiastically support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, but we do not bring nearly the same enthusiasm to the support of a national healthcare system. We worry endlessly about the admission policies of elite universities that serve a tiny number of people, but we do not work seriously to provide a way for a working-class person to acquire a college degree or a technical certification without taking on a heavy burden of debt. We debate intensely the morality of Israel’s war in Gaza, but we do not bring the same intensity to the debate over the minimum wage.

Can Democrats Seize the Opportunity?

If we are to win back the allegiance of working-class voters, we will have to change our priorities and the way that we talk. To find our new priorities we will have to listen carefully to what people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others on the left wing of our party are telling us. We will have to focus on issues of real concern to working-class people. If we do that, we may win back the support of working-class voters. Changing our priorities will not be enough. we will also have to figure out how to frame our proposals in a way that can appeal to the working class. Perhaps, we can use Harris's "Opportunity Economy," as I suggested in an earlier post. 

If we do not focus on the interests of working-class people and learn to frame those interests persuasively, our party will be weakened, and the alienation of the working class will remain a problem for our political system. If working-class people continue to feel that their interests have no voice, they will continue to look for leaders who will speak for them. If they feel that democracy does not work for them, they will support demagogues who promise an alternative that will work for them. 

What We Should Do

If we focus on working-class interests and if we learn how to frame them effectively, we can become the party that we should be. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have made a start with their strong support of labor unions  and with their industrial policies, but much more remains to be done. I wrote about some of the things we can do to make the Opportunity Economy real for our people in an earlier post on this blog.  If we fail to build on what Biden and Harris have done, the working-class alienation that has fed Trump’s power will remain, and another populist demagogue will surely emerge to attract the votes of the alienated and to threaten the survival of our democratic, political system.

The End of the Republican Party We Know?

A Business Party 

Are we seeing the end of the Republican Party as we know it? I think that is very possible because the level of dissension within the party is tearing the party apart. Dissension within a party is nothing new because American political parties have never been ideologically unified. They are electoral coalitions, and as such, they have always been big tents that sheltered groups with very different beliefs and agendas. That works reasonably well as long as the intraparty differences are not too large.

The differences within the Republican Party used to be manageable.  The party has been the party of business at least since the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. The party has been strongly supported by organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the party supported isolationism and opposed the entry of the United States into World War II. However, that changed after the Japanese attack. During World War II and during the Cold War the party supported America’s role as “the leader of the free world.” In that role, we maintained a very large military establishment (“the military-industrial complex”), and we intervened aggressively in countries as diverse as Guatemala, Congo, Iran and Vietnam. Those interventions were all supported by Republicans. 

 A Party Torn by Internal Dissension

Today, Republicans are deeply divided over both domestic policy and foreign policy. On domestic policy, some Republicans are seeking the support of labor unions. In addition, leading Republicans have claimed that our political system is rigged against ordinary people. Some leading Republicans also claim that our elections are not honest.

A party cannot indefinitely be supported by the National Association of Manufacturers and also by major industrial unions. Moreover, a party supported by business cannot indefinitely claim that our political system is rigged against ordinary people. After all, businesses are among the main beneficiaries of our political system. 

On foreign policy, we have the Trump wing of the party returning to something like the isolationist position that Republicans supported before Pearl Harbor. Trump and his supporters claim that we spend too much on defending our allies, who ought to pay for their own defense. At the same time, we have other Republicans claiming that we need to increase our military spending to counter the threat of China in the Western Pacific. Finally, we have election posters everywhere saying that we should elect Mr. Trump as president, and we have Republicans in counties in swing states who are preparing to file legal challenges to the elections in the event that he does not win. At the same time, we have major Republican leaders who have said that they are going to vote for Ms.Harris because Mr. Trump is a danger to our democracy. 

In 2016, the party managed to live with these contradictions by perpetrating a fraud on the American people. Mr. Trump won the election with his populist rhetoric. He claimed to be the voice of American working people, but the biggest achievement of his administration was an enormous tax cut that benefited mainly business and the very wealthy. He got away with this egregious fraud, but he will not be able to do that indefinitely. The people who have supported him will eventually expect him to produce concrete benefits for them in return. 

The party thought that he could get away with supporting conservative economic policies as long as he made good on his promise to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, but that approach has backfired badly. In 2022, the party lost several congressional seats because women mobilized against the Republican candidates, and there is a good chance that the party will lose again this November. From the point of view of the business Republicans, Trumpism has become very costly, and from the point of view of Trump's supporters, the business Republicans are preventing the adoption of policies that might really benefit American working people. Here is an example that appeared only two days ago. Mr. Trump is calling for the impeachment of Vice President Kamala Harris while other prominent Republicans have said publicly that they will vote for her for president. 

The immigration issue is also divisive. On the one hand, we have candidates for president and vice president who have proposed a policy of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. At the same time, the party depends for financial support on the owners of businesses that employ many of those same undocumented immigrants.

What Next?

