[Mb-civic] Hamiltonian Democrats - Harold Meyerson - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Hamiltonian Democrats
<>
By Harold Meyerson
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 19, 2006; A17

It's come to this: The chief project to restate Democratic economics for 
our time was unveiled a couple of weeks ago, and it's named after the 
father of American conservatism, Alexander Hamilton.

Necessarily, the authors of the Hamilton Project preface their 
declaration with an attempt, not altogether successful, to reclaim 
Hamilton from the right. The nation's first secretary of the Treasury, 
they note, "stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based 
opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and 
recognized that 'prudent aids and encouragements on the part of 
government' are necessary to enhance and guide market forces."

Which is true, as far as it goes. Hamilton believed in balanced budgets 
and in the government's taking an active role to build the 
infrastructure and fiscal climate that business and the nation need to 
succeed -- ideas as alien to the current administration as support for 
collective farms. But Hamilton also feared the common people, dismissed 
their capacity for self-government and supported rule by elites instead.

That might be enough to deter most Democrats from naming their firstborn 
economic revitalization scheme after him, but the authors of the 
Hamilton Project are made of sterner stuff. They include Peter Orszag, 
an estimable Brookings Institution economist; investment banker Roger 
Altman, formerly of the Clinton Treasury department; and, chiefly, 
former Treasury secretary and current Citigroup executive committee 
Chairman Robert Rubin, whose iconic status within the Democratic 
mainstream has waxed as the median incomes of Americans under the Bush 
presidency have waned. Rubin has also become a seal of good housekeeping 
for Democratic candidates seeking money from Wall Street. When Bob Rubin 
talks, Democratic pols don't just listen; they scramble for front-row 
seats and make a show of taking notes.

Much of what Rubin and his co-authors have to say in their statement is 
on the money. Since the mid-'70s, they note, "prosperity has neither 
trickled down nor rippled outward." They acknowledge that recapturing 
broadly shared prosperity in an age of globalization is a daunting 
conundrum. Still, they have some recommendations: Balance the budget (a 
principle they elevate to a fetish). Have the government invest more in 
"education, health care, energy independence, scientific research, and 
infrastructure," since market forces "will not generate adequate 
investments" in such social essentials. Provide compensatory wage 
insurance for the many workers forced to take lower-paying jobs as 
middle-income jobs grow scarcer.

Unfortunately, some of Hamilton's disdain for democracy seeps into their 
statement as well. The problem of "entitlement imbalances is so large," 
they fret, "that the regular political process seems unlikely to produce 
a solution," so they recommend a bipartisan "special process" insulated 
from popular pressures. They also place such traditional Republican 
boogeymen as teachers unions on the list of problems that need to be 
solved. On the other hand, their list of national problems includes 
nothing about a corporate and financial culture that richly and 
reflexively rewards executives who offshore work to cheaper climes and 
deny their American employees the right to join unions.

Indeed, much of their statement amounts to whistling by the 
globalization graveyard. The authors place great stress on improving 
American education -- a commendable and unexceptionable goal, but one 
that may do little to retard the export of our jobs since, as they 
acknowledge, it's increasingly the knowledge jobs that are going to 
India and even China. But then, Rubin was the guy who promoted both 
NAFTA and unfettered trade with China. In a sense, the Hamilton Project 
can be seen as Rubin's sincere but inadequate attempt to grapple with 
the consequences of the policies he championed. Like the side agreements 
to NAFTA, which were advertised as protecting worker rights and 
environmental standards but which in fact did neither, the Hamilton 
Project comes up short on genuine solutions. There's nothing in the 
statement about raising the minimum wage or mandating a living wage; the 
word "unions" is nowhere to be found, though unionizing our 
non-offshorable service sector jobs is the surest way to restore the 
broader prosperity for which Rubin and his co-authors pine.

What the Democrats need is a project that takes as hard a look at 
corporate boardrooms as the Hamiltonians do at teachers unions. For, so 
long as our problem is at least partly American capitalism's 
indifference to American workers, the Democrats won't find a solution in 
the example of Alexander Hamilton or the muffled cadences of Robert Rubin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801176.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060419/8ee08503/attachment.htm