Joe Biden’s much-needed and timely exit from his political role has one flaw. His overly protective economic policies filled with excessive expenditures will not stand a chance to be critically evaluated in a public vote. Labelled as ‘Bidenomics,’ his archaic approach, despite its modernised label, seemed destined to suffer a setback on November 5th. A victory for Donald Trump, irrespective of other factors, would at least ensure a delay in the Democrat’s demonising critique of trade and the marketplace to secure votes.
Such tactics should be abandoned as demanded by 60% of United Staters wishing Kamala Harris to overhaul Biden’s economic configuration or significantly revise it. The widespread economic vitality of the nation makes liberals pretend to be baffled by this. Throughout Trump’s reign, wage growth mostly exceeded inflation. With Biden, it wasn’t until 2023 that a constant surplus over inflation was evident. He might have reasons such as a worldwide pandemic and war to justify his actions, but his spending policies have resulted in a price hike higher than that imposed by other global leaders over the same period, providing enough reason for Harris to disengage from them.
Even without the inflation surge, ‘Bidenomics’ could still be a political stumbling block. To comprehend why, one should look into the political principles that the Democrats started advocating for in the 90s.
One principle suggests that individually popular policies can collectively be unfavourable. It’s a joy to receive a cheque from the federal government. However, combining a cheque with increased spending on infrastructure, a campaign against corporate “price-gouging”, taking down Big Tech and other nanny-state actions could seem extreme. Voters attend to the overall message, rather than the individual parts. If that wasn’t the scenario, politics would be a piece of cake: simply pile attractive ideas onto each other.
Additionally, the originator of an idea counts. The Republicans can manage extensive government control as voters trust the right-wing party to avoid overstepping due to ideological passion or a bias against the affluent. As it goes, “permission” is essential, and Democrats are distinctly lacking it. On the contrary, pertaining to crime, Harris can fortify her stance without alarming the undecided voters.
Factoring in various elements, it appears that the economic policies of Biden would have faced political consequences in any period, barring those in which an authoritative government was desired by the electorate. But this prompts a crucial question – are we currently experiencing such a circumstance? Was the year 2020 a pivotal moment echoing a shift towards radical politics, much like the downright reversal observed during 1979-80? Did the global health crisis expose an underlying dissatisfaction with “neoliberalism”? If that’s true, Harris should commit to carry forward her superior’s governmental agenda.
However, my personal belief is the contrary. This ideological shift always seemed more like a construct forced into existence by observers. Before the onslaught of the viral outbreak, the confidence in the American economy was soaring, unrivalled since the dawn of the millennium. The global political trend observed has been in disfavour of the current office holders, not specific to a particular set of policies. Besides, no era can be categorised under a coherent ideological identity. (In affluent nations, despite neoliberalism, government’s social spending represented a more substantial segment of GDP in 2005 compared to 1980.)
Keir Starmer, if anyone, grasps this equivocal atmosphere, wielding the necessary parliamentary majority to transform Britain, but understanding that his victory was predicated on the fact that he wouldn’t attempt that.
Throughout this infant century, there have been three instances when progressives have felt a swing towards left-leaning ideologies: 2020, the economic collapse of 2008, and the often overlooked occasion of September 11th, when the courage of public servants was applauded in some sectors, signalling the onset of a pro-government era. This fallacious approach bears negative results when conceived by analysts and should be deliberately avoided by parties contesting elections.
In addition to these electoral reasons which advocate the abandonment of Bidenomics, there are other, more noble ones. For example, factory labourers, the welfare of whom is a declared concern of the Democrats, are also susceptible to changes in prices as consumers, particularly of imported goods. Moreover, overprotectiveness can pave the way for lobby-backed initiatives, resulting in ongoing trends like excluding gratuities for servers from taxation. (This year, Nevada, where influential hospitality unions exist, is a battleground state.)
Above everything else, Bidenomics lacks a response to America’s looming financial crisis: the increasing public debt which both parties choose to disregard. Even though industrial grants demand upfront expenses, they are unjustified, even if hypothetically, they eventually result in funded growth.
“However, the core issue can be put on hold. The focus needs to be on November initially. From what I gather, the perspective of the Democrats is such, that Trump’s defeat signifies a crucial element for the future of the United States. Yet, Bidenomics, despite being unpopular among the voters, is revered and not subject to change. It is upon Harris to bring a balance to this judgement.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024.