Tag Archives: Politics

Democratic Messaging in 2026

Posted on by Bill Ryan

As I write this post, the 2026 midterm elections in the United States are two months away. If the sentiment of the electorate as described in mainstream media and polling aggregations is to be believed, Democratic candidates have an excellent opportunity to perform well in Congressional elections thereby erecting a bulwark of resistance to Trump and the MAGA movement.

However, these same sources are also quite consistent in describing the Democrats unfavorably as being out of touch with the needs of regular people. The charges against the Democrats that led to the re-election of Trump in 2024 may have softened, but the liabilities used to effectively label the Democrats as overly concerned about marginal groups and esoteric issues with a veneer of overall weakness remains as a serious electoral disadvantage.

Nevertheless, the growing disenchantment with Trump and his administration’s policies and conduct have voters searching for an alternative to the widely perceived chaos and mismanagement of national affairs. Therefore, eyes have shifted to the only viable alternate option available given our political system; and that is the Democratic Party. To win in 2026 and beyond, Democrats need to not simply be the anti-Trump replacement but must construct a relevant and appealing vision that resonates with and attracts voters.

To this end, what follows is a list of priorities that I think the party should follow. Now, I get that a multi-point list is exactly one of those tactics Democrats are often criticized for by people who think Dems are too erudite. It is a move consistent with the college-educated rational and analytical approach that looks great “on paper” but does not often translate well into meaningful action or to connect with average people. At least that is the charge. Nevertheless, guidelines, a scorebook, a set of priorities that identifies the issues, and preferences that unite the party around common themes which lead to policy prescriptions is useful. And if there is one thing Democrats need to do a better job of right now, it is this…Democrats need to get their act together!

The Democratic Party has traditionally been a big tent party, which means that both similar and disparate groups of voters are aligned in an intricate and at times knotty political coalition. The throughline of advocacy for everyday people can be tenuous or steadfast depending on the election cycle. The lack of uniformity, unlike the relative consistency often observed in the Republican Party, can be both a strength and a liability. A big tent alliance can construct broad electoral support, but it can also descend into fractious infighting. Democrats are experienced at both.

At present, the contours of the coalition breadth of the Democratic Party are still being defined as we head into the 2026 midterm elections. One obvious reality is that inclusiveness prevails. An example is to look at two recently elected Democratic mayors, one from New York City and one from Miami, and how they approach the affordability issue. Zohran Mamdani brings an aggressive activist government approach that is redistributive in nature. He sees resource discrepancies as class-based requiring a strong interventionist incursion as to how capital and opportunity are broadly made available to city residents. Eileen Higgins of Miami, on the other hand, is more concerned about how government can cooperatively interact with the private sector to spur more affordable housing and deliver city services more effectively by streamlining permitting processes and eliminating bottlenecks that have led to a lack of productivity and trust in city government. Both mayors know their residents well and the political necessities of reaching them. Local approaches to national issues matters greatly into how successful Democratic candidates will fare.

Examples like the one above abound within the Democratic Party. We see interpretive ranges of the Democratic message extending from Congressional candidate Bobby Pulido, a Rio Grande valley resident with rural and Hispanic roots who is all about meeting the needs of the poorest district in Texas to Boston Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley known as a staunch urban progressive pressing hard for initiatives like The Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all; or Ro Khanna, an energetically outspoken liberal Congressman from Silicon Valley California to Jon Ossoff, the current U.S. Senator from Georgia whose moderate positions on many issues is favored in a conservative state. The beauty of a midterm election is that we do not need a one-size-fits-all national candidate who can stitch together all these diverse localities. Rather, we need Democrats who can address clearly and fittingly the needs and issues of voters on their home turf.

What follows is my list of what I see as the prerogatives of prime concern for the Democratic Party now. From this inventory one will find the content necessary to construct a contest against a Republican opponent. However, a campaign is as much an affective initiative as it is a rational one. The spirit, the enthusiasm, and the emotional connection between a candidate and their electorate matters as much as the sum and substance of policy positions.