I do not see how the party's extreme level of internal dissension can be supported indefinitely. Something has to give. If Mr. Trump wins in November, his control of the party will be confirmed, but the party will very likely lose business support because it has ceased to be a party of business. If Mr. Trump loses in November, he will also lose control of the party, but without him, the party will lose much of the working-class support that it now enjoys. Either way, the party will be weakened. I don’t know what will happen after that, but if the Republican Party survives, it will become a very different party.

Baby Bonds in the Opportunity Economy

What Are Baby Bonds?

In last week’s post on this blog, I said that baby bonds are among the things that may be needed to make Kamala Harris’s Opportunity Economy more than a slogan. Since many of my readers may not be familiar with the idea of baby bonds, I want to explain what they are and how they would work.

The idea is that each baby born in the United States would receive at birth a treasury bond that would be held in trust for the child until he or she reaches adulthood. The amount of the bond would depend on the wealth of the child’s family. Children born into wealthy families would receive smaller bonds than children born into poor families. Darity and Hamilton, who originally proposed the idea in 2010, suggested that children in the lowest wealth quartile might receive bonds worth at least $50,000, while children in the highest wealth quartile would receive a much smaller amount.

Each bond would be held in trust for the child until it reached adulthood, and the interest earned would be reinvested. When the child became an adult, the money would then become available to pay for education, to purchase a house or for any other approved purpose. While the bond was held in trust, it would appreciate considerably in value. A $50,000 bond earning 4% interest would be worth a little over $109,000 when the child reached the age of 21.

Why Give Baby Bonds?

The point of giving children baby bonds would be make equality of opportunity more real in the United States. In the United States today, wealth is very unequally distributed, and wealth can be passed on from one generation to the next. It may be passed on directly in the form of assets that are inherited, but it may also be passed on indirectly by paying for education or training. A young woman from an affluent family who wished to become an engineer, for instance, could obtain a degree in engineering without accumulating heavy debts to pay for it, because her family would be able to pay for her education. Her freedom from debt would then enable her to save money to buy a house, to fund her retirement or to pay for the education of her children, who, like their mother, would begin their professional lives without a heavy burden of debt. Thus, the family's wealth would be passed down through the generations.

In contrast, a young woman from a poor family would have to borrow a substantial amount of money to obtain an engineering degree, and the resulting debts would hamper her ability to save all through her life. She would never become as wealthy as her peer who began her professional career without the burden of debt. The poor woman would not be able to pay the full cost of her children's professional education, and so, they, too, would begin their professional lives with heavy burdens of debt. The family's situation would improve but only slowly across several generations.  The point of baby bonds is to eliminate at least some of the disparity between the young woman from an affluent family and the young woman from a poor family and to place them on a more equal footing. Thus, baby bonds would be an important element of the Opportunity Economy.

Some States Are Doing It

The baby bond idea is actually being implemented in some states. Time magazine reports:

In July 2023, Connecticut deposited $3200 into an account for a newborn creating the nation's first ever baby bond. Over the net 18 to 30 years, the effects of time and compounding interest will give that baby up to $24,000 to pay for college, make a down payment on a home, start a business or do other things that will shape her life and build wealth. 

Baby bonds should definitely be a part of the Opportunity Economy.

Making Harris's Opportunity Economy Real

 Harris's "Opportunity Economy" Proposal

At last week’s debate, Kamala Harris presented the idea of an “Opportunity Economy,” as her approach to dealing with our country's serious economic problems. The specific proposals that she presented under that rubric had obviously been carefully chosen to appeal to the tiny minority of “moderate” voters who will decide the election in November and to counter the Republican assertion that she is too “radical.”  The proposals included:

• A tax cut for families with young children
• A tax cut for small-business startups
• A subsidy for first-time home buyers
• A commitment to go fight against price-gouging by businesses

The Proposal Does Not Go Nearly Far Enough

These are all worthwhile things to do, but they are very timid. Two of the proposals rely on tax cuts, which are right out of the Republican play book. Moreover, a tax cut for small-business startups feels suspiciously like trickle-down economics. The idea is that small businesses create jobs and therefore benefit workers. A subsidy for first-time home buyers sounds great, but it will benefit mainly real estate investors. The subsidy will probably drive up housing prices because it will increase the demand for houses without directly increasing the supply. 

Moreover, her discussion of the opportunity economy included no mention of several important issues that are related to making equality of opportunity real for working-class Americans. She said nothing about the cost of health care for working Americans. She said nothing about the way that the cost of childcare prevents working Americans from saving. She said nothing about the fact burden of student debt makes it difficult or impossible for many people to save enough to buy a house. So, her proposals, while worthwhile in themselves, will not be enough to build the Opportunity Economy.

