Regardless of who wins, places or shows in the Iowa caucuses tomorrow, this much is certain. The eventual Democratic nominee will confront two big challenges in the general election: how to unify and energize the party’s progressive and moderate wings while attracting a healthy majority of the nearly 40 percent of voters who consider themselves independents; and how to neutralize or even turn the tables on the opposition’s central argument about the strength of the economy.
No candidate has yet provided a convincing answer to both questions. To be certain, a veritable policy renaissance has broken out among the primary candidates over the past year. But winning a durable governing majority, as opposed to eking out a narrow victory that leaves the country evenly divided and still immobilized on the day’s great issues, will require more than a portfolio of innovative policy proposals. It will require a larger narrative that conveys a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Optimally, this narrative would frame a new governing philosophy that contextualized these proposals as elements of a strategic response to the reasons why American capitalism has gone off the rails during the past generation. Thus far, however, the candidates have focused on the trees — the relative merits of their individual proposals — rather than this forest.
The last two policy revolutions that spawned political realignments in the U.S. — the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution — were achieved by revisiting first principles of American political economy and reformulating them in a way that recast the role of government in the economy — and with it, the terms of political debate — for a generation. A little-noticed development of the campaign thus far is that this Democratic policy resurgence has begun to do just that.
To understand the significance of the pattern that is emerging from these proposals, we need to be reminded that the production of goods and services (GDP) is just a top-line measure of national economic performance, analogous to the way revenues (sales) are commonly considered the top-line measure of business performance and profits are considered the desired bottom-line result.
The bottom-line way societies — people — judge their economy’s success is not GDP growth but, rather, progress in the living standards of their households and communities, i.e., in the lived experience of ordinary families. And yet, as in a business, it is very difficult to grow the bottom line over time without increasing the top line. GDP growth remains vitally important to progress in living standards for the simple reason that it is easier for everyone to receive a larger piece of pie if the entire pie — the national economy — is expanding.
The cultivation of strong, sustained, broad-based socioeconomic progress therefore requires policymakers to adopt such an explicit twin focus. This is particularly true when markets are undergoing substantial liberalization, integration or technological disruption, since these impose increased human costs in the form of dislocation, insecurity and income dispersion. Governments in modern market economies need to adopt a dual economic policy anchor — national income growth and median progress in living standards. Each objective requires conscious policy effort and performance measurement in its own right.
Like a person who can only see through one eye, standard liberal economics suffers from limited depth perception and peripheral vision in managing the performance of economies because it is not conceptualizing, pursuing expressly through policy or measuring national economic performance simultaneously through these two lenses. Rebalancing capitalism in the 21st century and reclaiming it from the clutches of 20th century neoliberalism begins with reconstituting economics, both scholarship and policy practice, so that it focuses at least as much on cultivating the median living standards of nations as the aggregate wealth of nations.
This doctrinal departure from trickle-down economics, which I call level-up economics, is the implicit thread running through the policy platforms of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, both active and recently suspended.
Regardless of whether they self-identify as democratic socialist, progressive or moderate, the candidates have all proposed or endorsed multiple measures to increase direct support to various dimensions of household living standards. These proposals would use government in new ways to improve the social inclusiveness and sustainability of economic growth and prepare people better to navigate the transformation of work.
Without altering the market’s central role in resource allocation, this new Democratic agenda seeks to improve the diffusion of progress in living standards more directly — through strengthened institutions and incentives in such structural policy areas as training, housing, compensation, environment, health, infrastructure, etc.
Business and political leaders commonly describe people as our economy’s most important resource, but they perennially fail to walk this talk by investing adequately in their capabilities and living standards. This reflects the traditional emphasis on boosting investment in physical and financial capital, often through huge, untargeted expenditures of public resources (e.g., across-the-board personal and corporate tax cuts) having, at best, an indirect effect on jobs and living standards. This new level-up approach, by contrast, focuses on increasing direct public and private investment in multiple aspects of the workforce potential and economic security of households. As such, it would structurally (i.e., as part of the growth process itself) improve the capacity of market economies to diffuse the benefits of growth, thereby bringing more of society along on a nation’s upward development journey.
