Podcast Summary
Left in Purgatory: Progress and Peril: The left's influence in American politics has grown, but it remains too small and ineffective to enact meaningful change. Understanding why and how to build a broader base is crucial.
The current state of the left in American politics is a double-edged sword. On one hand, there has been significant progress in recent years, with socialist ideas gaining popularity and leftist journals like Jacobin playing a crucial role in shaping the narrative. However, Bhaskar Sankara, the founder of Jacobin, warns against becoming too content with this status quo. The left has enough power to influence discussions but not enough to win elections. The risk, as Sankara puts it, is becoming too large to be completely erased but too small and incompetent to effectively carry out the political program. This "purgatory" state can be dangerous, leading to a sense of self-satisfaction and a lack of progress beyond resistance. The left must understand why it isn't winning and whether its highly ideological appeals to the educated might be preventing it from building a working-class base.
Left's influence vs. execution: The left's maximalist rhetoric and disconnection from the working class base may inadvertently contribute to class dealignment, undermining progress towards equitable policies.
While the left in the United States has gained significant narrative and media power, it lacks the actual power to bring about meaningful change for ordinary people. This discrepancy between influence and execution can lead to dangerous consequences, such as maximalist rhetoric and a disconnection from the working class base. The term "class dealignment" refers to the process of people's political allegiances becoming less tied to their class status. The left's actions, including certain policy demands, may inadvertently contribute to this process, potentially undermining the progress towards more equitable and humane policies. It's crucial for the left to focus on building a strong social base and connecting with people beyond just setting the narrative.
Historical shift in working class political alignment: Working class people's connection to left-leaning parties based on shared goals for wealth redistribution is weakening, leading to disengagement or support for right-wing parties, globally. This shift is due to the disappearing model of growth tied to redistribution, leaving many feeling unrepresented.
The historical alignment of working class people with left-leaning political parties, rooted in their shared goals for wealth redistribution through the creation of welfare states, is shifting. Today, many working class individuals are disengaging from politics or even voting for right-wing parties that do not fundamentally alter wealth distribution. This trend is occurring globally, including in Europe and North America. In the past, working class people had a deep connection to their politicians due to the parties' roots in civil society and trade unions. However, this connection has weakened, and the politicians once in power offered a model of growth tied to redistribution. Now, this model is disappearing, leaving many working class individuals feeling disconnected and unrepresented. As a result, the traditional coalition of the left, made up of those with less economic and cultural capital, is shifting to a coalition of those with more capital, particularly more education and cultural capital. Understanding this historical context can help us grasp the current political landscape and the challenges facing those advocating for redistribution and social justice.
Left Parties' Response to Economic Challenges in Late 20th Century: Left parties adopted neoliberal policies to restore growth and maintain social programs through taxation, broadening their social base. Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign demonstrated the power of an authentic message acknowledging people's struggles, but it's unclear if the left has fully learned from it.
The shift towards neoliberal policies among left parties in the Western world in the late 20th century was a response to economic challenges, particularly slowing growth rates. This economic problem led center-left leaders to give capital more flexibility to restore growth and profitability, while maintaining social programs through taxation. The result was a broadening of the social base for these parties, as they reached out to professionals and other segments of society. The 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign represented a significant change in American politics, with the initial lesson being the power of a message that acknowledges people's struggles as social problems requiring collective solutions. Sanders' success tapped into a desire for a simplified, yet authentic message that resonated with many voters. However, it remains to be seen whether the left has fully learned from this campaign and whether Bernie himself has taken the right lessons forward.
Bernie Sanders' Political Success: Consistent Message and Universal Appeal: Bernie Sanders' political success stems from his consistent message and universal appeal, resonating with various demographics through his calls for economic justice. AOC and other young politicians can learn from his example of connecting with ordinary people.
Bernie Sanders' political success can be attributed to his consistent message and universal appeal, rooted in both older and newer leftist ideologies. Sanders, who came from a new left background, found his winning rhetoric through trial and error and reached ordinary people with his calls for economic justice. His simplicity and clarity resonated with various demographics, despite criticisms that he was repetitive or lacked nuanced discussions on identity. AOC, as a younger politician, offers inspiring rhetoric but may need to refine her language to effectively reach a broader audience, learning from Sanders' example of connecting with ordinary people. The nostalgia for veteran politicians' intuitions and experiences is shared among both moderates and some leftists, recognizing the importance of reaching beyond academic circles to build majorities.
Bernie Sanders' potential challenges in governing with a divided Congress: Despite a potential Democratic majority, Sanders might have faced challenges in governing due to US political system's complexity, but could have brought new energy and progress.