There are two important considerations in this regard. One is that many voters are not going to engage in comparative analyses among differing campaign stances; instead, they are going to go with their guts by determining how much they are being heard and how forcefully their needs are being addressed. Consistent with voter decision-making habits, campaigns should emphasize most strongly about three top stands around which to center their campaigns. Secondly, the political context of 2026 among most Democrats is that they are primed for an aggressive clash against the MAGA dominated Republicans. President Trump has purposely been a disruptor and breaker of norms, many of which target numerous constituencies and traditions of good governance. This has Democrats fighting mad and they are ready to battle it out with Trump and his followers; even more than was the case during his first term as president.

One last point before I promote specific campaign issues. I would like to express what should be obvious to all Democrats at this time. Democrats need to regain their ability to communicate with voters by understanding them and accepting them for who they truly are and not by either mistakenly determining who they are think they are or wishing them to be different than who they are. Democrats have historically been good at engaging in economic populism and siding with the working class against corporate and wealthy elites. The party needs to refresh and regain that capacity, now more than ever. But they also need to better address the cultural and nationalist themes of populism often practiced by the right wing. How can that be done? Two things come to mind. One, as mentioned earlier, know the people who would be your constituents. Utterly understand and speak to the values, priorities, and lived experiences of your voters. Secondly, find common ground. There really is much more that unites us rather than divides us. Candidates should assertively find where these touch points are. Populism may have become a dirty word in recent years, but it need not be. Indeed, possessing a populist mindset and campaign style is critically important.

In keeping with the maxim that a campaign should be mostly focused on three issues and adhering to the notion that all midterm campaigns should be locally driven here is what I see as the top three issues for Democrats from my perspective as a center-left and lifelong Democrat from a northeast purple state (New Hampshire).

  1. Delivery of services: Democrats need to strongly emphasize and convincingly persuade voters that they are fully committed to finding solutions to the concerns much of the public has. These include affordability and lowering of consumer prices, reliable and economical healthcare, an adequate supply of reasonably priced housing, strengthening democracy and rule of law, keeping crime low, building trust in essential government services, effective but humane immigration control, and more. Providing crucial services through assertive use of political and government power carried out of decisive, strong, and no-nonsense leaders dedicated primarily to the needs of the people; not to the rich, not to the corporations, not to the elite, not to the oligarchy, but to average everyday Americans can revive a belief in fair play and that good government can indeed provide for the communities.
  2. Corruption and self-enrichment: Ideology can be argued about and debated as to which collection of ideas and values best address the needs of the people. However, when the needs of the people are placed below the personal desires of the leader, then a powerful campaign issue is born. Numerous examples, including cryptocurrency dealings, emoluments violations, and insider trading exist that show Trump has this attitude of self-entitlement, simply because he is the president. This is not surprising given Trump’s admiration of authoritarians. Corruption on the scale we are seeing that enhances the Trump family and those associates close to the president speak to his elitism better than any standard left/right characterization can. Even his working class supporters must be thinking, What?!! And if they are not thinking that, then a Democratic candidate has an opportunity to clearly point it out.
  3. The cost of living: Inflation has been driving up the cost of living for more than four years now. The initial cause of supply and demand imbalances boosted by pandemic policy responses jumpstarted the worst inflation in forty years. Although the rate of inflation was gradually reduced beginning in mid-2022 President Biden, and by extension Kamal Harris, paid a heavy political price for inflation. In large part, the electoral response to inflation led to the election of Trump. What is now clear is that the current administration has only aggravated the problem. Consumer prices are higher now than they were when Biden left office with no end in sight of coming down. Between the tariff policy and the war in Iraq, neither of which had broad public support, Trump has lost his political capital on the economy. He foolishly handed the Democrats a potent campaign issue.

Democrats of course stand in support of a number of issues beyond the three I cite as priorities. These other positions represent a combination of long held preferences and more contemporary prerogatives. We can look at these issues as subsets of themes held dear by the liberal tradition, which is how I would like to present them.

