In these final campaign days, as the November 5th presidential election draws near, George Packer suggests that there are "three factors that will decide the election." Packer has written about them in a recent article in The Atlantic. Because non-subscribers are quite likely not going to be able to read the article online, let me list those "three factors" right here, and then give you a brief excerpt from Packer's rather extensive article:
The "Three Factors" are: #1 - Working-Class Decline; #2 - Corporate Greed; and #3 - Nativist Anger. Packer explains his thesis this way:
The convergence of working-class decline, corporate greed, and nativist anger will shape next month’s election in places like Charleroi and throughout the Rust Belt. Northwest of town, Pennsylvania’s Seventeenth Congressional District is represented by Congressman Chris Deluzio. He’s a first-term Democrat, having narrowly won in 2022 in a competitive district of farmland, Pittsburgh suburbs, and mill towns along the Ohio River. Deluzio is a 40-year-old Navy veteran and attorney, neatly groomed, polite, and analytical in a way that doesn’t scream “populist.” But he’s running for reelection on the bet that his pro-labor, anti-corporate positions will prevail over the hostility toward immigrants that Trump and other Republicans are stirring up. (The campaign of Deluzio’s opponent, State Representative Rob Mercuri, didn’t respond to my request for an interview.)
“The Wall Street guys bankrolling Trump and my opponent are the guys who devastated these communities,” Deluzio told me as we drove between campaign events. “They tried to strip us for parts for decades. The mills didn’t just leave; they were taken away by an ideology and a set of policies that said cheaper and weaker labor rules and cheaper and weaker environmental rules is what they’re after. Your family’s hard work and sacrifice didn’t matter to these guys.” After a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic chemicals derailed last year in East Palestine, Ohio, just across the state line from Deluzio’s district, he drafted legislation to tighten the regulation of rail freight, which Ohio’s Senator J. D. Vance co-sponsored. The Railway Safety Act, opposed by the Koch political network, is currently stalled by Republicans in both houses of Congress. Even though few of Deluzio’s constituents were directly affected by the spill, it’s the kind of issue that he hopes will distinguish Democrats like him from pro-corporate, anti-regulation Republicans.
Deluzio argued that Trump villainizes new immigrants to distract local people—themselves the descendants of immigrants and legitimately anxious about rapid change in their towns—from the true causes of their pain: monopolistic corporations and the politicians they fund. He acknowledged that the national Democratic Party failed for years to make this case and pursued trade policies that undermined it. An idea took hold that college-educated voters would soon outnumber the party’s old base of a moribund working class. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia,” Senator Chuck Schumer predicted in 2016, shortly before Trump won Pennsylvania, and with it the presidency.
The Biden administration has tried to earn the loyalty of working-class voters with pro-union policies and legislation to create jobs in depressed regions. But people I spoke with in western Pennsylvania seemed to have only a vague idea how the Democratic Party is trying to woo them back. The rising cost of living mattered more to them than low unemployment and new manufacturing and Harris’s tax plans. When underinformed and undecided voters say that they want to hear more details about a candidate’s policies, it usually means they don’t believe that policies will make any difference in their lives. To overcome ingrained skepticism after decades of disinvestment, a politician has to show up, look voters in the eye, shake their hand, and then deliver help—or at least be seen to care enough to try.
As it happens, I have been tuning in to a continuing education course on "Reimagining Democracy," given by way of weekly Zoom sessions by professors who teach at Stanford University. The very day I read The Atlantic article, the course presentations focused on issues of "class," very much addressing the topics outlined in the excerpt from Packer's article that I have just presented.
The professors who are giving that "Reimagining Democracy" course would agree with what Packer has to say. Their analysis, as might be expected, was presented in a more "academic" way, but they, like Packer, believe that many of those living in, and voting in, the various "swing" states really do see that America, and American government, has discriminated against them, shutting down their opportunity to participate in the "American Dream," while making certain that things go well for those they see as "elites."
I asked a question during the online class session which didn't get addressed (since the class session was only one hour long and time ran out). Below is the question I posed to the professors. I think - no matter who wins our presidential election in November - that this question, a question about what I often call "income inequality," must be addressed immediately, as a top priority.
My Question:
Given that the immensely productive United States economy has produced fabulous wealth, but has left many, many Americans far behind economically, educationally, socially, and otherwise, don't we have to take what will probably be pretty dramatic actions to realize the kind of "equality" that has been our national aspiration since the beginning. Given current realities, what about insuring that the economic benefits from our economy are more effectively distributed, because every person in the nation through their work, their labor, and also through their consumption, have helped create the economy that has produced and is still producing such great wealth.
Specifically, shouldn't every company be required to "pay" its workers not only with money, but with an ownership share in the business? Doesn't that make sense, since their work helps make it profitable? And similarly with respect to their consumption. Consider a fantastially successful business like Amazon. Shouldn't every worker and consumer be given an ownership share in the enterprise? Those Amazon workers, and those who are making purchases, are really the ones making that online marketplace so economically successful. It's not all Jeff Bezos!
I often say, "we are all in this together." That phrase is not original with me, but I do think that it "sounds good," and I also think that it happens to be true. Shouldn't our economic arrangements insure that all of us participate in the wealth that our amazingly productive economy creates?
Like I say, I didn't get an answer from the professors during the online class, but you can raise your hand if you think there's an idea there worth pursuing!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!