It also would boost growth. Strengthening skills, consumer purchasing power, and business and public investment in the real economy would lift labor productivity, disposable income and aggregate demand. Adapting power, transport, water and industrial infrastructure to the requirements of the Paris climate agreement would boost employment and median incomes. When assessed against the bottom-line metric of national economic success — broad progress in living standards — these would be far more effective uses of additional public expenditures than the cuts in individual, corporate, estate and other capital income taxes that are the mainstay of trickle-down economics. A win-win-win for the economy — higher growth, greater equity and lower risk — becomes possible by viewing it through the bottom-up, people-centered prism of level-up economics rather than the top-down, financial markets-centered lens of trickle-down economics.
This is akin to what AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka calls kitchen-table economics. While unabashedly progressive in the Roosevelt (both TR and FDR) tradition, the kitchen-table framing and people-centered, human-investment focus of level-up economics lends itself to being articulated in the universal vernacular of the typical household’s purchasing power, employment opportunity and economic security, rather than the divisive language of ideology or identity. It also uses the aspirational vocabulary of business managers and entrepreneurs: economic growth and opportunity. As such, it has the potential to galvanize a much larger political coalition than either party or any faction thereof currently commands.
That is the larger significance of the recent Democratic policy renaissance, which is shaping a new type of structural economic reform that is pro-growth as well as pro-equity and pro-sustainability. Indeed, it is pro-growth because it is pro-equity and pro-sustainability. If enunciated properly, it could reframe the terms of political debate for a generation to come, recasting our conception of government’s role in the economy in line with the demands of the digital age and finally carrying us beyond the stale capitalism-vs.-socialism, moderate-vs.-progressive polemics which have dominated political discourse for the past year and past generation.
Richard Samans is a managing director of the World Economic Forum, chairman of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, and member of the International Labor Organization’s Global Commission on the Future of Work. He formerly served as special assistant to President Clinton for international economic policy, as National Security Council senior director for international economic affairs, and as economic policy adviser to Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.). The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are drawn from the research paper, “Level-Up Economics: Beyond the Wealth of Nations.”
10 Must-Read Novels About Asian American Politics – Publishers Weekly
In Ryan Wong’s daring and generous debut novel, Which Side Are You On, Columbia University student Reed informs his parents that he’s dropping out of college and dedicating himself to grassroots organizing—for the past few months, he’s been protesting the killing of an unarmed Black man by an Asian American police officer. He’s adamant to learn everything he can about his Korean mother’s involvement in a Black-Korean coalition in the 1980s, so that he may use it to impress his other activist friends and fuel their current work. But the stories recounted by his mother and the discussions they engender—all carefully laid out in electric, and occasionally heartrending, dialogue between mother and son—start to affect Reed’s clear-cut views, revealing to him the many difficulties of organizing across cultures, and hinting at the importance of empathy and humanity in the effort to fully understand one’s community.
You might not know that “Asian American” is a relatively new term, only about fifty years old. You likely don’t know the term was coined by student leftists to join a coalition of Chicano, Black, and American Indian movements on Bay Area campuses in 1968. You might not think of Asian American Pacific Islanders as political as all, and this is largely because that history has largely been ignored or erased in favor of the tame, assimilationist “model minority” narrative.
Today, as we face intense anti-Asian violence, ongoing U.S. militarism in Asia, rapidly shifting migration patterns, and a crisis of American racial identity, it might help us to examine the political nature of Asian America through some of its most compelling narratives. Here’s a selection of ten novels that expand upon, challenge, and imagine futures for this young identity. They’re stories of rebels and revolutionaries, organizers and outsiders taking histories into their own hands.
This sprawling, 700+ page epic pays tribute to the Asian American Movement that defined this new identity. It was written decades later, but has all of the humor, bite, hope, and surrealism you might expect from a novel of vignettes set in the Bay Area of the 1960s and ’70s—scenes of Black Panthers and young Asian American radicals in a hotel room in Chinatown, of an Alcatraz Island takeover, of free folk concerts in Golden Gate Park, and, of course, of the demonstrations to save that hotbed of organizing and elder care and arts making, the I Hotel.