How many of these topics candidates emphasize depend on the individual districts and states in contention. My following list is not necessarily rank ordered and the issues selected will be determined by their salience within each electoral region. That said, I see Democrats as endorsing these imperatives as planks to a progressively built platform.

Equality: Whereas the political right and left often emphasize the sacred right of freedom, one rarely hears the political right wing give similar weight to equality despite its prominence in the Declaration of Independence. It is traditional for Democrats to keep the flame of equality alive. Issues that fall within the equality rubric include support for universal education through a robust federal Department of Education and more recently for student assistance into, if not through, the college years; equal rights for both LGBTQ+ citizens and for women, as in equitable employment treatment and compensation; a progressive tax structure which promotes opportunity for all; and green climate and ecosystem sustainability policies to maintain planetary health for all.

Originalism: There is a bult in mechanism for amending the Constitution if the people deem that necessary. However, the Founders correctly understood that a power hungry executive branch could overly concentrate the ideological or personal interests of a president above the national interests. Between Trump’s chipping away of Constitutional norms such as threatening free and fair elections conducted at the state level and a Supreme Court, the majority of which subscribes to an all-powerful president via unitary executive theory, Democrats are justified in being the safeguards of Constitutional originalism.

Immigration: In a nation largely comprised of immigrants or the descendants of immigrants there needs to be an unabashed embrace of the value immigrants provide the nation both economically and culturally and to challenge the hate and racism driving much of the right’s fear of “others” on this issue. Democrats should advance comprehensive immigration reform that is fair, predictable, and compassionate.

Strength: Lethal force needs to be expressed in three ways; through strong and unprejudiced law enforcement that provides safety and security for all; a strong military grounded in international cooperation; and reasonable and common sense limits on guns for the public.

Choice: Denying a woman the right to choose what happens with her body and with her life is an affront to basic individual rights. Safe and legal abortion access should be restored nationwide.

The Democratic brand need not be tainted. There is much Democrats possess ideologically and practically that can make them worthy of leadership in these fraught and chaotic times. Republicans have shown how cultish support and adherence to an unqualified and incompetent showman with a personality disorder is dangerous to our great country. Let us right this ship before it lists even further.

 

 

To State the Obvious

Posted on by Bill Ryan

It is time to start stating the obvious. This is not your garden variety recession. We are not likely to bounce back to either the levels or type of employment that we had prior to 2008.  

Yes, I know technically we are no longer in a recession, because we have not had two consecutive negative growth quarters since 2009. To be precise we are in a period of sluggish GDP growth. But to most Americans it feels as if the recession that started in December 2007 is still with us. This has gone on longer than it took the U.S. to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II! 

Since we are stating the obvious, let us dispel a myth. No, the recession and its length are not Barack Obama’s fault. Carrying on with that thinking takes us off reflecting on what is really going on and how we need to adjust. Does anyone out there really think that if John McCain and Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney had won the 2008 Presidential election that the economy would be all that much different today?  

What we are experiencing is much bigger than Republicans vs. Democrats and their ideologies. The world is undergoing a fundamental transition, a realignment of wealth and power, and we Americans better be ready to compete in the emerging global economy unless we want to be yesterday’s story. 

My principal economic concern has to do with joblessness. A society that does not have most of its citizenry gainfully employed is a society experiencing too much hardship. My principal concern is not that we are relinquishing our former status of disproportionately over-consuming the world’s resources. That was bound to change sooner or later. Much of the rest of the world is catching or has caught up to us in terms of living standards. America now must share more resources, like oil, and that is part of the pain we are feeling. 

But back to employment. Some fundamental job-related trends were underway before the recession and have been accelerated by it. For example, increasing self-employment, more engagement in project or portfolio work, and a pick-up in the passive candidate or hidden job market (think networking). Realizing these trends and getting-with-the-program, as it were, will help job searchers prepare. 

Note that a growing trend is not to sit for hours scrolling through postings on job board sites and electronically broadcasting your resume willy-nilly. To be clear, I am not saying do not try to get your defined message and brand out there, but do not think that sitting at a computer alone is a well-rounded job search. It is not. 

