« Electronic Medical Records Will Clean Your House | Main | EHR's »
July 20, 2007
The Chicken and the Edwards
Both The Wall Street Journal and The Economist have just published articles crediting Edwards with setting the policy agenda in the Democratic campaign. Which is partially true. But so much as these tribunes of free market economics are searching for some causal factor in the party's shift towards populism, something they can explain away as a one-time aberration, the reason isn't just Edwards -- it's the facts on the ground.
Edwards' ideas have traction -- and he's advocating them -- because we've had thirty years of median wage stagnation, and inequality is skyrocketing, and health premiums have jumped 80-some percent since 2000, and the subprime lending market just collapsed, and homes are being repossessed, and so on, and so on. For many in America, the economy really isn't very good, and so they're interested in populist solutions, which is spurring one of the mainstream Democratic contenders to become more interested in populist solutions, which is forcing the more establishment candidates to also become more interested in populist solutions.
Edwards is certainly serving a vital role in the transmissions process between base and Obama, as he's credible enough that Obama and Hillary can't cede much ideological ground to him. But to suggest this shift is entirely about the Edwards campaign, rather than about the fact that the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution actually lost ground last year, is to miss the forest for a single tree. The reason his ideas are setting the agenda is that the other candidates think they have broad public resonance. Otherwise, they'd ignore him, and Clinton could just go with whatever mealy incrementalism Mark Penn had dreamt up this month.
July 20, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Also Gore won in 2000 with a largely populist message and even Clinton's 1992 campaign was a mix of populism and DLC ideas. Populism has always been a part of the Democratic party going back to Thomas Jefferson and certainly Andrew Jackson.
Posted by: Ron | Jul 20, 2007 1:13:38 PM
Hear, hear!
What is more scandalous (IMO), is that each candidate has their own proposals on, for instance, health care. So the public is treated to six different Democratic ideas (and probably many more Dem. and Repub. ideas in Congress and the state governments).
If the popular will is to solve the problems by national action, why don't the candidates and leaders in Congress put aside their unique ideas and come up with a Democratic Party Plan for health care? The answer is easy: the proposals are for political affect in an election, not a implementable 'overview' plan that the voters could ratify in an election (a real mandate!). The overview could contain a voter-level amount of information that, if ratified by an election, could be implemented in detail. No hope for this though.
As Ezra says, there are real problems in the economy and society that are subject to potential solution by a real plan from one of the parties (or, Gods willing, the mythical bipartisanship). The voters are listening more than usual, but what they are getting is a confused, non-comprehensive, mishmash of ideas that are debating points rather than a proposal they could understand and reject/accept. They don't get such a plan because the electoral dynamics and lack of knowledge of what the public would support interfere.
The voters are ready. The candidates and the parties are not, and quite likely won't be either.
Hurrumph!
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 20, 2007 1:18:24 PM
"Also Gore won in 2000 with a largely populist message."
Well, his convention speech had a populist message; his campaigns didn't have policies to match. (Something like JRE's last campaign). And it was Gore's convention speech that was blamed for his "loss"--which makes it all the more maddening to the corporatists that populism has come bounding back.
Ezra's right--but only up to a point. Sure, economic inequality has created the demand for certain of JRE's policies. But he's shaping the debate on a wider set of issues: Iraq and global warming, for example. And there's not a huge call from the public for pols to focus on poverty, because there never is--that was on his own initiiative.
More and more it may look as if JRE's platform is logical or even inevitable, a product of circumstance, but there was no reason to believe a year ago that his policies would be as ambitious and far-ranging as they are.
Posted by: david mizner | Jul 20, 2007 1:56:27 PM
It seems perfectly obvious to me. The reason the media doesn't like Edwards is because he's a populist, and the reason they don't like populism is because they are benefiting from the current economic arrangements: they are part of the top 10% that is doing so well. I don't think it's necessarily a conscious choice - I just think they are prisoners of their class.
Posted by: arbitrista | Jul 20, 2007 3:47:26 PM
Ezra writes,
rather than about the fact that the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution actually lost ground last year, is to miss the forest for a single tree.
Your source doesn't make any claims about changes in income "last year." It refers to changes between 2004 and 2005. Real incomes increased for the bottom 90% of households between 2004 and 2005. See the Census Bureau income data.
By the way, the short piece you cite to support your claim (from the EPI, as usual. Do you ever look anywhere else?) is thoroughly confused. The authors describe alleged changes in household income (actually just "real market income"), but the chart they use refers to income for "workers." So is that income for individual workers? Household income for households with at least one worker? Income from work for households with at least one worker? Or what?
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 3:48:59 PM
JasonR, why do you even bother with this sniping? You wouldn't care if the data was incontrovertable. You think that this is the way the system ought to run, winner take all.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 20, 2007 4:18:19 PM
B/c he snares people here with his sheenigans. That's the whole point. Not that he is right or wrong, but that others will spend 50 posts trying to convince him through substantive argument that he is wrong rather than aknowledge what he is. He plays on liberal psychology.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 20, 2007 4:28:13 PM
JasonR, why do you even bother with this sniping?
Pointing out false and unsupported factual claims about income changes for 90% of households is not "sniping."
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 4:50:20 PM
whatever mealy incrementalism Mark Penn had dreamt up this month
Amazing how much some people know about Penn's inner thoughts.
The reason the media doesn't like Edwards
There's no evidence that the media doesn't like Edwards.
