Consider
the following fact: The last time a Republican president created an
average of 1 million jobs a year over the course of his presidency was
nearly three decades ago, under Ronald Reagan. When the the 2016
election comes around, a full 44 percent of voters will have entered the
workforce
after that period of time. Then consider that Barack Obama
has created 7.35 million jobs since
taking office, and will almost certainly cross the million-per-year
threshold. And that, for many Americans, the last time the economy was
working
for them was under Bill Clinton.
As
the chart below (using data from the Economic Policy Institute) shows,
the last time Americans at the bottom of the income distribution had a
raise was during the sustained employment growth under Bill Clinton.
The conclusion? If Democrats want to win the White House, they need to promote a progressive, pro-jobs agenda.
I’ve
previously discussed
the rather large body of research suggesting that not only does the
economy perform better under Democrats, it tends to
perform better for
everyone under Democrats. People of color
do far better in
terms of employment, incarceration and income growth when a Democrat is
in office. The incomes of the poorest tend to increase more rapidly as
well. Both effects are likely tied to two major policies: First,
Democrats tend to preside over lower unemployment rates; and, second,
they are far more likely to raise the minimum wage. There are other
factors at work, of course: I’ve
noted how
market conditioning (things like regulatory policy) can change outcomes
as well. But another major factor is that the key to increasing the
bargaining power of workers and creating a more racially just society is
jobs. And progressive policy creates jobs.
There are several specific factors that explain this.
(1) Liberal governments tend to invest more money in
infrastructure and
education, both of
which bolster growth.
(2) While conservative governments try to maximize growth for the rich by reining in inflation, progressives benefit everyone
by reducing unemployment.
(3) Conservatives
spend a large amount of
their political capital reducing labor force participation among gays,
people of color and women. Conservatives oppose policies that would help
women balance work and family responsibilities, openly sabotage their
economies to discriminate against gays, and pursue policies that
overwhelmingly harm people of color. By doing this, conservative
governments shut out talent and competition, in all probability
harming economic growth: One study
finds that
about one-fifth of the increase in productivity growth between 1960 and
2008 can be explained by the increase in talent from women and people
of color getting jobs they were previously excluded from.
(4) Conservatives pursue policies that increase inequality, which
studies suggest can also slow growth.
(5) Conservatives are less queasy about the influence of money on politics, fostering cronyism that
can undermine growth.
(6) A weak safety net means that
fewer Americans can take entrepreneurial risk, when entrepreneurship is a key factor in bolstering growth.
(7) By creating a winner-take-all economy, conservative governance
reduces social trust necessary for
growth.
(8) By
promoting war and violence abroad, and a bloated military at home,
conservative governments reduce the money available for clean energy,
healthcare, education and tax cuts for the middle class,
which create more jobs. Matt Yglesias
also argues it could increase oil shocks, thereby harming growth.
(9) By promoting an oversized and unregulated financial system, conservative governments make crisis more likely.
Studies also suggest that when the financial sector gets too large it starts to reduce growth.
(10) By reducing upward mobility, conservative governments
reduce growth by leaving millions of opportunity-less youth mired in poverty.
(11) Conservatives are less amenable to more open immigration policies, when
immigration boosts growth.
Whichever
of these factors cause conservative governments to be less effective,
the differences are stark. The chart below shows the average job growth
under each president over the last 75 years.
Bloomberg
examined private sector job growth between
January 1961 and April 2012. Over that period, Republicans have held
the Presidency for 28 years and Democrats for 23. Republican presidents
created 71,000 jobs per month, while Democratic presidents created
150,000. In total, Democrats created 42 million jobs, compared to
Republicans 24 million.
All of this means that Hillary Clinton
should embrace jobs and argue that progressive policies can unleash
economic growth. She should argue that the country needs a proactive
government working with the free market to best promote the interests of
all Americans, not just the rich. As Bob Moser notes in the
American Prospect, the
most successful Democratic candidates have been those who embraced
economic populism rather than a fuzzy centrism. He points to Gary
Peters, the only freshman Democratic Senator, who ran a populist
campaign that targeted the Kochs for their plutocratic policies. Moser
notes that three of unabashed populist progressives — Jeanne Shaheen,
Jeff Merkley and Al Franken — not only won their elections but also won
white working class voters at a time when Democrats nationally lost them
by 30 percentage points.
(Peters
lost the white working class, but only 47 percent to 48 percent.)
Dorian Warren is an associate professor at Columbia and a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute who is leading “
Putting Families First: Good Jobs for All,”
which seeks to put jobs at the center of the political agenda. He
tells Salon via e-mail that a jobs-centered Presidential campaign could
be a political winner: “It is time to embrace a simple but achievable
idea: that government should take action to create millions of good, new
jobs in emerging sectors and ensure these jobs are open and accessible
to all, guarantee decent wages and benefits for all who want to work,
and ensure equity in the labor market for women and people of color.”
Warren
cites research by Celinda Lake showing that three core messages
resonate with Americans across the political spectrum: infrastructure
spending, government investment in green energy and government creating
jobs in high unemployment communities, particularly communities of
color. As the chart below shows, progressive policies are popular with
the Rising American Electorate (African Americans, Hispanics,
millennials, and unmarried women) who veteran pollster Stanley
Greenberg
notes will be more than half of the electorate in 2016.
The
Lake memo also notes that turnout is key to a progressive victory. In
2014, 34.5 percent of the Rising American Electorate who voted Obama for
Obama’s re-election in 2012 stayed home. Mobilizing these voters will
be key.
If Clinton is the nominee, she should emphasize the track
record of Democrats creating and sustaining jobs. Instead of running
away from Obama’s achievements should build on them. She should focus
her message on a strong public sector being necessary for a strong
private sector. By setting the rules for fair play, the government
ensures that those who get ahead do so by creating value, rather than
extracting it. By investing in the next generation, government gives
private companies an educated and highly trained workforce. By ensuring
paid sick leave, childcare and universal pre-k, the government allows
women to bring their skills to creating prosperity. The difference
between conservative and progressive governance is simple: one benefits a
small elite while the other promotes widespread prosperity.
. Follow him on Twitter at
No comments:
Post a Comment