Securing fulfilling employment is no more complex than weight loss. Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories and exercise more. Want to advance a career? Develop self-marketable expertise. As simple as this sounds, we all know it can be profoundly difficult to implement. Just as we know to not fall for diet fads, we should also know to avoid simplistic messages, especially from politicians, who proclaim we can return to old patterns of employment. 

A globally competitive workforce requires intelligence, foresight, creativity, and resilience. You are at root your own boss. Examine the landscape before you and take appropriate action. Rely as little as you can on the benevolence of corporate deal makers to pave the way out of the employment malaise. If your skills intersect with commercial needs, great. But if you find there are no doors to open, then you may have to build a door. 

Americans have traditionally thrived, because of independent and innovative thinking. These times call for as much of that as any other time in our history. Do not wait for monthly Labor Department statistics to energize you. To state the obvious, get out there and make it happen. 

What Is Behind “Occupy Wall Street”?

Posted on by Bill Ryan

“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.” — Theodore Roosevelt, 1910. 

As any student of history knows, there is a relatively limited set of macro issues that ebb and flow in various manifestations over the long-term. This quote from President Roosevelt, a Republican, from 100 years ago seems tailor made for describing the discontent expressed by the current Occupy Wall Street movement underway today. Despite the movement’s excessively grassroots and decentralized focus it is an example of a long-held view that reemerges occasionally in American history — that concentration of wealth among a few and the consequent constricted distribution of resources can get the masses riled. 

The economic dislocation being experienced by so many over the past three years is starting to be seen from a perspective not generally voiced during this Great Recession until quite recently. That being the economic downturn is largely the result of intentional manipulation by the richest segment of society (the 1%) to protect their financial interests at the expense of everyone else (the 99%). 

 This is a dramatic change of view, which may have more political implications in 2012 than economic ones. It represents a possible shift in popular thinking that until now seems to have been dominated by hard right conservative ideology stating government is more to blame for the bad times. 

Even astute political observers did not see this one coming. Although the future of the movement is uncertain, now that the Occupy protests are here it is not all that surprising they are occurring. The two Americas made up of the haves and the have-nots seem to be becoming more starkly divided. Many of the nouveau-poor are not just experiencing temporary employment and financial setbacks, they are seeing their worlds turned upside down. The rules have changed, dreams have been shattered, and the new normal is much more insecure and harsher than in the past. 

If the discontent was somehow being shared across all classes and economic strata, then the anger might have been more muted. But it is not. Those who have slipped down the ladder are instead seeing the “swollen fortunes of the few” (another TR phrase) being enjoyed by people, many of whom seem to be culpable for creating this mess in the first place. 

Although the Occupy protesters can sometimes be seen as having a muddled message and questionable tactics, for example letting their energy be diluted by directly battling police (part of the 99%) more than the 1% they claim to oppose, there are elements of the current political narrative that do seem to be instigating their clamor. Here are three main motivators of Occupy Wall Street that I am hearing from their sympathizers: 

  • The Bush tax cuts for the rich must be maintained, because they make it possible for the rich to create jobs. Really? These tax cuts have been around ten years. It is hard to say they have been stimulating much job growth as of late. 
  • The more vigorous and vocal Tea Party movement promotes shrinking government thereby encouraging the growth of the private sector. But for all the wealth generation potential of the private sector they were also the ones involved in selling over-speculative housing-related investments and encouraging bad mortgages. In other words, greed and self-interest can rule in the private sector over the concerns of the commonwealth. 
  • No one from Wall Street has yet been sent to jail even though the collateral damage to the economy has been far worse than any robbery. This charge has some genuine weight. 

Shared sacrifice and wealth distribution appear to be what is called for by Occupy Wall Street. Whether a legitimate demand or not, this belief has become a new variable injected into the national conversation about how the Great Recession began and what kind of America will emerge from its wreckage. 

