Clinton-Era Official Says Left Should Lead Following Center-Right Failures

[kjwins]

James Bradford "Brad" DeLong is an economic historian who is professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. DeLong served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.


Yet DeLong believes that the time of people like him running the Democratic Party has passed. “The baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left,” DeLong wrote. “We are still here, but it is not our time to lead.”
It’s not often that someone in this policy debate — or, frankly, any policy debate — suggests that their side should lose. So I reached out to DeLong to dig into the reasons for his position: Why does he believe that neoliberals’ time in the sun has come to an end?
The core reason, DeLong argues, is political. The policies he supports depend on a responsible center-right partner to succeed. They’re premised on the understanding that at least a faction of the Republican Party would be willing to support market-friendly ideas like Obamacare or a cap-and-trade system for climate change. This is no longer the case, if it ever were.
“Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they ****ing did not.”
The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

 

[kjwins]

 

[Phys251]

James Bradford "Brad" DeLong is an economic historian who is professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. DeLong served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.


Yet DeLong believes that the time of people like him running the Democratic Party has passed. “The baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left,” DeLong wrote. “We are still here, but it is not our time to lead.”
It’s not often that someone in this policy debate — or, frankly, any policy debate — suggests that their side should lose. So I reached out to DeLong to dig into the reasons for his position: Why does he believe that neoliberals’ time in the sun has come to an end?
The core reason, DeLong argues, is political. The policies he supports depend on a responsible center-right partner to succeed. They’re premised on the understanding that at least a faction of the Republican Party would be willing to support market-friendly ideas like Obamacare or a cap-and-trade system for climate change. This is no longer the case, if it ever were.
“Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they ****ing did not.”
The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

So capitalism and its defenders are the enemy, right? Just launch the Communist revolution and get it over with. /s

 

[MrWonka]

Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

I largely agree, and this is coming from someone who fully supports capitalism. We need to think of this as a negotiation more. For years Liberals have been coming to the table with a fair and reasonable offer right from the start. Whereas Republicans have been demanding way-way-way more than they deserve. The result is there is nothing we can give them that wouldn't be bad for us and good for them. The ignorant public sees negotiate break down and blames both sides cause they don't know any better. They just assume our first offer isn't fair.

I say we come to the table demanding a 70% marginal tax rate. Not necessarily because we want it that high, but because it allows us to negotiate down to 45 or 50%. I say we come to the table with Medicare for all. When we did that in the '90s under Clinton Republicans came back with essentially the ACA. If we tried that again all of a sudden maybe a few small changes to the ACA might get some support.

It's like going to a car dealership or buying a home. You don't start by offering the seller the maximum amount you'll pay. You start with a low ball offer. Make them meet you halfway so that both parties feel like they're getting a deal.

 

[Mycroft]

James Bradford "Brad" DeLong is an economic historian who is professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. DeLong served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.


Yet DeLong believes that the time of people like him running the Democratic Party has passed. “The baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left,” DeLong wrote. “We are still here, but it is not our time to lead.”
It’s not often that someone in this policy debate — or, frankly, any policy debate — suggests that their side should lose. So I reached out to DeLong to dig into the reasons for his position: Why does he believe that neoliberals’ time in the sun has come to an end?
The core reason, DeLong argues, is political. The policies he supports depend on a responsible center-right partner to succeed. They’re premised on the understanding that at least a faction of the Republican Party would be willing to support market-friendly ideas like Obamacare or a cap-and-trade system for climate change. This is no longer the case, if it ever were.
“Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they ****ing did not.”
The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

1. Holy ****!!! This guy is an economist and he thinks Obamacare and cap-and-trade are "market-friendly"???

2. What a shame! Elites don't ever give each other any love.

3. Right. Sounds like he advocates for the ideas of the Bernie - AOC crowd.

 

[MrWonka]

So capitalism and its defenders are the enemy, right? Just launch the Communist revolution and get it over with. /s

I think that is to a certain extent missing the point. We are staking our initial position as moderate. Whereas the Right is staking their position as extreme. The result is that there is no room to negotiate without moving towards the extreme. By starting from a more extreme position on the left we can shift the middle closer to where we want to be. We can pretend we're "compromising" when in reality we're getting exactly what we want. Allow the right to save face and feel like they have won something even though they gave us exactly what we want.

 

[kjwins]

So capitalism and its defenders are the enemy, right? Just launch the Communist revolution and get it over with. /s

Its not Communism, the polices of the progressives are not that much different than those of FDR or IKE.