The narrator of this novel talks to you, but the “you” of it is an ambiguous American who is in Lahore, Pakistan, for unknown reasons—to befriend the narrator, to kill him, or both. Like the confessor in Camus’s The Fall, we get a frank and revealing series of tales, but instead of the existential angst of the judge we have the racial existentialism of the man trying to belong in a world that won’t have him. It’s a reminder that often fundamentalists scorn the very systems in which they once came close to belonging.
Can a novel about Japanese war atrocities in the Philippines be funny? An early scene has protagonist Vince watching a maudlin drama on the airplane back to the Philippines (which he left for the U.S. 13 years before) about a convent during the Japanese invasion. To speak about the unspeakable, you may need the absurdities that pop culture makes possible, the distance of humor. The Manila of Leche is a hazy hell, but also one full of pathos and heart, and it leads Vince exactly where he needs to go.
4. Guerrillas by V. S. Naipaul
What would the Asian diaspora in the Americas be without Naipaul’s Trinidad, which he left to attend Oxford only to revisit again and again in his writing? Guerrillas takes place on an unnamed island on the eve of revolution. Naipaul is one of the original problematic faves—his sexual politics are horrifying, his view of revolution condescending. Yet he’s one of the greats at showing the extreme bifurcations that colonialism and diaspora perform on the human mind, whether the white liberal’s paternalism or the would-be revolutionary’s deluded egoism.
This isn’t an “Asian American” story in the usual sense, but America’s presence is like a long shadow, a bogeyman, an uninvited dinner guest in this kaleidoscopic story of 1950s Manila. In other words, American stories happen anywhere America’s military and political presence rule, and their tacit condoning of the rise of an unnamed dictator and his glamorous first lady form the story’s backdrop. Hagedorn’s sentences bite and her scenes steam with heat as you follow this network of characters asking what they’ll do with their new-found “independence.”
This novel is often remembered as a portrait of a son and his working immigrant father. But it’s also a novel of politics, where some of the most tender and dynamic moments are between the narrator, Henry Park, and the city councilman John Kwang, who he’s assigned to spy on. John is charismatic and idealistic, a foil to Henry’s mercenary pragmatism. One of the crucial plot points revolves around a Korean money circle, or ggeh, one of the main ways Korean businesses survive, but to the U.S. state looks like money laundering. The novel asks what it means to succeed in a country designed to destroy you, to be loyal to people sent to undo you.
7. America Is in the Heart by Carlos Bulosan
Somewhere between novel and autobiography, America Is in the Heart has all the sweep, heroism, and tragedy of the old epics. We follow the narrator, also named Carlos, from his youth in the Philippines to the fields of California to the canneries of Alaska, where, witnessing the brutality against Filipinos by police, bosses, and business owners, he becomes radicalized. He joins socialist and communist groups, organizes with unions, and publishes poetry and essays on his experiences, the culmination of which is this monumental book.
Lee’s father was jailed under the regime of President Sukarno in Indonesia. That traumatic event shows up in Lee’s poetry and is a central feature of this poem-novel-memoir-myth of his family’s migration story. The book is called a “remembrance” and it reads like a dream, or, often, a nightmare, as the ravages of persecution and exile, of otherness and violence, manifest within and between Lee’s family members. History and displacement haunt this prose, every sentence drops like a stone, and the smallest moment sends you reeling to the past.
Dense yet sprawling, this experimental book traces Korean independence martyr Yu Gwansun through the stories of other mythic women martyrs in history. Cha was a visual artist, writer, and performer—a brilliant polymath who was murdered just as this book was published. Dictee shows what a book can be, that it’s capacious enough to contain photographs, verse, myth, and anything else the writer needs to assemble in order to speak about a fractured history.
10. The Hanging on Union Square by H. T. Hsiang
It’s not hard to see why Hsiang had trouble finding a publisher for this oddball novel that reads something like a screenplay or a novel-in-verse but without the respective plot or lyricism that usually accompanies those forms. But he had the foresight to self-publish it in 1935, and it’s a good thing he did, because he offers a portrait of the vibrant and rough life in Greenwich Village through the eyes of Mr. Nut, who becomes politicized by the grind of the down-and-outs. He seems compelled by some manic force, conveyed through the novel’s prose—a heady mix of bohemianism and radicalism pushing the lines forward.
