Were it not for the Donald Trump phenomenon, the rise to prominence of Bernie Sanders would have been the story of the 2016 presidential campaign. Both the Trump and Sanders phenomena have taken the out-of-touch mainstream media by surprise, illustrating their ignorance and inability to identify and inform the public of legitimate issues.
The mass media, especially the broadcast media, are guilty of having repeated Republican charges of "class warfare" when this issue was first raised, long before Sen. Sanders declared for the presidency. Rising income inequality has long been statistically evident, but only when enough people expressed outrage did this become worthy of mainstream media legitimacy.
Blue collar manufacturing jobs, long a mainstay for non-college educated workers to achieve middle class status, have been disappearing for decades. The conventional wisdom holds that if unemployment results from manufacturing jobs moving abroad, well, with trade, some gain and some lose. But since the nation as a whole is "better off," international trade is portrayed as a "good thing." I regret that my own profession of economics that holds equity issues beyond their expertise, hence responsibility, has fed into this narrative.
Both Sanders and Trump tapped into voter discontent over these matters, shocking the media, illustrating their ignorance of legitimate issues.
Sanders, long hailing income inequality as a problem, made this a bedrock of his campaign. Trump, with no history of having championed labor, made loss of manufacturing jobs a major point of his campaign.
Although both Sanders and Trump seized upon voter discontent and have some agreement, such as on economic and social costs of international trade, there are significant differences between them in terms of cause and solution of major issues.
At the risk of oversimplification - this is a column, not a Ph.D. dissertation - Sanders sees cause as a "rigged system" favoring Wall Street, and laws regarding business practices, taxes, and high finance favoring the top fraction of one percent of the population. He sees government action as necessary to change the laws and "the system" so that the playing field is leveled. He sees affordable education and guaranteed access to health care as essential, requiring progressive political action.
Trump also claims that it is a "rigged system," but sees immigrants, "stupid, crooked politicians," and government corruption as the problem. He advocates "building a wall," and "draining the swamp in Washington" as the solution. Although he says nothing about including labor in trade negotiations, he insists that he and "smart businessmen" will make smarter trade deals.
Sanders urges more regulation of Wall Street. Trump wants to get rid of the Dodd-Frank Act that attempts to modestly regulate Wall Street.
Sanders favors universal health care. Trump promises to end the existing Affordable Care Act that has provided millions with access to health care they didn't have before.
Sanders favors a higher marginal tax rate for the richest of our population. Trump favors significant reduction of tax rates for those same people.
Sanders supporters include many younger college educated voters who don't anticipate the opportunities of their parents. Trump supporters include many non-college blue collar workers who see themselves as economically insecure, unrepresented, and ignored by establishment politicians and the media.
Sanders is not the Democratic nominee; Secretary Hilllary Clinton is, and readers of this column know that I support her. However, my point here is not to analyze, but to emphasize the challenge faced by whoever is the next president.
When such a large proportion of a nation's citizens becomes angry and discontent, blaming "the system," and losing faith in democratic institutions, a nation becomes dangerously unstable.
Whoever becomes president will have to address issues too long neglected. Either successor to the presidency will need to reach out to those voters - arguably, a majority, who see their futures as uncertain and the system "rigged" against them.
Without excusing the media and politicians for some combination of ignorance and malfeasance, let's throw them a bone, of sorts anyway. There is no simple, all-encompassing solution to issues like income inequality, access to affordable health care, an "equitable" tax system, an agreed-upon balance between regulation and protection of health and the environment, and the economic benefits of international trade vs. the economic and social costs borne by displaced workers.
It's easier for politicians to blame the other side and kick the can down the road than to seek solution. The flak that President Barack Obama and the Democrats are still taking illustrates the political cost of tackling the intractable issue of affordable health care for the working poor and those with pre-existing conditions.
It's easier for the media to resort to what amounts to stenography, reporting what "he said, she said," than to do tough, costly investigative reporting. It was easier and cheaper to report on the rocky rollout of the ACA than for journalists to spend time in emergency rooms of big city hospitals, and report the consequences of a broken health care system.
It's easier and cheaper to repeat the conventional wisdom of international trade than to spend time in neighborhoods in Ohio and North Carolina where the loss of manufacturing jobs has wrought disastrous economic and social costs. It should not have taken the prominence of disaffected and displaced voters as a factor in this election to draw attention of politicians and the media to them.
Exactly what legislation would assist unemployed coal miners, whether the cause of decreased coal demand is alleged "unreasonable environmental regulations," or reduced price of competing natural gas?