Making the Opportunity Economy Real

In an earlier post on this blog, I argued that several progressive policies can easily be framed as policies to promote equality of opportunity, and everything that I said then fits well under the rubric of the “Opportunity Economy.” If we are serious about the idea of an opportunity economy, we will have to recognize that Harris’s proposals are far from a complete list of the things that need to be done. However, the idea of the "Opportunity Economy" is potentially broad enough to include much that needs to be done if the rubric is to be more than a slogan. Here are a few other things that we could do to turn our economy into a real economy of opportunity.

• Provide affordable childcare: If childcare were more affordable, working-class families would be able to save money to invest in their own and their children’s futures. 
• Forgive student loans and find a way to fund post-secondary education that does not require students to take on heavy debts: If people did not have to shoulder enormous debts to obtain college degrees or other advanced training, their education would bring a higher return, and they would have more money to invest in their own and their children’s futures. 
• Create a decent national health insurance system: If we had a national health insurance system, companies would not have to pay so much for their employees’ health insurance, and in that case, they would be able to pay higher wages which would in turn make it possible for workers to save money to invest in their own and their children’s futures.
• Make sure that abortions are available to those who need them: If abortions were legal in all states, working-class families would not have to fear the economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and could more easily save and invest for a brighter future.
• Provide Baby Bonds for all American Children: Baby bonds would go a long way toward equalizing opportunity across our social classes.

Each of these policies would make a difference by putting money into working-class people's pockets, and the money will enable them to invest in their futures and the futures of their children. Together, these policies would be a revolution in equality of opportunity. They would change the world for working-class Americans, and they might create a real Opportunity Economy. So, let's get on board with Kamala Harris's idea, and let's make sure that it is expanded to include the things that will be needed to make it more than a slogan.

Making Equality of Opportunity Real

What Do Progressive Policies Have to Do with Equality of Opportunity? 

In last week’s post, I said that progressive policies should be framed as policies that restore equality of opportunity in our country. Today, I want to explain why talking that way makes sense. What do things like national health care or affordable childcare have to do with equality of opportunity?

Getting Ahead Takes Money

In order to have equality of opportunity, we must not only eliminate barriers like discrimination based on race or gender. We must also give people the opportunity to acquire the resources needed to invest in their futures.  In order for people to get ahead, they must be able to save money to pay for training or to invest in a business. If people are living paycheck to paycheck and barely getting by, where will they find the money to pay for tuition or to start a business? If they are working two or three jobs just to pay the rent, where will they find the time to go to school?

Working-Class People Lack the Money

Today, we live in a time where a large and increasing share of the national income goes to a small upper class and to a patrimonial middleclass. For working-class people, wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Many people work two or even three jobs and still live paycheck to paycheck. Saving money to invest in a better future has become harder and harder for many people. Young people who come from families in the upper class or the patrimonial middle class have a much easier time acquiring college degrees and marketable skills. We cannot really say that there is equality of opportunity between the upper classes and the working class when the playing field is so steeply tilted against the latter .

Progressive Policies Have Everything to Do With Equality of Opportunity

In order to make opportunity more equal, we have to make it easier for working class people to save the money that they need to invest in their futures, and that is where the link between progressive policies and equality of opportunity may be found: 

• If childcare were more affordable, working-class families would be able to save money to invest in their own and their children’s futures. 
• If people did not have to shoulder enormous debts to obtain college degrees or other advanced training, their education would bring a higher return, and they would have more money to invest in their own and their children’s futures. 
• If we had a national health insurance system, companies would not have to pay so much for their employees’ health insurance, and in that case, they would be able to pay higher wages which would in turn make it possible for workers to save money to invest in their own and their children’s futures.
• If abortions were legal in all states, working-class families would not have to fear the economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. Working-class families could more easily plan for a brighter future.

Each of these policies would make a difference by putting money into people's pockets. Together, they would be a revolution in equality of opportunity. They would change the world for working-class Americans.

Equality of opportunity does not exist for people who do not have and cannot obtain the resources to invest in their futures or in the futures of their children. So, if we want equality of opportunity to be more than an empty promise, we must create the conditions that make equality of opportunity real. In order to create those conditions, we must persuade America's voters that the real purpose of progressive policies is to create those conditions. By framing our policies in terms of equality of opportunity, we can help the voters to see that we can make equality of opportunity real again in our country.

Equality of Opportunity as a Frame For Progressive Ideas

Recognizing a Contradiction 

Equality of opportunity can provide a strong frame for progressive ideas. To see why, we can begin by recognizing that - as I said in last week’s post on this blog - our people are suffering from a crisis of meaning and identity because of a deep contradiction between our values which stress opportunity and achievement and the reality of life in our country. That reality is that the structure of our economy limits opportunity and makes achievement extremely difficult. 

Fortunately, there are policies that would reduce the contradiction by changing the circumstances under which our people live. We can restore equality of opportunity. Things like a national health system or a better way of financing post-secondary education would make success easier by making people’s financial lives more secure. However, implementing such policies will be difficult because the Republican Party is strongly opposed to them.