Justin Trudeau says he’s ‘absolutely serene and confident’ he made right decision to invoke Emergencies Act
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ended his testimony at the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act on Friday by saying politics had nothing to do with his government’s decision to invoke the legislation.
“My motivation was entirely about ensuring the safety of Canadians,” he said just before 4 p.m. ET in response to a question from government lawyer Brian Gover.
“My secondary motivation was making sure Canadians continue to have confidence in their institutions and society’s ability to function and enforce the rule of law when it’s not being respected. Politics was not the motivation at all in the invocation of the Emergencies Act.”
Commissioner Paul Rouleau then asked the lawyers for various stakeholders if they had any other questions. When they said they did not, Mr. Rouleau thanked Mr. Trudeau for his testimony, which began just after 9:30 a.m. ET.
“Well, Prime Minister, I am very pleased to be able to tell you we have completed our work for the day with you,” he said.
Earlier Friday, Mr. Trudeau said the threats to Canada’s national security from last winter’s convoy protests were both economic and violent, and before he invoked the Emergencies Act the premiers were unable to suggest any alternative to using the sweeping powers to end the protracted demonstrations.
The Prime Minister was the final witness to testify at the inquiry studying the act’s use. Mr. Trudeau made the ultimate decision to invoke the never-before-used act on his own on Feb. 14, with the goal of ending protests that gridlocked the capital and jammed several border crossings across Canada.
“I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice,” Mr. Trudeau said.
‘Bad humour’ and short fuses: How politicians’ texts played out at the Emergencies Act inquiry
The public inquiry investigating the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act in February has seen a huge number of documents that otherwise would never see the light of day — including politicians’ private texts exposing some embarrassing, and enlightening, conversations.
Politics is a profession prone to carefully crafted statements and rhetoric, so the text messages offered rare insights into the thought process of many key politicians — and a glimpse at tensions between governments.
Here are some of the stand-out text exchanges from the past few weeks.
‘Screwed the pooch’
According to text messages that Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Jason Kenney wrote, the then-premier of Alberta accused the federal government of not caring about the Canada-United States border closure in Coutts, Alta.
Around dawn on Feb. 14, the RCMP arrested more than a dozen Coutts protesters and seized a cache of weapons, body armour and ammunition — just hours before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
According to the messages LeBlanc shared with Transport Minister Omar Alghabra and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino three days earlier, Kenney accused the federal government of leaving the provinces holding the bag on protest enforcement.
The texts were brought up during Mendicino’s testimony and were in documents released by the inquiry this week.
In the texts attributed to Kenney, he also complained about the federal decision to decline Alberta’s request for military equipment that could help remove protesters’ vehicles.
One message said — in an apparent reference to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — that “your guy has really screwed the pooch.”
“Speaking of bonkers,” Alghabra wrote in his text exchange with LeBlanc and Mendicino, apparently in reference to some of Kenney’s texts.
“Totally,” LeBlanc replied.
Ontario’s Sylvia Jones gives a cold response
The commission also got a glimpse of a testy call between Mendicino and Ontario’s solicitor general at the time, Sylvia Jones, about how to handle last winter’s convoy protests. Their conversation apparently included some colourful language.
Mendicino’s chief of staff Mike Jones and Samantha Khalil, director of issues management at the Prime Minister’s Office, discussed wanting Jones at the table during trilateral meetings.
“Can have my boss reach out again [to Sylvia Jones] but last call got pretty frosty at the end when [Mendicino] was saying we need the province to get back to us with their plan,” wrote Jones.
“‘I don’t take edicts from you, you’re not my f–king boss,” the staffer continued, describing Jones’ response.
‘Tanks’ text was a joke – Lametti
Mendicino was party to more than one text conversation that came up during the inquiry. One exchange with Justice Minister David Lametti generated some controversy during the inquiry hearings.
In that text exchange, Lametti told Mendicino he needed to “get the police to move” and secure support from the Canadian Armed Forces, if necessary.
“How many tanks are you asking for,” Mendicino wrote back.
“I just wanna ask Anita how many we’ve got on hand,” he added, referring to Defence Minister Anita Anand.