 

[MrWonka]

1. Holy ****!!! This guy is an economist and he thinks Obamacare and cap-and-trade are "market-friendly"???

Yes, he does. That should tell you how dumbfoundingly stupid your positions are. I suggest you educate yourself on a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. It proves that in many cases markets require third-party regulation to have any chance of reaching optimal results.

 

[kjwins]

1. Holy ****!!! This guy is an economist and he thinks Obamacare and cap-and-trade are "market-friendly"???

2. What a shame! Elites don't ever give each other any love.

3. Right. Sounds like he advocates for the ideas of the Bernie - AOC crowd.

Yes the Overton Window has moved that far right & its time to bring it back to the middle.

 

[TheGoverness]

So capitalism and its defenders are the enemy, right? Just launch the Communist revolution and get it over with. /s

Victory, comrade.

 

[Phys251]

Its not Communism, the polices of the progressives are not that much different than those of FDR or IKE.

You say that and the OP with an avatar of Che Guevara...

 

[kjwins]

You say that and the OP with an avatar of Che Guevara...

My avatar is Frank Zappa mocking Che Guevara. Don't worry everyone makes that mistake.

Read the quote at the bottom of my posts.

 

[Phys251]

I largely agree, and this is coming from someone who fully supports capitalism. We need to think of this as a negotiation more. For years Liberals have been coming to the table with a fair and reasonable offer right from the start. Whereas Republicans have been demanding way-way-way more than they deserve. The result is there is nothing we can give them that wouldn't be bad for us and good for them. The ignorant public sees negotiate break down and blames both sides cause they don't know any better. They just assume our first offer isn't fair.

I say we come to the table demanding a 70% marginal tax rate. Not necessarily because we want it that high, but because it allows us to negotiate down to 45 or 50%. I say we come to the table with Medicare for all. When we did that in the '90s under Clinton Republicans came back with essentially the ACA. If we tried that again all of a sudden maybe a few small changes to the ACA might get some support.

It's like going to a car dealership or buying a home. You don't start by offering the seller the maximum amount you'll pay. You start with a low ball offer. Make them meet you halfway so that both parties feel like they're getting a deal.

There's a world of difference between making your initial offer a 70% marginal tax rate for those making $10 million+, which is what you're suggesting, and insinuating that capitalism itself is the problem, which is what the OP does.

America will never be a socialist country. One of the very few truths that has ever left Donald Trump's mouth.

 

[kjwins]

There's a world of difference between making your initial offer a 70% marginal tax rate for those making $10 million+, which is what you're suggesting, and insinuating that capitalism itself is the problem, which is what the OP does.

America will never be a socialist country. One of the very few truths that has ever left Donald Trump's mouth.

America is a mixed economy of socialism & capitalism. Just what do you think Social Security is?

 

[Phys251]

America is a mixed economy of socialism & capitalism. Just what do you think Social Security is?

That depends on which definition of "socialism" you're using, doesn't it?

 

[kjwins]

That depends on which definition of "socialism" you're using, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm using this one. Like most progressives do.


Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles social democracy has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think that is to a certain extent missing the point. We are staking our initial position as moderate. Whereas the Right is staking their position as extreme.

No, they've been staking OUR POSITION as extreme.
They called Obama a socialist!

The result is that there is no room to negotiate without moving towards the extreme. By starting from a more extreme position on the left we can shift the middle closer to where we want to be. We can pretend we're "compromising" when in reality we're getting exactly what we want. Allow the right to save face and feel like they have won something even though they gave us exactly what we want.

Screw it and screw the Republicans. We tried for twenty-five years to placate them. We should have said "screw it" after twenty-five months.

 

[MrWonka]

There's a world of difference between making your initial offer a 70% marginal tax rate for those making $10 million+, which is what you're suggesting, and insinuating that capitalism itself is the problem, which is what the OP does.

I suggest you try reading the OP again because you clearly didn't understand it. The OP is talking about a Clinton era official who describes himself and people like himself as "market-friendly." He is saying that while more Capitalist Friendly Liberals should let the energy of the Left drive the conversation and the party we should work with them to improve their ideas.

I'm not a big fan of Single Payer Health care I think we can improve upon the ACA, but I'm not worried about Bernie Sanders winning the white house because the odds of him actually getting a single-payer bill through are almost non-existent. When they come up short we're more likely to be able to make piece maker by offering some more reasonable changes instead.

 

[MrWonka]

No, they've been staking OUR POSITION as extreme.
They called Obama a socialist!

Same thing. Obama's position was moderate, but it got labeled socialist. So why not send up a real socialist? That way the more moderate position will again be moderate.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Same thing. Obama's position was moderate, but it got labeled socialist. So why not send up a real socialist? That way the more moderate position will again be moderate.