How does one make college more affordable if increased government expenditures are "off the table?"
Addressing legitimate issues of the angry and disaffected will be the next president's toughest challenge.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
The mass media, especially the broadcast media, are guilty of having repeated Republican charges of "class warfare" when this issue was first raised, long before Sen. Sanders declared for the presidency. Rising income inequality has long been statistically evident, but only when enough people expressed outrage did this become worthy of mainstream media legitimacy.
Blue collar manufacturing jobs, long a mainstay for non-college educated workers to achieve middle class status, have been disappearing for decades. The conventional wisdom holds that if unemployment results from manufacturing jobs moving abroad, well, with trade, some gain and some lose. But since the nation as a whole is "better off," international trade is portrayed as a "good thing." I regret that my own profession of economics that holds equity issues beyond their expertise, hence responsibility, has fed into this narrative.
Both Sanders and Trump tapped into voter discontent over these matters, shocking the media, illustrating their ignorance of legitimate issues.
Sanders, long hailing income inequality as a problem, made this a bedrock of his campaign. Trump, with no history of having championed labor, made loss of manufacturing jobs a major point of his campaign.
Although both Sanders and Trump seized upon voter discontent and have some agreement, such as on economic and social costs of international trade, there are significant differences between them in terms of cause and solution of major issues.
At the risk of oversimplification - this is a column, not a Ph.D. dissertation - Sanders sees cause as a "rigged system" favoring Wall Street, and laws regarding business practices, taxes, and high finance favoring the top fraction of one percent of the population. He sees government action as necessary to change the laws and "the system" so that the playing field is leveled. He sees affordable education and guaranteed access to health care as essential, requiring progressive political action.
Trump also claims that it is a "rigged system," but sees immigrants, "stupid, crooked politicians," and government corruption as the problem. He advocates "building a wall," and "draining the swamp in Washington" as the solution. Although he says nothing about including labor in trade negotiations, he insists that he and "smart businessmen" will make smarter trade deals.
Sanders urges more regulation of Wall Street. Trump wants to get rid of the Dodd-Frank Act that attempts to modestly regulate Wall Street.
Sanders favors universal health care. Trump promises to end the existing Affordable Care Act that has provided millions with access to health care they didn't have before.
Sanders favors a higher marginal tax rate for the richest of our population. Trump favors significant reduction of tax rates for those same people.
Sanders supporters include many younger college educated voters who don't anticipate the opportunities of their parents. Trump supporters include many non-college blue collar workers who see themselves as economically insecure, unrepresented, and ignored by establishment politicians and the media.
Sanders is not the Democratic nominee; Secretary Hilllary Clinton is, and readers of this column know that I support her. However, my point here is not to analyze, but to emphasize the challenge faced by whoever is the next president.
When such a large proportion of a nation's citizens becomes angry and discontent, blaming "the system," and losing faith in democratic institutions, a nation becomes dangerously unstable.
Whoever becomes president will have to address issues too long neglected. Either successor to the presidency will need to reach out to those voters - arguably, a majority, who see their futures as uncertain and the system "rigged" against them.
Without excusing the media and politicians for some combination of ignorance and malfeasance, let's throw them a bone, of sorts anyway. There is no simple, all-encompassing solution to issues like income inequality, access to affordable health care, an "equitable" tax system, an agreed-upon balance between regulation and protection of health and the environment, and the economic benefits of international trade vs. the economic and social costs borne by displaced workers.
It's easier for politicians to blame the other side and kick the can down the road than to seek solution. The flak that President Barack Obama and the Democrats are still taking illustrates the political cost of tackling the intractable issue of affordable health care for the working poor and those with pre-existing conditions.
It's easier for the media to resort to what amounts to stenography, reporting what "he said, she said," than to do tough, costly investigative reporting. It was easier and cheaper to report on the rocky rollout of the ACA than for journalists to spend time in emergency rooms of big city hospitals, and report the consequences of a broken health care system.
It's easier and cheaper to repeat the conventional wisdom of international trade than to spend time in neighborhoods in Ohio and North Carolina where the loss of manufacturing jobs has wrought disastrous economic and social costs. It should not have taken the prominence of disaffected and displaced voters as a factor in this election to draw attention of politicians and the media to them.
Exactly what legislation would assist unemployed coal miners, whether the cause of decreased coal demand is alleged "unreasonable environmental regulations," or reduced price of competing natural gas?
How does one make college more affordable if increased government expenditures are "off the table?"
Addressing legitimate issues of the angry and disaffected will be the next president's toughest challenge.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
