From Rubinomics to Bidenomics: On the Democratic Party’s Shifting Trade & Industrial Policy
Nov 1, 2024
auto_awesome
Lily Geismer, a historian specializing in the Democratic Party and author of "Left Behind," explains how the Democrats shifted from unionized industries to tech and finance under Clinton's Third Way. Political economist Mark Blyth analyzes the rise and perceived failures of Bidenomics, which aimed to address inequality but faced political backlash. They also discuss the evolving trade policies and the implications of these changes, signaling a departure from the neoliberal consensus that once dominated the party.
Bidenomics represents a shift from Clinton-era neoliberal policies towards a more inclusionary economic approach focused on rebuilding from the middle out.
The historical evolution of U.S. trade policy reflects a backlash against neoliberalism, transitioning towards policies that emphasize domestic industrial revitalization and infrastructure investment.
Despite significant legislative investments, Bidenomics faces skepticism regarding its effectiveness in addressing voter economic concerns and real-world challenges.
Deep dives
The Origins of Bidenomics
Bidenomics emerged as a significant departure from previous economic policies, advocating for a shift from free-market orthodoxy to a more inclusive economic approach. It focuses on rebuilding the economy from the middle out and seeks to address inequality and monopolistic power, aiming to create a balance between public investment and market-driven growth. The origins of this new economic strategy can be traced back to earlier debates within the Democratic Party, particularly contrasting the techno-optimistic views of Robert Reich, who believed in leveraging skills and innovation, against the deficit-focused ideology of Robert Rubin. This historical context sets the stage for understanding how Bidenomics attempts to reshape economic policy in favor of working-class Americans and to foster sustainable growth.
The Evolution of Trade Policy
The episode discusses the evolution of U.S. trade policy, which has shifted from the neoliberal consensus of the 1990s under Bill Clinton to the current frameworks under Biden. Clinton's policies, including NAFTA, were intended to integrate North American economies, but they have faced criticism for contributing to job losses and wage stagnation in traditional manufacturing sectors. As a backlash to these developments, Bidenomics seeks to reframe trade to emphasize domestic industrial policy, infrastructure investment, and the revitalization of American manufacturing. This approach aims for economic synergies while grappling with the complexities of job sustainability and the long-term impacts of global trade agreements.
Bidenomics' Legislative Framework
The framework of Bidenomics includes landmark legislation like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, collectively representing over $2 trillion in investment. These initiatives are designed to rebuild critical infrastructure, promote technological advancements in sectors such as semiconductors, and invest heavily in renewable energy sources. The central theme is utilizing federal investment to stimulate economic growth and create jobs, which is contrasted with past economic strategies that prioritized deregulation and privatization. However, there is skepticism about the execution of these policies, particularly regarding the nation's ability to produce skilled labor and the long-term sustainability of such large-scale investments.
Political Challenges and Perceptions
Despite positive economic indicators, Bidenomics has faced criticism for its inability to resonate with voters, complicating its political effectiveness. Many working individuals continue to struggle with the cost of living and stagnant wages, leading to a disconnect between policies' intent and their on-the-ground realities. Moreover, the Democratic messaging around Bidenomics has been perceived as ineffective, resulting in public skepticism regarding its benefits. Efforts to portray the administration's economic plan have often been overshadowed by prevailing feelings of economic insecurity among voters, leading to the perception that Bidenomics does not adequately address their daily challenges.
Future Directions in Economic Policy
Looking ahead, the discussion centers on the potential directions of economic policy under either a Trump or Harris administration, considering how each might reshape the approach initiated by Biden. The uncertainty around Kamala Harris’ strategies hints at a more business-friendly approach, especially in the realm of corporate regulation, which could steer away from some of the more aggressive antitrust positions of Bidenomics. Similarly, Trump's presidency might bring a return to protectionist measures and a rollback of current policies that aimed to stimulate growth through public investment. Ultimately, the podcast underscores that the trajectory of U.S. economic policy remains contingent upon electoral outcomes and the evolving dynamics of global economic relationships.
This is episode two Cited Podcast’s new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page.
This episode looks at shifting landscape of economic thinking within the Democratic Party. First, historian Lily Geismer, author of Left Behind: The Democrats’ Failed Attempt to Solve Inequality, tells us the story of how the Democrats became captured by the Clintonian ‘Third Way.’ The Third Way argued that economic policy should move away from the sunset industries, like the unionized industrial labour that typically made the Democratic base, and move towards the sunrise industries of tech and finance.
Then, the Biden team came to see this thinking as precipitating the rise of Trumpism. So free-wheeling trade and industrial policy is out, and the Clinton-era neoliberal consensus just is not a consensus anymore–some even claim neoliberalism is dead. Bidenomics replaced it, whatever that is. Yet, Bidenomics was a political dud, and now it looks like it might be on the way out. Where is the US’ economic policy thinking going on November 5th, and beyond? We try to figure that out, with the help of political economist Mark Blyth, author of the forthcoming Inflation: A Guide for Users and Losers.