Student Loans: Expense or Investment

Posted on by Bill Ryan

The burden of student loan debt on individuals, particularly young unemployed ones, is certainly starting to get a lot more attention in the media. College costs have experienced higher rates of inflation than for most consumer areas. The American Institute of CPAs for example reports that for the 2010-2011 academic year alone, 4-year state colleges for in-state students rose 7.9%, while for out-of-state students the rise was 6%. The inflation rate for 4-year private colleges was 4.5%. This compares to a general consumer rate of 3.9% for the past twelve months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Consumer Price Index, a measure of U. S. inflation. 

Among the economic complaints raised by recent protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that student loan payments are creating too high of a debt position for young people trying to enter the workforce. In fact, it could be said that this issue is one of the significant catalysts of the movement. Starting out adult life faced with ten or twenty years to pay off tens of thousands of dollars of debt in this economy with no job is enough to make anyone scream. 

In my own personal life, I sense the anxiety. My daughter recently graduated with a 4-year degree and between my Parent PLUS loans and her Stafford loans we are looking at substantial debt. For my portion alone the Federal government is giving me up to thirty years to pay this off and from where I sit right now, I’ll need that much time. If it takes me thirty years to pay off this loan, I’ll be 88 years old! I have real doubts that I will live that long. 

My situation is indicative of a situation facing the generations right now. I am a Baby Boomer who has always believed that education is an investment. I have bought into the notion that there is a direct correlation between the level and quality of one’s education and the number of career options and earning potential one has throughout life. 

Even recent statistics have supported this view, such as the fact that of the 9.1% unemployed in September 2011, 78% have only a high school diploma. My daughter on the other hand is looking at her amount of student loan debt more as an expense right now and is truly questioning whether the B. A. was worth it. Time will tell. I still think the college education gives her a higher launching pad for her career and hope the debt will not diminish that advantage. 

I was chatting with a businessman from Belgium a few years ago over lunch. We were in Boston being trained to administer and interpret the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. I asked him about the income tax level he lives with in his country, and he did say it was quite high, if I remember correctly close to 50%. 

But he did not seem that upset after seeing my jaw drop. When I asked him why he was not outraged he cited two reasons. One, he does not pay any medical expenses and felt that he and his family received good medical care. The other reason was that one of his children, who was at the time enrolled in a university, could attend at no additional expense. He seemed content with the concept of receiving quality service for the high taxes he was paying. 

I do not know which system is best, the European or the American. But I do know this. The system that promotes the greatest amount of education for the most people will be in a better position to compete in the 21st century global economy. If higher education is not pursued by more and more Americans because it is seen as too much of a crushing expense, then it will diminish our talent pool and our competitiveness. This is a situation to be avoided. 

Let Us Please Place Job Creation as Number One

Posted on by Bill Ryan

I noticed the day after President Obama’s big jobs speech before Congress on September 8 that Mark Zandi, the often cited Chief Economist from Moody’s Analytics, praised it. True, he is an old-style Keynesian, but he is among the most respected economists in the country, so he deserves a listen to. Among the benefits he sees from the American Jobs Act are:

  • Confidence would return to the public and therefore a stabilization of the economy would result.
  • Just under 2 million jobs would be created with the unemployment rate being cut by a percentage point.
  • GDP growth would be two percentage points higher next year.
  • The $450 billion price tag would be paid between $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.
  • If passed, another recession could be averted.

It has little chance of being passed by the Republican controlled House. Now that would be fine except that it is not clear what the Republicans are offering for immediate stimulation to employment. In fact, it seems that they do not like the word stimulation.

We are being asked to encourage reduction of government, which will in and of itself release an explosion of private sector expansion and economic growth. So the private sector that seemed to play a rather large role in creating the Great Recession is going to lift us out of it because government is diminished? Really?

If there was a credible plan to create jobs by Republicans aside from the usual cut taxes for the rich and reduce regulations I would be all ears. I want jobs to start growing as much as anyone and I really do not care which ideology produces them as long as they get created. But now that one of the two major political parties has been shanghaied by the Tea Party, who does not place job creation as their number one priority, we are not getting a full collaborative effort from all sides.