“I reckon one will do!” Lametti texted back.
During his testimony at the inquiry, Lametti said he wasn’t calling for the deployment of the army and described the exchange as banter with a colleague and a friend.
“There will be occasional attempts at bad humour,” he said.
Lametti calls Ottawa police chief ‘incompetent’
A separate exchange of texts between Lametti and Mendicino appeared during Lametti’s testimony.
In those messages, Lametti shared some criticism of former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly, who resigned during the occupation of the city’s downtown streets last winter.
“They just need to exercise it and do their job,” texted Mendicino, referring to the Ottawa Police Service’s authority to enforce the law.
“I was stunned by the lack of a multilayered plan,” Lametti responded. “Sloly is incompetent.”
While Lametti said he’d now soften his language about Sloly, he told the inquiry he had to move out of his Ottawa residence during the protest to avoid harassment.
“I was frustrated, I have to admit,” he said. “It is frank.”
Trudeau, Blair take aim at Ford
During a private call with then-Ottawa mayor Jim Watson in early February, Trudeau accused Ontario Premier Doug Ford of hiding from his responsibilities as the streets of the nation’s capital were gridlocked by the protest.
The inquiry had access to a readout of that call — which is not an exact transcript of the conversation.
“Doug Ford has been hiding from his responsibility on it for political reasons, as you highlighted,” Trudeau said.
“Important we don’t let them get away from that.”
The prime minister wasn’t alone in criticizing Ford. Text messages from Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair to his chief of staff also shared a few choice words about the premier.
“I am embarrassed for my former profession. And worried for my government which is being made to look weak and ineffective,” Blair, a former Toronto police chief, said in a text message.
“I can’t believe that I’m hoping Doug Ford will save us.”
Government ‘is losing … confidence in OPS’
Politicians weren’t the only ones seeing their private text exchanges aired in public.
A text message from RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki released to the inquiry said the federal government was already losing confidence in the Ottawa police just one week into the massive protest.
The Feb. 5 texts were between Lucki — who was in a meeting with federal ministers at the time — and Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique.
“Trying to calm them down, but not easy when they see cranes, structures, horses bouncing castles in downtown Ottawa,” she wrote.
She also provided insight into the government’s thinking at the time, adding that she or Carrique might be called in if the government invoked the Emergencies Act.
“Between you and I only, (Government of Canada) is losing (or) lost confidence in OPS, we gotta get to safe action (or) enforcement,” Lucki texted Carrique.
In one text exchange with Mendicino’s chief of staff, Serge Arpin, who was chief of staff to Mayor Watson, criticized Blair for saying the lack of enforcement was “somewhat inexplicable.”
“But it is friendly fire from you guys – don’t kid yourself,” Arpin wrote.
In a separate text in the same exchange, Arpin told Mike Jones that the RCMP was “lying to you flat out” about the police resources available.
Arpin told the inquiry that comment was the product of exasperation.
“Extraordinary frustration of having to tell the mayor that our residents who are now onto day 14 or 13 of the demonstration and we’re not seeing any meaningful progress in terms of additional bodies on the ground assisting [the Ottawa Police Service] with the operation,” he testified.
Greater Victoria students create art to promote energy conservation – Sooke News Mirror
Calgary seniors display art with skills acquired during the pandemic – Calgary | Globalnews.ca – Global News
Pesce’s first goal of the season lifts Hurricanes past Flames – Sportsnet.ca
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Search for life on Mars accelerates as new bodies of water found below planet’s surface
Sports24 hours ago
Canadiens @ Blackhawks Top Six Minutes: Dach Friday
Economy24 hours ago
Canada’s Best Credit Cards for 2023
Tech24 hours ago
Apple Watch Series 7 Black Friday Deal: Take $160 Off From Best Buy
Science24 hours ago
NASA capsule at halfway point of test flight
Business24 hours ago
Amazon Canada’s Black Friday sale just got even better
Media24 hours ago
Putin decries media ‘lies’ at meeting with soldiers’ mothers
News24 hours ago
B.C. passes 1st-in-Canada legislation
News24 hours ago
Halifax air crash voice recording can be disclosed in civil case, Supreme Court rules