Framing Our Ideas Using Widely Held Values to Persuade Voters

In order to overcome that opposition, we have to persuade a lot of voters[1] to support the kinds of reforms that we support, and to do that, we must frame our proposals in terms of values that the voters already accept. It has been shown that people vote their values. They do not vote directly for programs or policies; they vote for the values that they believe those programs or policies represent. Successful political appeals make use of values by claiming that certain widely accepted values demand that we enact certain policies. Successful political appeals repeat the claim over and over again in many different contexts until it becomes a part of what “everyone knows.”

We can appeal to the widely held values of fairness, a level playing field and equality of opportunity to frame the policies we support. Here is an example:

We believe that everyone ought to have the same opportunity to succeed, but our system has become rigged against hardworking Americans. Today, the children of rich people have a much better chance of succeeding than regular, hardworking Americans do, and that is unfair. We need to restore a level playing people that gives ordinary folks a chance to succeed, and to do that, we need to provide affordable childcare to give families a chance to get ahead.

Thus, we can counter the Republicans' claim that such a program would be a giveaway that unfairly taxes hardworking people to provide unearned benefits to lazy people.

Repetition is the Key

We need to state this over and over and over until it becomes part of what “everyone knows.” The reason for doing this is to get the voters to see affordable childcare from a new perspective. However, we wouldn't use this framing for affordable childcare only. We would use it in the same way for each of our policy proposals with the result that we would not merely be proposing affordable childcare, national health insurance or forgiveness of student debts. We would be proposing to restore equality of opportunity. We would be proposing to unrig a rigged system.

We Might Really Win

By framing our policy proposals in terms of widely accepted values, we would accomplish two things. First, we would acknowledge the lived reality of working-class Americans. They know that the system is rigged against them, and by framing our policies in terms of equality of opportunity, we would be saying that we understand the unfairness of their lives. Second, we would offer them the possibility that their lives could really be improved. Our narrative would be a believable alternative to the narrative presented by the MAGA Republicans. With such a narrative, we might really open the door to restoring equality of opportunity.

---

[1] We don’t need to persuade everyone. We only need to persuade a small percentage of the voters because elections are won by small margins.

Making Success Possible Again

A Crisis of Meaning and Identity

Our country faces a crisis of confidence and an unspooling of meaning and identity, according to Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. A recent article in the New York Times quotes the Senator saying,

The challenges America faces aren’t really logistical…. “They are metaphysical. And the sooner we understand the unspooling of identity and meaning that is happening in America today, the sooner we can come up with practical policies to address this crisis.

Calling the problem “metaphysical” places it outside of the realm of politics, but maybe the "metaphysical" label hides a more practical reality. Maybe, we can deal with this crisis through political action if we understand its real nature clearly. So, let us dig a little deeper.

The Wreckage of American Neoliberalism

According to Sen. Murphy, the crisis comes from what he calls "the wreckage of American neoliberalism,” but what does that mean? Sen. Murphy identifies neoliberalism as "the idea that barrier-free international markets, rapidly advancing communications technology and automation, decreased regulation, and empowered citizen-consumers are the keys to prosperity, happiness, and strong democracy." In other words, what is good for markets is good for society. 

Murphy says that neoliberalism is no longer tenable. It has become obvious that what is good for markets is not always good for our society. The increasing concentration of wealth and income together with the “unspooling of meaning and identity” show unmistakably that we must find another path, but what exactly is the link between the increasing concentration of wealth on the one hand and the unspooling of meaning and identity on the other?

Our People Are Caught in a Contradiction

The link lies in a contradiction between our ideals and the real structure of our economy. Our ideals emphasize opportunity and achievement as measures of social justice and of human value. We strive to be a society of equality of opportunity, and we encourage our children to base their sense of their worth as human beings on their achievements. Although we never say directly that people who achieve great things are especially admirable human beings, the value our culture places on achievement is clear. We teach our children to admire people who have achieved a great deal.

In addition, we see certain kinds of achievements as basic. A person must stand on his/her own two feet and not depend on others. Parents must be good providers for their children. In old age, parents should not depend on their children. These are ideals that represent the minimum elements of success in our society. Our people measure themselves against these ideals, and inevitably, many see that they fall short.

Moreover, the share of our people who fall short has increased steadily in recent decades because our economy has changed in ways that have made it much harder for people to succeed in terms of these ideals. Wealth and income have become concentrated in a small upper class. Jobs have been shipped to other countries. Housing has become prohibitively expensive for many. And more recently, inflation has eaten away at people’s savings and incomes.

Thus, people are caught in a contradiction between the ideals that they believe in and the reality of their lives. They see that they cannot meet the minimum requirements for success as our society defines it because the structure of our economy makes success impossible for them. In their own eyes, they are condemned to failure by a system that does not allow them to do what they believe that every person ought to do. That contradiction between our ideals and our social reality is the core of the “unspooling of meaning and identity” that Sen. Murphy refers to.