No it won't. Not according to Trumpians.
You're still believing that there is any hope of reaching out. There isn't.
Trumpians have become fully radicalized extremists, because Trump himself is now fully radicalized.

 

[Phys251]

I suggest you try reading the OP again because you clearly didn't understand it. The OP is talking about a Clinton era official who describes himself and people like himself as "market-friendly." He is saying that while more Capitalist Friendly Liberals should let the energy of the Left drive the conversation and the party we should work with them to improve their ideas.

It's not a bad idea in theory. The problem is when some progressive play the my-way-or-the-highway card, which I have personally witnessed happen.

When you're in the minority, as they are, you have to win hearts and minds before you win votes. This is where they are stuck.

I'm not a big fan of Single Payer Health care I think we can improve upon the ACA, but I'm not worried about Bernie Sanders winning the white house because the odds of him actually getting a single-payer bill through are almost non-existent. When they come up short we're more likely to be able to make piece maker by offering some more reasonable changes instead.

My concern is that single-payer is becoming a purity test on the Left. As if the biggest overhaul to our healthcare system ever and one of the biggest increases in government spending ever is as simple as just taking the White House and ramming it through Congress. I would just assume conduct the entire Space Race overnight, because that's the level of complexity we are looking at.

This is not to say that I oppose single-payer! But if we're going to get there, we had better be realistic about how big this is, how many ways it can go wrong, and how to keep it from going wrong. Republicans will only be there to cheer if that happens, and we cannot let them have that.

 

[Hicup]

Yes, he does. That should tell you how dumbfoundingly stupid your positions are. I suggest you educate yourself on a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. It proves that in many cases markets require third-party regulation to have any chance of reaching optimal results.

It does? Oh this should be good.. Show me how in the world you think that he ever suggested 3rd party intervention produces optimal results. In fact, he publicly stated the reverse to be true, and many papers that have tried to refute his conclusions have been met with much criticism. Criticism that I tend to agree with. These refutations, are often cleverly disguised strawmen, introducing elements not in the parameters of the game, and are, with some thought, easily described. I studied Nash extensively in college, oh way back when, and I use his theories, and subsequent writings in my everyday career with great success. Some might argue (With some degree of credibility) that Nash's Equilibrium, doesn't ever present itself in the macro of social and economic realities, and to that I can at least some of it is true, but the parts where it does, he most certainly would not advocate any 3rd party intervention to produce optimal results.





Tim-

 

[kjwins]

It's not a bad idea in theory. The problem is when some progressive play the my-way-or-the-highway card, which I have personally witnessed happen.

When you're in the minority, as they are, you have to win hearts and minds before you win votes. This is where they are stuck.



My concern is that single-payer is becoming a purity test on the Left. As if the biggest overhaul to our healthcare system ever and one of the biggest increases in government spending ever is as simple as just taking the White House and ramming it through Congress. I would just assume conduct the entire Space Race overnight, because that's the level of complexity we are looking at.

This is not to say that I oppose single-payer! But if we're going to get there, we had better be realistic about how big this is, how many ways it can go wrong, and how to keep it from going wrong. Republicans will only be there to cheer if that happens, and we cannot let them have that.

The studies done so far on single payer shows that the US will save at least 2 trillion to 7 trillion dollars with single payer over our current system in the next 10 years.

There really is no reason not to go with single payer.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The studies done so far on single payer shows that the US will save at least 2 trillion to 7 trillion dollars with single payer over our current system in the next 10 years.

There really is no reason not to go with single payer.

I'd like to see just one of these right wing moguls explain to us why what we're doing right NOW IS affordable (which it isn't) and why they are sure it will remain affordable (which it won't) or at the very least, prove that it will NOT become even MORE unaffordable. (which it most definitely WILL)
If they could prove that what we are doing RIGHT NOW will become substantially CHEAPER in the next ten years, I will eat a MAGA hat dipped in poodle piss.

 

[kjwins]

I'd like to see just one of these right wing moguls explain to us why what we're doing right NOW IS affordable (which it isn't) and why they are sure it will remain affordable (which it won't) or at the very least, prove that it will NOT become even MORE unaffordable. (which it most definitely WILL)
If they could prove that what we are doing RIGHT NOW will become substantially CHEAPER in the next ten years, I will eat a MAGA hat dipped in poodle piss.

LOL

Dam straight man. One of the studies done on media-care for all was done by the Koch funded Mercatus Center. Of course it was to find faults in the plan. But even they said it would save Americans 2 trillion over the next 10 years.

You know what's funny man. These same people have no problem with spending 800 billion a year on the military & BS wars. But healthcare is out of the question.