Jason, Ezra's source is about income excluding government transfers. Apparently, if you exclude government redistribution, real income for the lower 90% fell.
He plays on liberal psychology.
You mean the desire to give and evaluate reasons and arguments? Shame!
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 4:56:24 PM
sanpete,
Jason, Ezra's source is about income excluding government transfers.
It's not clear what type of income Ezra's source is about. As I said, the text refers to "real market income" for households, which the authors define as "income aside from government transfers," but the chart refers to income of "workers." It is not clear whether the chart refers to income for individual workers or for households with workers, and it is not clear what types of income it includes. The reference to "workers" implies income from work, but that is not consistent with "real market income," which covers all types of income except government transfers. The whole piece is just thoroughly confused, as I said. And to compound the problem Ezra has wrongly cited it to support a claim about the distribution of all income.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:29:24 PM
I agree that the source is unclear and probably confused. But Picketty and Saez have reported that real income for all but the highest quintile has declined or stagnated, and I believe the apparent discrepancy between that claim and the data you cited is due to the government tranfers.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 5:44:12 PM
But Picketty and Saez have reported that real income for all but the highest quintile has declined or stagnated,
Where have they reported this? Show me the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, sanpete. Stop making things up and pretending they are facts.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:48:05 PM
You'll have to look it up yourself, Jason.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 5:53:54 PM
sanpete,
You'll have to look it up yourself, Jason.
No, I don't have it to look it up. It's your responsibility to support your assertions, not mine. Of course, you cannot support your assertion here, can you? Because you are just making facts up out of thin air, like you always do.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 5:58:25 PM
Such sloppy reasoning. I'm sure you can do better than that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 6:02:59 PM
Produce your evidence, sanpete. Stop making things up and pretending they are facts. Stop lying, sanpete.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 6:06:14 PM
And now I'm lying too? Sloppier and sloppier. There are apparently things you care about more than truth, Jason.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 6:08:26 PM
Yes, you're lying, sanpete. You're a habitual liar. You are constantly making things up and pretending they are facts. Several commenters have noted this habit of yours.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 6:11:25 PM
Several commenters have said such things in exactly the same way you do here, with no evidence at all. Apparently makes them feel better. Again, you're showing that truth is subordinate to other things for you here. Otherwise you would accept that your reasoning is faulty and move on. Or you could keep escalating as some do and make inferences about my politics and moral compass as well. I've been compared to Hitler before, so there's still plenty of room for you to move either way without pushing into new territory. Your choice.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 6:19:23 PM
sanpete,
Several commenters have said such things in exactly the same way you do here, with no evidence at all.
Nonsense. You are constantly making things up and pretending they are facts. And you've just done it again here. You just made up your assertion that "Picketty and Saez have reported that real income for all but the highest quintile has declined or stagnated" out of thin air. You're lying yet again. Stop lying, sanpete.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 6:24:07 PM
see what I mean?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 20, 2007 7:01:47 PM
Sanpete,
I believe Jason is just a non-serious troller. Nobody would sound as adamant as he sounds without A LOT of competing facts -- after all, economics can be tricky and it takes a bank of facts to dispute a bank of facts -- not one of which, not to mention a complex of which, he never presents. I would not waste my time getting in a long dispute with him if I were you. You beat me to displaying http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20070328
for him to cut and paste. Typically, he just questions professionally developed info without any factual explanation for his difference of opinion. He sounds like some kid with a quick tongue and too much time on his hands.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Jul 20, 2007 7:06:13 PM
Jason's serious, and makes some excellent comments, often with evidence (as above). I've had some long discussions with him already, which didn't resolve much to his satisfaction, which may be why he's quick to accuse me now. Frustrations build and linger.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 20, 2007 7:30:42 PM
Sorry,
Misplaced the above comment from another post...
...but now that I look more closely it seems it may not have been misplaced after all. I have seen posters like Jason on blogs about more partisan type, more hotly controversial issues. There, bloggers like Jason seem in my opinion to be deliberately scaring away the opposition with a lot of nasty hot air -- for the reason that they deeply wish their side to win but have nothing logical to say -- but are very good at provoking. Economics is too dull to excite that kind of fierce resistance to unwanted facts -- I would think -- so I take Jason for a kid troller. OTH, he could fill the bill of a don't know what to say harasser who is really dedicated to the hopelessly wrong side -- could be. ???
Posted by: Denis Drew | Jul 20, 2007 7:32:37 PM
Denis Drew,
Repeating Ezra's citation doesn't make it any better. Did you read my post of 5:29pm? The chart the authors present does not support the claim about incomes they make in the text of their piece. One is about household income, the other is about income of workers. One is about "real market income," the other is about unspecified income. The whole thing is just sloppy and badly written. Which is pretty much the standard I have come to expect from the Economic Policy Institute.
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but many households have incomes but no workers. And many households, both ones with workers and ones without workers, have incomes from sources other than work and government transfers. Examples of such income include private pension and retirement income (pensions, IRAs, 401ks, etc.), income from interest, dividends, trusts, and annuities. Income from rent and rental property. Income from child support and alimony. Income from family members outside the household. Income from private scholarships, endowments, grants and other educational and research funding. And so on. All of this income needs to be accounted for in any serious analysis of changes in the economic conditions of households and individuals.
As do government transfers, non-income benefits, and the effects of taxes. But Ezra and the EPI ignore those, too.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 20, 2007 7:32:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