Had Bernie Sanders won the presidency with a 50-50 Democratic senate majority and a slim house majority, he might have faced the same challenges in governing the United States due to its complex political system. However, Sanders could have potentially brought a new energy to American politics by mobilizing the masses and injecting new force into the system when Washington was stuck. He shared this trait with Donald Trump, who also tried to engage his supporters and hold mass rallies. The difficulty in governing the US, particularly when facing opposition from the other party, can lead to a sense of frustration and a feeling of being unable to deliver on promises. Politicians like Biden, Obama, and even Sanders have had to grapple with this issue. Trump, on the other hand, was able to shift blame to external forces, such as the deep state, and not fully own the failures of his administration. Sanders, despite his compromises, has consistently criticized the government and pushed for more progress, even when it falls short of his goals. AOC, too, faces similar challenges as a member of the House majority, trying to balance pragmatism and symbolism while navigating the limitations of her power.
The Role and Effectiveness of AOC vs. Pelosi: Beyond Disruption: While both AOC and Pelosi share similar goals, their distinct political ideologies and rhetoric set them apart. Building a base of support across all working class people requires addressing material economic concerns and recognizing the importance of issues related to race and racism.
The debate around the role and effectiveness of politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) versus more establishment figures like Nancy Pelosi boils down to a question of qualitative difference. While both may share similar goals, the worldviews and rhetoric of democratic socialist politicians like AOC set them apart from liberal politicians. AOC's strategic choices, such as being a registered Democrat and playing ball with party leadership, should be evaluated based on the distinct differences in their political ideologies rather than their level of disruption or intensity. Moreover, a recent survey commissioned by Jacobin revealed that working class voters are attracted to economic messaging but not necessarily more redistributive than other voters. It's essential to acknowledge and address material economic concerns while also recognizing the importance of issues related to race and racism. The goal should be to build a base of support across all races and backgrounds of working class people, rather than relying on the assumption that votes lost in certain areas can be made up for in others. This approach challenges the defeatist way of thinking that dismisses certain areas as deep red states and instead focuses on offering something to these voters.
Understanding the Complexity of Engaging Non-Voters: Effective engagement of non-voters requires tailored rhetoric, relatable language, and organizing efforts. Candidates should address concerns of various voting blocs and prioritize representational politics beyond race, gender, and sexuality, including class.
The belief that nonvoters can be easily mobilized with a radical or socialist message may not be accurate, and effective engagement requires more than just the right words. The survey results showed a preference for candidates with a "working class aesthetic" and relatable language. The challenge of bringing non-voters into the political process is complex, and organizing efforts are necessary. Candidates should tailor their rhetoric to address the concerns of various voting blocs, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach. The Democratic Party and the left have become increasingly educationally polarized, and representation from working class backgrounds is crucial for building a more inclusive movement. The survey results and other evidence suggest that the importance of representational politics extends beyond race, gender, and sexuality to include class. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, for example, had similar appeal due to their working class aesthetic, which highlights the need for candidates who can connect with a diverse range of voters.
Challenges for working-class candidates in the Democratic Party: The Democratic Party's education polarization and weak party structure hinder the representation of working-class candidates, making it difficult for insurgent campaigns to succeed without financial support.
The representation of working-class candidates in political parties, particularly the Democratic Party, is a challenge due to the party's polarization around education and the lack of a strong party structure. This makes it harder for insurgent candidates without access to financial networks to run successful campaigns. Money plays a significant role in politics, and there is potential for large-scale investment in groups focused on working-class candidate recruitment and funding. However, the lack of such organizations at the national level may be due to the risk involved in supporting long-shot campaigns and the influence of powerful unions and established candidates. Ultimately, the ability of the left to win power and deliver on its promises depends on its ability to effectively recruit and support working-class candidates.
U.S. Federalism and Regulation Hinder Infrastructure Development: The lengthy review process and potential for litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act hinder infrastructure development, leading to high costs and inefficiencies. Ideological tensions within the left also result in laws that hinder government action, limiting public transit access for millions.
The complexity of American federalism and the protracted regulatory processes, particularly in infrastructure projects, contribute significantly to the high costs and inefficiencies in building infrastructure in the U.S. This issue is rooted in the National Environmental Policy Act, which has led to a lengthy review process with potential for extensive litigation, instead of expert-led construction with a limited period for public discussion. This situation hinders the development of expertise in building transit and results in a far cry from the large-scale projects achieved in the mid-20th century. The ideological tensions within the left, with some fearing government power and potential capture, have also resulted in laws that hinder government action, leading to the question of the cost of inaction, such as the lack of public transit access for 45% of Americans, disproportionately affecting the poor and rural populations.