I will give the Tea Party credit for sounding the alarm on the growing Federal debt, which if left unchecked would constitute major economic problems, including unemployment in just a few years. However, what are they contributing to the debate of job growth now? Not much from what I can hear.

They seem more committed to eliminating the President’s job than in generating new ones for Americans. They are a one trick pony. Just reduce debt and morning in America will return. They seem to think that managing the Federal budget is no more sophisticated than balancing the family checkbook.

Perhaps most troubling is the Tea Party’s reluctance to negotiate and compromise with those who have a different viewpoint. They are so confident in the righteousness of their position that working across the aisle is seen as weakness and capitulation. There is value in decisions made as a result of consensus. And now is a time for our leaders to work together to expand employment. The Tea Party strikes me as an impediment rather than as a serious partner.

I guess we’ll never really know if Mark Zandi’s ecomomic predictions will come true. Probably the most President Obama will get out of that speech is a reelection campaign position. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate stays in the 9% neighborhood.

Perhaps government really cannot effect economic change and private capital (which the private sector is not releasing) is all that matters. But don’t we elect Federal leaders to solve national problems? And isn’t that best done when collaboration occurs? This climate of polarization during a time of national crisis is very disheartening. We should demand something greater from those we elected.

Entrepreneurs and Joblessness

Posted on by Bill Ryan

It does not look like joblessness is going to be easing anytime soon. Even though business orders are up, cash reserves are high, and overtime is wearing out employees. Unfortunately, economic conditions still do not seem to be stimulative enough to increase hiring. 

For the unemployed this is especially aggravating. Most are hopeful, perhaps desperate is the more accurate word, that “companies” will someday begin hiring again, that employers of businesses both large and small will again provide all the jobs we need like they did before. 

And what help can be expected from the government? Although the Democrats stimulus plan helped to avert another Great Depression and created or saved 2-4 million jobs it has not sufficiently convinced businesses or their lenders that there is enough stability and predictability to start hiring. The Republicans, on the other hand, are still convinced that no government plan is best and that if we can just keep taxes to the rich low and markets free of regulation all will recover nicely (President Bush’s tax cut to the rich is now nine years old and that worked out well, didn’t it?!).  

This joblessness problem is bigger than politicians can remedy with trite ideological positions and reheated campaign phrases. Here in New Hampshire, listening to the current crop of political ads can hardly give hope to the jobless. They sound like parodies of… well political campaign ads. 

We hear candidates telling us that their honesty and business acumen will “fix the economy”. Really? This is one heck of a big mess that will not be solved by way of polarization, finger-pointing, and outrageous claims of superhuman economic abilities. It begins with everyone seeing themselves as Americans first and Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partyers, or whatever, second. Nobody and no political persuasion have all the answers. When the nation’s most renowned economists cannot agree on what is the right course of action, then that tells me that this is really complicated and requires the collaboration of our greatest efforts, not simplistic political phrases. 

If I had a quick and easy answer or method to suggest that would lessen the pain of unemployment, believe me, I’d give it to you. But just like our candidates, be they lobbyists, lawyers, or magazine editors, I don’t have a magic bullet for fixing this unemployment mess and I have yet to run into anyone else who has one. 

So, while we wait for our leaders to work together, jobless Americans need to be as proactive as they can. Assume for starters that we are not going back to Pleasantville. For the short-term, anyway, there is going to be a new normal. I think it will help to get yourself in the mindset of treating yourself as if you were self-employed… an entrepreneur. Avoid wallowing in despair and depression and instead face your situation as if you are trying to generate business for your own owner-operated company, the business of you. 

Be clear on what you can offer and then constantly look for opportunities to practice your skills. Volunteer, work temporarily, accept positions for now that pay less than before, keep studying, keep networking, do whatever it takes to stay in the game. Recessions historically generate entrepreneurial activity and given how deep this one is, the entrepreneurial reaction of citizens should be strong. 