We Can Make Success Possible Again

The good news is that this is an issue we can do something about through political action. We can make success possible again by changing the conditions under which our people live and work. We can provide affordable childcare to make it possible for families to increase their incomes. We can provide a decent healthcare system in which unexpected illness is no longer the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. We can fund post-secondary education in a way that does not require people to take on crippling levels of debt in order to acquire marketable skills. We can support labor unions that work to raise people’s wages. We can in short create a society in which our ideals can be realized.

Vote For Democrats to Make Our Tax System Fairer

Wisconsin's Homeowners Bear a Heavy Property Tax Load

Understanding how the election could affect your property taxes should help you to decide whom to vote for.  Wisconsin’s local governments depend more heavily than those other states on the residential property tax. The reasons for that dependence are complex, but two of them stand out, and they are both things that we can change if we want to. This post is a little wonky, but bear with me. 

Business Property is Undertaxed in Wisconsin

First, residential property bears a disproportionate share of the cost of our local governments because business property does not pay its fair share. Our state’s constitution requires all properties to be taxed at the same rate For example, business properties are taxed at the same rate as residential properties even though business properties produce profits for their owners even when they do not sell the properties. This means that in reality, the value of a business property is not determined solely by its potential sale price, while the value of a residential property is determined by its potential sale price alone. As a result, business properties are undertaxed while residential properties are overtaxed.

Many states deal with this difference by creating different classes of properties for tax purposes, and the rates may differ among classes. Properties may be classified as residential, commercial, agricultural or manufacturing properties. Properties within a class are all taxed at the same rate, but rates may differ between classes. This allows business properties to bear a fair share of the cost of local government. Wisconsin's constitution as interpreted by the state's courts does not allow us to tax different classes of properties at different rates, but we could change that by amending our constitution.

Walker's Tax Cuts Reduced State Aid for Local Governments

The local property tax rate is also affected by the levels of other taxes. In Wisconsin, localities receive funds from Madison, which collects income taxes. The expenses of local government are covered in part by the funds received from Madison, and the rest must be paid by local taxes. Local governing bodies (city councils, school boards etc.) determine the amount of money that needs to be raised through the property tax, and the tax rate is set at the level that allows the needed money to be raised.

The amount that the state can send to local governments depends on the amount that it can collect in income taxes. In effect, the more the state collects through the income tax, the less the localities need to raise through the property tax. Under Gov. Walker, the income taxes paid by our richest residents were reduced, and the reductions in the income tax led to a reduction I the amount that Madison could send to local governments and therefore increased the latter’s dependence on the property tax. Thus, the tax burden was shifted from the very rich (earners of very high incomes) to ordinary homeowners. We could change this situation by repealing Walker's income tax cuts.

We Can Make Our Tax System Fairer

So, if you think that your property tax is too high, you should consider voting for candidates who might change the things that are causing it to be so high. If we elected Democrats, we could amend our state’s constitution to allow the creation of different classes of properties, and we could repeal Walker’s income tax cuts. So, if you think you are paying too much in property tax, you should consider electing Democrats who would consider enacting changes to lighten your property tax burden.

Vote For Democrats to Make Childcare Affordable

 Republicans Contradict Themselves

A recent article in the Post-Crescent showed the cost of childcare in various parts of Wisconsin and made it clear that it is too expensive for many Wisconsinites. An earlier article in the same newspaper informed us that Republicans in Madison had voted down a Democratic proposal to extend Child Care Counts, a program to use state funds to subsidize childcare in our state. This Republican decision contradicts the “pronatalist” position of many Republicans. They proclaim loudly that Americans are having too few children and that they need to have more.

How can anyone support the idea that Americans should have more children and at the same time oppose programs to make it more affordable for families to have children? How can a party that claims to represent the interests of ordinary Americans want to make life more expensive and difficult for them?

Republicans Represent Business

The answer is that the Republican claim to represent ordinary Americans is a fraud. In reality, the Republican Party represents the interests of business as it always has. Businesses benefit when Americans have lots of children because they grow up to become workers. A large supply of workers helps to keep wages from rising, and that is good for businesses. At the same time, businesses benefit from keeping public expenditures low because public expenditures must be paid for with tax revenue, and business people generally oppose high taxes.

So, in the short run, business people oppose programs like Child Care Counts, and the Republican Party – which represents business – opposes those programs, too. In the long run, of course, the opposition to subsidizing childcare will conflict with the desire for Americans to have more babies, but that is a problem for the distant future. So, Republicans are caught in a contradiction. They like the idea that Americans should have more children, but they oppose any program that might make childcare more affordable.

Democrats Support Making Childcare Affordable

Democrats, on the other hand, are clear. We think that childcare should be affordable for families that want to have children, and we think that parents should decide for themselves how many children they want to have. If you agree with this clear and sensible approach, you should vote in November for Democrats to represent you in Madison and in Washington. If you live in Northeast Wisconsin, you can learn about our outstanding, Democratic candidates by going to Fall Election Candidates — Democratic Party of Outagamie County (outagamiedems.org).

Psychologism: the Intellectual Dishonesty of Progressives

What is Psychologism? 