The lack of mass membership democracy and strong associational democracy contributes to hidden costs in infrastructure projects: The thick civic democracy and thin associational democracy structure in the US leads to inefficiencies and burdens on workers in infrastructure projects, requiring trust in state experts and strengthening democratic structures to improve implementation and reduce costs.
The lack of mass membership democracy and strong associational democracy in the United States contributes to hidden costs and burdens on American workers, particularly in the context of infrastructure projects. This is due to a thick civic democracy and thin associational democracy structure, where people feel they can only exercise agency through lawsuits or small-scale civil associations, rather than being tied to political parties or unions with real influence. Additionally, the fragmented nature of American democracy, with different regulations at various levels, complicates the implementation of effective infrastructure solutions. The example of New York's congestion pricing legislation illustrates this challenge, as it required federal approval, which was delayed due to political tensions. To address these issues, efforts should be made to build trust in the state and its experts, as well as strengthen mass membership democracy and associational democracy structures. This could lead to more efficient and effective infrastructure projects, reducing hidden costs and improving the lives of American workers.
Stakeholder complexities hinder climate and transit policies: The interplay of various stakeholders, including governments and NGOs, can make it challenging for elected officials to implement policies aimed at addressing climate change and improving mass transit systems, highlighting the need for a clear and cohesive vision and plan for constructing a welfare state.
The complex interplay of various stakeholders, including different levels of government agencies and powerful NGOs, can hinder the implementation of policies aimed at addressing climate change and improving mass transit systems, as exemplified by the congestion pricing issue in New York. From a left perspective, this situation highlights the challenge of elected governments pursuing policies with consequences, even if they are well-intentioned. The Nordic model, which emphasizes state-led planning and investment priorities, could offer a potential solution for creating a more productive and higher-wage society. However, there is a deep tension on the left between centralized and decentralized ways of wielding and checking power. Transit experts argue for more centralization and autonomy for transit agencies to make decisions and improve their decision-making processes. Ultimately, a clear and cohesive vision and plan for constructing a welfare state are crucial for addressing these challenges effectively.
Tension between small d democracy and expert decision-making: Ensure people influence elections, experts are representative, address priority concerns for the poor, and empower and accountable experts to address the tension between small d democracy and centralized decision-making in government.
There is a tension between the desire for small d democracy and the need for expertise and centralized decision-making in government. While some believe that making government more participatory will make it better, others argue that this may not be the case if more centralization and decision-making are required. This tension has long existed and can be addressed by ensuring that people feel they can influence elections and that experts are representative of the communities they serve. However, there is a concern that the current system prioritizes the interests of NGOs and individuals over poor and working-class people. The solution may lie in having better-trained, more empowered, and accountable experts. Additionally, there is a need to create a more diverse social base for the left and make it a working-class movement beyond just educated folks who enjoy discussing lefty ideas.
The role of left-wing writers and publications: Left-wing writers and publications, like Jackman and The Nation, play a crucial role in spreading democratic socialist ideas, but the left needs to evolve beyond election campaigns to engage and mobilize the masses. Recommended reads: Michael Harrington, Eric Hobsbawm, Adolph Reed.
The role of educated left-wing writers and publications, like Jackman and The Nation, is essential in spreading democratic socialist ideas and creating a mainstream politics focused on equality and power distribution. However, to truly make an impact, the left needs to evolve from the lessons of the Sanders campaigns and find ways to mobilize and engage the masses, rather than just relying on election campaigns. Recommended books for further understanding include Michael Harrington's "Socialism Past and Future," Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Extremes," and Adolph Reed's "The South."
The Ezra Klein Show's Collaborative Production Team: A successful podcast requires a dedicated team of individuals, each contributing unique skills in production, fact-checking, music, sound engineering, audience engagement, and executive production.
Intricacy and depth of production behind The Ezra Klein Show. The podcast is a collaborative effort involving several dedicated individuals, each bringing their unique skills to the table. Andy Galvin, Jeff Geld, and Roshay Karma produce the show, ensuring its high-quality content and seamless delivery. Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair fact-check to maintain accuracy and credibility. Isaac Jones creates original music, adding depth and emotion to the episodes. Jeff Geld mixes and engineers, perfecting the sound. Shannon Busta strategizes audience engagement. Aria Noguchi serves as executive producer. Moreover, special thanks are given to Kristen Lin and Christina Sema Russki. This team's collective efforts demonstrate the importance of collaboration and the various roles necessary to create a successful podcast.
