The Economist takes a look (subscription required) at Democrats’ economic policy and concludes that they’re facing battles. It’s a worthwhile piece, though I think it gives to much credit to Republicans for economic policy (essentially, cut taxes, spend more, and pretend it’s not a problem) and “new ideas” (things which have been on neo-conservative wishlists for a long time). My main gripe though is the way it blames the victim:
On economic policy, as on much else, the Democratic Party is engaged massively in navel-gazing. For years, the dominant economic strain within the party has been Rubinomics—budget discipline, an embrace of globalisation, competence rather than ideology. Although the party’s economic core is still the group that surrounded Bill Clinton, particularly Mr Rubin, many Democrats reckon their recipe for economic success is looking uninspired. They still boast of their fiscal prudence as a contrast to Mr Bush’s recklessness, but worry that fiscal discipline is a less effective rallying cry when, despite huge budget deficits, America’s interest rates remain extraordinarily low. Persistently sluggish job growth and stagnant real wages have also caused many centrists to worry about the consequences of globalisation.
Let me point out the big elephant in the room: the last three elections (2000, 2002, 2004). Under Clinton, Democrats tacked to the center on economic policy. The party establishment and policy types took a lot of heat from the left of the party on NAFTA, and restrained budgets, but the strategy was successful politically and policywise. The Clinton years weren’t without their asset bubble-making, but in general the economic stewardship was sound, and the prosperity reflected it.
Only voters never gave the Democrats credit for it. In 2000, Bush convinced them that they could have a large tax cut without any adverse effect. In 2002 and 2004, not only did the voters put security and foreign policy concerns over domestic, economic ones, they did not respond to any attempt to make the Republicans or the Bush administration powerful. They not only chose 9/11 over economic policy, they chose 9/11 over any consideration of economic stewardship.
Fast forward to today, when policy heads in Democratic circles are trying to convince the grassroots and the political strategists that a centrist economic policy is the way to go. Their main ammunition before was “Hey, you may not agree with these economic ideas, but voters respond to them and want to feel secure that we’re not going to mess up the economy.” But voters haven’t responded, at least not recently. And there’s no guarantee they’ll see the detrimental effects of GOP economic policy as springing from bad decisions. Why shouldn’t disgruntled voices in the party start doubting the centrists?
Policy thinkers and party apparatchiks do have a responsibility to formulate and adopt good policy. But ultimately, the voters are the ones who decide upon it.
No comments have been added to this post yet.