We progressives use “psychologism” as a way to avoid confronting political views that we don’t agree with. It is our preferred form of intellectual dishonesty.  It treats the views of political opponents as symptoms of underlying psychological needs rather than as political views that we ought to take seriously. An example of may be found in a recent article called 'Psychological need for security': Why Trump supporters long for strongman leader (msn.com). The article says,

"Why would people want to live under an authoritarian's thumb?" … It's rooted, experts say, in a psychological need for security — real or perceived — and a desire for conformity, a goal that becomes even more acute as the country undergoes dramatic demographic and social changes. People also like to obey a strong leader who will protect the group — especially if it is the 'right' group whose interests will be protected."

This article locates the base of support for Trump in the psychological needs of his followers. They support Trump because they feel insecure, and he seems to be a strong leader who will protect them.

An explanation of this kind is convenient for progressives because it relieves us of the need to think about any underlying political issues. We don’t have to ask ourselves whether Trump’s followers have legitimate, political grievances. We don’t have to ask ourselves if the members of an entire class of society may legitimately feel that their needs are ignored by both major parties.  We don’t have to confront the possibility that we may have helped to create the situation in which we find ourselves.

The Grievances of the American Working Class

We live in a time of rapidly increasing concentration of wealth and income in a small ruling class and - to a lesser degree - in a patrimonial middle class. A large share of our working class has been shut out of the increasing prosperity of our country. Entire working-class communities in places like Milwaukee or Youngstown have been devastated. Millions of our citizens have legitimate reasons for feeling that our system is rigged against them.

We could listen to the grievances of the American working class. We could say publicly that we too see a rigged system. We could respond with policies in areas like education, housing and healthcare that would alleviate the distress of our working class, and in fact, such proposals have been talked about, but we don’t see the link between those policy proposals and the current, presidential campaign. Instead of hearing what working-class people have to say and focusing our campaign on things that would really help them, we talk about “saving democracy.” It is true that our democracy is in danger, and we really do need to protect it. However, we should not be surprised that such an appeal does not resonate with people who believe that our democracy is already stacked against them. 

The Appeal of Donald Trump

People like Donald Trump and his new running mate J. D. Vance present themselves as the champions of “ordinary” Americans. Their concern for ordinary Americans has, at least until now, been entirely fraudulent, but it has nevertheless drawn a very large following because many people feel that no one else in the political system is interested in them at all. Trump is able to say he is going to clean out our government so that it may again represent the interests of “real Americans.” Progressives see his proposals as attacks on democracy, but his followers see the proposals as necessary steps in the restoration of a democracy that works for them.

What We Must Do

If we want to appeal to white working-class Americans, we must couple the idea of saving democracy with an appeal to the class interests of workers. We must make it clear that we understand that the system as it works today is really rigged against workers of all races. We must show that we offer a path to changing our democratic system to make it fairer, and we must show why Republican populism is fraudulent.  

Bernie Sanders understands what needs to be done. (He is not the only one.) If we want to counter Trump’s appeal effectively, we must offer policies that address their concerns, but that is not all that we should do. We should also stop treating Trump's followers as if they were in some sense psychologically deficient. We should treat what they say not as psychological symptoms but as evidence that points to serious, political problems.  Treating people's concerns as psychological symptoms only confirms their feeling that we look down on them and do not take their concerns seriously.

We must find a way to talk with Trump's followers as equals and to behave as if we were taking them seriously. When we suggest that people’s support for Trump is due merely to their insecurity and not to any legitimate, political concerns, we merely reinforce Trump’s message that we are unconcerned about the problems of “ordinary” Americans. It tells them that he is right when he says that we don’t take their concerns seriously. That is the fatal flaw of psychologism. It alienates people and drives them away from us and away from everything that we say. When we refuse to take seriously the concerns of working-class people, we validate the idea that we don’t care about them and that we look down on them.  We have to stop doing that, and instead, we must take working-class people and their views seriously.

Unmasking a Myth About White Women

A Widely Accepted Lie

A recent article called JD Vance Doesn't Want All Women to Be Trad Wives, Just White Women  makes a typical, progressive mistake. The article's author accepts the lie that decades ago, only black women were poor, while white women all lived comfortable lives as trad wives. The article says that black women have never had the luxury of being trad wives, and that is true as far as it goes. However, it is blatantly and completely false to say that in those days, all or even most white women lived as trad wives. In reality, only upper middle-class women could afford to live that way. Working-class white women have always worked.

I grew up in the nineteen forties and fifties, and I can assure you that in those days, working-class white women worked outside of their homes. Restaurants had waitresses, and supermarkets had women working their cash registers; banks had women working as tellers, and offices had typists. The women in those jobs were practically all white because the racism of the time generally prevented companies from hiring black women.  When I was in school, I was taught almost exclusively by white women. So, the idea that in those days, white women were all trad wives is a lie.

Where Does the Lie Come From?

