If you’re wondering why this email appeared in your inbox, it’s probably because you subscribed to my newsletter after reading my article a few weeks ago or because of the socially difficult situation I cornered you into that left you no choice but to adhere to my implicit demands and subscribe. Or possibly a combination of both.
On a more serious note, thank you to everyone who has subscribed so far. I was very pleased with the (half of) one thousand views my last letter got and the amazing responses I received from people. Please consider subscribing if you haven’t already and sharing with anyone you think would be interested.
After releasing the letter three weeks ago, I unsuccessfully attempted multiple times to write new articles but would find that I was taking myself too seriously or not being interesting the way I wanted to. So I have now settled on continuing what I did in my last letter and doing something I know I can do well — criticize.
To be clear, I take no pride in being a critic who will not be satisfied by anything. In the film Birdman, which was also the 2014 Best Picture Oscar winner, there is a fascinating exchange between critic and artist that conveys the level of contempt I have at the position I take in these newsletters:
I don’t have the passion for organizing or canvassing or being part of movements that many of my fellow progressives have. In the context of this scene, I never see myself becoming the soldier who plays an integral role in a collective act, such as an activist driven movement. I’m the guy who's probably criticizing why we’re in the war in the first place. The most I have done is chip in a few dollars to the Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang campaigns, sign up for volunteering and get texts (but never actually volunteer), and buy some stickers. And that was enough for me to add ‘Campaign Volunteer’ to my LinkedIn profile.
For the sake of getting to the point, I will be forthright about why you should keep reading.
To readers on the right:
1. If you want to see a progressive (whatever this means) hate on progressives, read on.
2. If you want to hear Medicare-for-all, Green New Deal, and wealth tax slander, read on.
3. If you don’t know what neoliberalism is, read on.
4. If you like neoliberalism, read on.
5. If you are one of those woke conservatives who doesn’t like neoliberalism, read on.
To readers on the left:
1. If you want a greater understanding of where progressives should go post-Bernie, read on.
2. If you like Medicare-for-all, Green New Deal, and a wealth tax because Twitter told you to, read on.
3. If you are willing to be exposed to criticisms you may not want to hear, read on.
4. If you are not willing to be exposed to criticisms you may not want to hear, unsubscribe, never talk to me again, and recognize that you are a problem.
Hopefully, by addressing the left and the right, labels that encompass every person and their complex sets of beliefs, I will have successfully appealed to the masses.
Labels
Perhaps ironically, I am accusing progressives like myself (see above) of using labels too much. The subtitle of my last article was ‘The problem with the modern liberal, from a fellow liberal,’ which I would probably argue is a mischaracterization of myself and my political beliefs. I know I am not alone in wanting to dissociate from the ‘liberal’ label and while there is an understandable desire for progressives to do so, it is an annoying place of confusion.
One of progressives’ favorite trigger words, neoliberalism, is perhaps why such an adverse reaction to being called liberal takes place. Neoliberalism is the set of politics, economic policies, and philosophies associated with both the Democratic and Republican establishments today. It entails economic liberalization, free trade, deregulation, globalization, reductions in government spending, and so on, which former President Ronald Reagan and former PM Margaret Thatcher pioneered. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (of the UK) were also figureheads for neoliberalism and are often credited with enabling neoliberalism’s infiltration of political parties on the left.
Now tell me how we progressives can put Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (not that they were too far apart ideologically) under the same umbrella of neoliberalism, yet we seemingly have dozens of names for ideologies that no one knows or cares about. Having been called a socialist before, I don’t think the proper response is ‘Oh, I’m actually an eco-libertarian non-identitarian social-democratic syndicalist which is different.’ While I made this term up, I know this because I’ve tried something like it and think it was stupid in hindsight.
A common defense I saw from early articles about Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 would emphasize how he was more of a ‘social democrat’ than a ‘democratic socialist’ rather than actually offer any political analysis. While I understand much of this is reactionary to the red-scare tactics that the center and the right often use, this minor issue speaks more broadly to the kind of pseudo-intellectualism I sometimes see on the left that leans heavier on labels than it does ideas or actual knowledge of things.
I guess I see the appeal of describing all of your ideas in a couple of words — but at the same time, I don’t? We can already see the destructive nature of the liberal and conservative labels in data concerning the growing ideological consistency. In other words, more people have ‘across-the-board’ liberals or conservative views, which speaks to a broader decline in independent thinking.