Losing your identity is as bad, if not worse, than losing your money. Can you still say what you “are”, be it bookkeeper, truck driver, or seamstress? You are out of work, not out of life. Find a way to stay engaged in what you do and in who you are. Losing your job is not the same thing as losing your profession. 

The evidence that we are headed more and more into a freelance nation is continuously being reinforced. Waiting for the old normal of “getting a job” may never again be the same for millions of Americans. Begin making the mental shift now to being independent. It may be the only thing related to your work that you can control. 

Jobs and the Political Parties

Posted on by Bill Ryan

With the 2010 mid-term election campaign season heating up it is a good time to look at where the two different major political parties stand on job creation.

It is clear that the economy is the most important campaign issue and the most prominent economic theme on most people’s minds is job creation. To the extent that law makers can affect employment, the parties have staked out strategic positions, which they hope will help them win in November. As someone who shares in the hope that everyone who wants a job can have one, here is my take on who offers the best hope.

To start with, job creation is largely a private sector and business responsibility. Although government financed jobs are just as valuable and valid as private sector jobs, the public sector cannot and should never expect to sustain the economy largely through tax payer based employment. From that premise, it becomes necessary to rate the parties on what they think the role of government should be in creating or facilitating the conditions by which the private sector can grow and create jobs.

True to tradition, the Democrats are looking for more interventionist and activist ways of involving government to stimulate the private economy, while Republicans are trying to minimize government involvement believing that business and entrepreneurism alone can improve economic conditions. Let us see how these approaches have fared in recent political history.

Essentially, Reaganomics have had their way for the past twenty-five to thirty years, by which I mean the Republican penchant for reducing taxes on wealthier Americans and reducing governmental regulations on business have held sway. Even President Clinton talked about the era of big government being over. The best that can be said from a jobs perspective is that employment followed the economic bubbles and busts of the 1990s and 2000s resulting in the Recessionary mess we now have. If the economic tide had lifted all boats, then the pulling of the economic plug in 2008 drained all of us and quickly.

Let us look at the last couple of years in particular. The current Recession began in December 2007. By the fall of ’08 with panic starting to set in we had the Republican nominee for president telling us the fundamentals of the economy were fine while the Democratic nominee was warning us of economic doom and gloom.

President Bush’s Treasury Secretary saw it imperative to begin a program of government funded bailouts to keep the country from plunging into another Depression. The newly elected president realized that government financial intervention needed to continue for the banks and extended it to two of the major American auto companies. Without those bailouts, unemployment would have been much higher.

In 2009 President Obama, having inherited a $1.3 Trillion deficit, and the congressional Democrats involved the government further in passing economic stimulus legislation. This seems to have maintained more jobs than it created, but it can be said to have kept the unemployment rate from getting worse than it did.

As we all know, the economic recovery has been slow and the high unemployment rate remains largely stuck between 9.5 and 10%. In response, the political debate seems to be between the Republicans who say that everything the president and Democrats attempt should be thwarted and the Democrats saying that increases in targeted expenditures along with more regulation, particularly in the financial industry, is needed. So whose approach can result in more jobs?

This Recession began largely because of unsustainable spending and speculation on behalf of many in the private sector who were able to get away with it. Had there not been government intervention we would now be experiencing the second Great Depression in our nation’s history with much higher unemployment than now. To prevent a Depression government essentially transferred the unsustainable spending from the private sector to the tax payer in the form of an increased budget deficit. A robust business climate is needed to seriously reduce that debt.

Republicans are still wedded to the belief that low taxes to the rich and a low regulatory climate will create a long-term healthy economy. There really is nothing new in their game plan except to cooperate even less than before with the Democrats.

The track record of this approach from the last three decades is not encouraging, however. The Democrats still believe that government should be a check and balance to the power of the markets so that excesses such as those that have led to the current Recession and that have hurt so many Americans are mitigated.

The power calibration between free markets and government spending and intervention is tricky and far from a guarantee that it can right the economic ship, but I prefer action over inaction. I will take my chances with President Obama and the Democrats.