Why do some people spread this lie about our past? They do so in order to prevent the emergence of class solidarity across racial lines. The lie helps to maintain the idea that white workers are above all white people rather than workers who happen to be white, and by so doing, the lie prevents white workers from seeing that their fate is bound together with the fate of black workers. 

If working-class whites and blacks got together, they could take over the country. They would form an unbeatable coalition, and to prevent that happening, lots of money is invested in the effort to persuade white working-class people that blacks are the enemy. White workers are told that, in the past, they were better off. They are told that their current poverty and insecurity are new things that are due to the encroachments of black and other non-white workers. The lie paints a rosy picture of an imaginary past when all white people were well off, and all white women looked and dressed like the models in magazine ads.

We Must Tell the Truth About Our History

We progressives could offer an alternative picture of our past. We could promote class solidarity by telling the truth about our history, but for reasons that I discussed in an earlier post on this blog, we do not do so. Like the author of the article referred to above, we buy into the view that in the past, all white people were comfortable, and all black people were oppressed. We differ from our political opponents only in saying that we should not return to that past. The truth is that in the past, working-class people of all races were oppressed. Blacks were more oppressed than whites, but focusing exclusively on that difference serves to perpetuate the shared oppression of all working-class people. We must free ourselves from the lie, and we must recognize that we will all rise together, or we will not rise at all.

A Woman's Right to Choose is a Kitchen Table Issue

 A Misleading Distinction

A recent article in the New York Times made a distinction between the abortion issue and “kitchen table issues.” The latter are economic issues like inflation, taxes, the minimum wage or the cost of living. The article dealt with the attitudes of Hispanic men toward a woman's right to choose and said that the idea that a woman should be able to choose for herself is being used successfully to appeal to Hispanic male voters. However, the article suggested that a woman’s right to choose should not be emphasized too heavily because Hispanic men are more concerned about kitchen table issues.

This distinction indicates a failure to see the economic aspect of the abortion issue for working-class Americans. Abortion bans mostly effect working-class women. Rich women have always been able to obtain abortions, and that will not change. Rich women in states where abortions are illegal will be able to travel to other states or to foreign countries, but working-class women will often be unable to do so. Thus, prohibiting abortions affects mainly working-class women.

A Woman's Right to Choose is Especially Important to Working-Class Families

A young working-class woman with no children may have an opportunity to acquire skills and improve her economic situation, but an unwanted pregnancy condemns her to poverty because caring for a child and working to support it leave her no time to improve her skills through education. In contrast, a young woman from a rich family may simply take a semester off from college and then go on to become a lawyer or an accountant.

An unwanted pregnancy affects not only the economic prospects of a working-class woman but also those of her whole family. If she is a single parent, the economic effect of an unwanted pregnancy is obvious, but if she is married and her family loses her income, the effect will still be serious. Thus, the question of a woman's right to choose is clearly a kitchen table issue. Her choice affects the economic well-being of her whole family. 

A Woman's Right to Choose is Especially Important to Immigrant Families

The economic advantage of being able to choose to terminate a pregnancy is particularly important to immigrants and to the children of immigrants are who trying to make a better life for themselves here. They struggle hard against difficult odds to build lives in our country. In one immigrant family I know, the husband works as an auto mechanic, and the wife cleans houses and offices. They have a daughter who recently graduated from high school and has a plan for earning a good living and for using the opportunity offered by our local community college to receive training in her chosen trade.

Her plan is a good one, but an unwanted pregnancy would make it much more difficult to execute. In a family where all of the members are doing all that they can do to get ahead, someone would have to leave work to care for the baby. At best, the young woman’s plan for success would have to be delayed for years. At worst, she might never reach her goal. Thus, the young woman’s decision will have an enormous economic impact on her life and on the lives of all of the members of her family.

A Woman's Right to Choose is a Kitchen Table Issue

So, it makes no sense to separate “kitchen table issues” from the issue of a woman’s right to choose. That right is a kitchen table issue, and we should treat it as such.

A National Shame and How We Can End It

Many Americans Must Move Abroad in Retirement 

On YouTube, you can watch a video called “10 SAFEST & CHEAPEST Countries to live or Retire on Social Security.” The video is aimed at the millions of Americans who are victims of the chintzy retirement system offered by the United States. After working a lifetime, these people cannot afford to live comfortably in their own country.  So, they move to countries where their money goes further.

This situation is a national shame. How can we, the citizens of the world’s richest country, look each other in the face when we know that millions of our fellow citizens cannot afford to live here on the pittance that our Social Security system provides? How did we get here?

How Did We Arrive in This Shameful Position?

We got here by focusing so exclusively on economic opportunity for individuals that we forgot some basic truths about our society or any society. It is true that for exceptionally brave, intelligent and hardworking people, our society offers good opportunities. The opportunities are not really better than those in other countries as we can see from international statistics on social mobility, but the opportunities here are still good. However, the focus on individual opportunity blinds us to some key facts.