The other thing labels contribute to is a ‘with us or against us’ attitude. Not only must you ascribe to the correct ideological label that encapsulates everything you think but you must also agree with all of the trademark policy proposals otherwise you cannot call yourself a progressive. There is no discussion at all about governance or what the successful implementation of such policies looks like; it is instead, a question of whether you are philosophically aligned with progressive figures, which has indisputably been successful in creating the modern progressive movement. However, if progressives ever want to advance past merely being a movement they need to begin discussing governance and policy implementation much much more.
Case in point: while I am philosophically aligned with Bernie Sanders, I cannot say I am unequivocally for all of his policies. In fact, sometimes I question whether I have any faith in him at all to govern and implement such policies. While many of his ideas, as I stated in my previous letter, are extremely popular among the public, they fall victim to what I call ‘Yard-Sign Policymaking.’
The Movement that was Neoliberalism
Let’s think back to neoliberalism for a moment. Much like modern-day progressivism, neoliberalism was very much a movement. While it was not people-oriented, it capitalized on Americans’ economic distress with the stagflation situation in the 1970s. Reagan’s campaign legitimately persuaded people that his set of policies would uplift them economically, evidenced by his electoral blowout of Jimmy Carter and his beliefs being shared by many Republicans today.
Behind Reagan, however, there was a coordinated effort by academics such as Milton Friedman and Robert Bork, lobbying groups such as the Business Roundtable, policy think-tanks including the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, donors such as the Koch brothers, as well as technocratic officials who maneuvered their way up to significant positions of power in government even before Reagan’s election took place. This particular group of technocrats, or ‘policy experts,’ included Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, who coined what I’ll call the ‘neoliberal manifesto.’ The principles of this manifesto still saturate the politics of today.
I realize what I just said may borderline sound like a conspiracy theory, so I’ll offer evidence regarding the power this movement still has today. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are still highly influential think tanks, Charles Koch is still alive, influential, and now regretful (?), and Paul Volcker literally advised Barack Obama on legislating Dodd-Frank, Obama’s groundbreaking banking reform (hopefully you sense my sarcasm). Not to mention that all the Supreme Court Justices, liberal and conservative, have voting records that are inspired by Robert Bork’s law and economics philosophy of antitrust inaction and lax enforcement of business regulations. The Business Roundtable also still exists, consisting of the most powerful CEOs, although they have rebranded themselves as not only advancing the interests of shareholders but also ‘stakeholders.’ This rhetorical change excuses them of any maleficence, so excuse my misguided vilification (again, sarcasm).
Now to be fair, my criticism of Paul Volcker does not necessarily hold up considering the ‘Volcker Rule’ provision that he helped create in the Dodd-Frank banking reform was very important in preventing banks from performing risky investment activities and financial speculation with consumers’ deposits. This was really good. However, as of 2020, the Volcker Rule was relaxed to allow for more derivatives trading, which you might be familiar with because it helped bring us the 2008 financial crisis. This was bad.
‘Yard-Sign Policymaking’
While I’m sure if Reagan ran in 2020, one of his campaign interns could easily come up with a creative yard sign for ‘Reaganomics’ or ‘Trickle-Down,’ it’s hard to beat the number of Medicare-for-all, Green New Deal, and taxing the rich yard-signs and car stickers that progressives have sold.
Continuing the parallel with the neoliberal movement, neoliberals were very organized compared to progressives today. They had the governance in place to take over government, largely because all they had to do was reduce it. When the trucking industry was deregulated, we said goodbye to the bureaucrats within the Dept. of Transportation who understood the intricacies of trucking’s role in national supply chains. Setting prices that protect truckers from experiencing very low wages and declines in quality of life now became the responsibility of the trucking companies, who were eager to cut wages and increase profits.
With ‘small government,’ there becomes less democratic governance from officials the people have elected and more undemocratic governance by profit-maximizing firms. The ‘small government’ philosophy has increased government leaders’ reliance on private sector technocrats who often have conflicts of interest rather than experts within the government who have no conflict of interest when it comes to reigning in the private sector.
It’s why Donald Trump who is heavily anti-China was strangely seeking consultation from former Goldman Sachs CEO Gary Cohn who could not oppose Trump’s trade war more. It’s why there are emails between CitiBank’s CEO and Barack Obama’s campaign manager during the 2008 financial crisis, which Citi played a role in creating, exchanging suggestions for what Obama’s cabinet should look like. And it's no coincidence that the CitiBank CEO’s suggestions were exactly who Obama would fill his cabinet with. There is a lack of expertise about the intricacies of topics such as financial markets and trade in Washington, so Presidents go to private sector leaders for consultation. This often means the very people who need to be regulated are tasked with regulating themselves.
Accomplishing something like Medicare-for-all means reversing this phenomenon. I am a strong advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, yet I can’t help but feel unsatisfied with Medicare-for-All advocates’ minimal bureaucratic knowledge about what transitioning to the proposed health care system looks like. In other words — I don’t know how we would do it.
Just as the economic stagflation of the 1970s was a propellant for new economic reform that had a powerful and determined movement behind it, couldn’t the Coronavirus health crisis be a propellant for bold health care reform? The answer seems to be no, and to understand why I advise avoiding blaming the corrupt status quo and perhaps looking inwards.
Medicare-for-all, similar to the Green New Deal, is at best a set of guidelines at best and at worst a paper submission in a college Public Policy class that was procrastinated on. Bernie’s document essentially says ‘You know Medicare, the popular system everyone likes? Let’s expand it to all ages.’ Other than some initiatives about prescription drugs and facts about the evils of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries there is not much else. It is disappointing to me because it is a great idea in my eyes, however, the necessary infrastructure for policy implementation has not been deliberated upon or showcased in any way. Who are the people who understand how to administrate a health care system and where are they in explaining how transitioning would work?
Politicians like Bernie Sanders, who are often community organizers more than technocratic experts on issues, never seem to use the language of healthcare policy administration that makes me comfortable enough to trust their plans for reform. Watching Democratic Primary debates that focused largely on health care policy was a pain, knowing that we were watching a dozen candidates talk intensively about something they don’t know too much about apart from the talking points their overpaid political consultants give them.
The wealth tax is a similar issue. Unlike Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal, the wealth tax explanations I have read are extremely specific and contain the economic verbiage to make me comfortable with its possible implementation. Yet, a convincing case that goes past something you would see on a yard sign is never made by the politicians that endorse it, let alone from the economist who researched it, Emmanuel Saez. But that’s a different story. How can politicians be talking about wealth when some of them such as former HUD Secretary Julian Castro are completely oblivious to what a private equity fund is?
I pick on Julian Castro because he directly faced someone whose livelihood, as a former Toys R Us employee, was ‘destroyed’ because of a private equity fund’s takeover of Toys R Us. Yes, that’s right. Private Equity firms, which are firms that buy out and restructure companies that aren’t publicly traded to make money for themselves, were responsible for the destruction of an integral part of our childhoods: Toys R Us. To keep it short, they did so by taking on debt to purchase the company and then moving the debt off their books and onto Toys R Us.
Matt Stoller, a writer who I profusely enjoy, said something that is extremely relevant to what I’m saying:
‘The left needs to begin speaking in the language of money and power’
To properly debate about wealth or actually understand the economic hardship and inequality experienced by so many, politicians and supporters alike have to familiarize themselves with the jargon of the industries that they are attacking and have a basic understanding of the modern-day movement of capital. This means knowing the difference between mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity, and venture capital. It means grasping how certain financial institutions work, why industries are consolidating, and what antitrust law enforcement looks like. And finally and most importantly, it means acknowledging the adverse economic and political effects of all of these issues on ordinary people.
Hollow Excuses
In both 2016 and 2020, the majority of Democratic voters did not choose to support Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and it should be understood why. Despite a number of polls indicating public support for single-payer healthcare, minimum wage increases, higher taxes on the wealthy, and campaign finance reform, why do progressive candidates fail? While the odds (and donor money) are undoubtedly stacked against them, failures in messaging, a lack of grasp on governance, and a generally obsolete understanding of how some things work should be looked into as answers to this question.
Every time MSNBC blames Russia and sexism for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, you can bet that a progressive will bring up the DNC's corrupt superdelegates process or how Barack Obama apparently made calls to 2020 Democratic Primary candidates to consolidate around Biden against Sanders before Super Tuesday. I have been guilty of this as well. My point is that if progressives are to win the soul of the Democratic Party, we cannot merely mimic how the current Democratic establishment acts and fail to be critical of ourselves.
Thank you for reading all the way through. If you have any feedback or suggestions for topics to write about feel free to reach out, and please consider subscribing and sharing!