First, the exceptionally brave, intelligent and hardworking people are able to raise their economic status only because most other people do not raise theirs. If all of our warehouse workers, uber drivers and grocery checkout clerks decided to become social workers, engineers, computer programmers, teachers or nurses, there would not be enough jobs for them. We cannot all rise. A few of us can rise but only because the rest of us do not rise.

Second, our economy depends on having warehouse workers, uber drivers and grocery checkout clerks. If by some miracle, they were all able to become engineers, computer programmers, teachers or nurses, our economy would collapse. We need people to fulfill those functions. So, a just and equitable society must provide a way for them to age with dignity. A just and equitable society must not depend on their being able to move elsewhere to live. What would we have to do to make our society just and equitable?

What Can We Do?

First, we would have to pay our workers a decent wage. Workers who are underpaid cannot save for retirement Today, many people who work full-time are paid so poorly that they are eligible for food stamps. Companies like Walmart and Amazon are able to pay their workers a pittance because we the taxpayers supplement the workers’ earnings. We should end this form of corporate welfare and raise the minimum wage so that people can save for their retirement.

Second, we must preserve our Social Security system by collecting Social Security taxes at all wage levels. We should not allow the obscenely high salaries at the top of our income pyramid to go untaxed. Reducing benefits is not an option if we want our society to be just and equitable. Social Security is an important part of most Americans’ retirement incomes, and if we want Americans to be able to live comfortably in retirement in the United States, we must make sure that they have sufficient incomes. The fact that many Americans cannot live comfortably in retirement in their own country is a a national shame. Let's put an end to it.

To put an end to our national shame, we must elect people who understand what is needed, and that means that we must elect Democrats in November. The Republicans have made it very clear that if they are elected, they will cut Social Security benefits and make our situation even more shameful. To end our national shame, vote for Joe Biden and turn our Congress blue in November.

What is American Patriotism? Thoughts on the Fourth of July

Commitment to the Founding Idea 

On this fourth of July, I attended a concert of patriotic music at Lawrence University in Appleton where I live. I and the rest of the audience sang the familiar, patriotic songs, and I thought about what it means to be a patriotic American. For me, it begins with a recognition that the United States is my home. I was born and grew up here. I have spent almost all of my life here. My parents were born here, and so were my children. This is my home.

However, the United States is not just a place. It is also an idea – the idea that all people are created equal. We all deserve equal economic opportunities, and we all should be equal before the law. My country was founded on that idea, and for me, a commitment to it is an essential part of American patriotism. I believe that I cannot really be a patriotic American without such a commitment. Moreover, a patriot must recognize that our country has never fully lived up to the idea of equality.  It has not been a reality but an aspiration. We have struggled to make our idea a reality. Over the centuries, we have come closer, but a patriotic American must recognize that there is still much to do.

The Founding Fathers Thought About Equality

The fight against economic inequality occupied a large place in the minds of our founding fathers because they knew that extreme economic inequality was incompatible with democracy. A society of extreme inequality tends to become an oligarchy because the wealthy upper class is able to use its wealth to control the society’s politics. The lower classes then see that they are shut out of the political system, and they lose faith in democracy. They fall prey to demagogues who promise to “be their voice” and to fix a rigged system. Democracy cannot survive in a society with extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth and income.

The founding fathers were born in a society in which most of the wealth was held by a class of hereditary, titled landowners, and in founding their new country, they made sure that it would have no place for a titled nobility. They thought that would be enough to prevent the emergence of extreme inequality because they lived in an agrarian society with a seemingly limitless supply of land and in a time when the inexpensive tools needed for farming were within the reach of most people.

The Struggle Goes on With New Tools

The methods that served the founding fathers in the fight for equality are not sufficient for us today. We live in an industrial and commercial society that has created new ways for hereditary wealth to be accumulated and new barriers to equality. We do not have a titled nobility, but we do have oligarchs, and they present the same danger to democracy as the titled nobility presented in the eighteenth century. 

As patriotic Americans, we must continue the fight against extreme inequality in order to preserve our democracy. Our weapons in this fight will be different from those used by our eighteenth-century ancestors because our world is different from theirs. Just as we cannot defend our country today with eighteenth-century muskets and swords, so we cannot defend our democracy with eighteenth-century policies. We will have to use weapons like a wealth tax or a system of free post-secondary education in order to counteract the tendency for wealth and income to become ever more concentrated. These are things that our founding fathers would not have thought of doing, but they would have understood completely our reasons for doing them. We have not always thought of such policies as patriotic duties, but that is what they are. Our country is an idea as well as a place, and commitment to the idea is an essential element of American patriotism.

As patriotic Americans, we must continue fight against inequality and oligarchy. We will not be the first modern Americans to understand that patriotism demands that we not shrink from the fight. In the early twentieth century, Wisconsin's progressives saw the need to fight against the power of oligarchy The architects of the New Deal saw the need, too. 

On this fourth of July, let us renew our commitment the idea that our country represents. Let us renew our patriotism.