A
Progressive Agenda is a Requirement for Victory
In a March 16 essay by Robert Borosage (“Opening a New
Way for Democrats to Run and Win,” Our
Future.Org) the author assessed the significance of the election victory of
Democratic candidate Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s special election in House
District 18.
Borosage reported on the competing interpretations of
the surprising Lamb victory in a Congressional District that carried for
Presidential candidate Donald Trump by twenty points in 2016. Mainstream
spokespersons for both political parties argued that Lamb won because of
growing criticisms of Trump’s presidency and
because he campaigned on the issues like a Republican.
For House Speaker Paul Ryan, the message to
Republicans was not to worry because successful Democrats see the handwriting
on the wall and embrace the Republican agenda. For him, political discourse and
advocacy in the country is moving in a conservative direction.
More troubling for progressives, many Congressional
leaders in the Democratic Party (and many CNN/MSNBC pundits) argued that
Democratic success in District 18, and presumably in the 2018 election season
will come to those candidates who “fit their districts.” Borosage claims this
interpretation is really a rationalization for Democrats to shift from the left
to the center because it is assumed most voters are centrist.
In Lamb’s case, the candidate criticized the
legislative leadership of Nancy Pelosi, personally opposed abortion, and
supported gun-ownership. But, Borosage suggested, Lamb campaigned for universal
health care and opposition to the tax cuts, and cuts in social security. He supported
a woman’s right to control her own body and gun regulation. He fully embraced
worker rights and unions.
Borosage points out that the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC), contrary to the Congressional Progressive Caucus
(CPC), supports the Paul Ryan/CNN/MSNBC interpretation of the possibilities of
Democratic success. They prefer candidates who are mirror images (minus overt
racism and sexism) of their Republican opponents. They accept the old
shibboleth of party politics that the independents who are centrists control
the outcome of elections. The DCCC also supports candidates who can raise money
from wealthy liberals.
Borosage correctly pointed out that the DCCC model is
a recipe for failure. And this is largely because, as data-based reports
underscore, large sectors of the potential electorate, working people, are
concerned about their economic futures. For Borosage the CPC People’s Budget, which
supports “major reinvestments in our country through infrastructure, education, and wage growth to increase opportunity for
all” can address the needs of the vast majority of those who live in the United
States. And candidates’ support of a progressive agenda will not only affect
the choices voters make but their likelihood to turn out to vote as well.
Studies
of Financial Hardship
The economic circumstances of large percentages of Americans
have been reflected in a variety of surveys. Take for example surveys conducted
by United Way agencies in 13 states (two more underway) called “ALICE (Asset
Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) Study of Financial Hardship.” ALICE
began as a pilot study in New Jersey in 2009 and by 2016 examined household
income in 15 states with 40 percent of the population of the United States.
In one state, Indiana, for example, an Association of
United Ways issued a 250 page report called the “Study of Financial Hardship.”
The study, paralleled at that time (2014) similar studies in five other states.
It was prepared by the ALICE research team at Rutgers University. It introduced
the core idea, Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed or (ALICE).
ALICE refers to households with incomes that are above the poverty rate but
below “the basic cost of living.” The startling Indiana data revealed that:
-more than a third of Hoosier households could not
afford adequate housing, food, health care, child care, and transportation.
-specifically, 14 percent of households were below the
poverty line and 22 percent above poverty but below the threshold out of ALICE,
earning enough to provide for the basic cost of living.
-912,947 households (of Indiana’s 2.5 million
households) were either within the ALICE status or below the poverty line.
-68 percent of all jobs in the state paid less than
$20 an hour (75 percent of these paid less than $15 dollars an hour).
Those Indiana men, women, and children who come from
the 36 percent of households who earned less, at, or slightly above the poverty
line probably have a negative view of their futures. It is reasonable to assume
that for them tax breaks for the rich and the austerity policies for the poor
are not viewed positively.
More recently (2017), ALICE reported on results from 13
states (including 711 counties) for which data was available (since the report
was issued projects were initiated in Ohio and Virginia). ALICE reported that
“…across the United States-in cities, suburbs, and rural communities
alike-American families struggle to afford the basic necessities of life.…at
least 31 percent of households in each state cannot afford the bare minimum to
live and work in the modern economy. In some states, the proportion is as high
as 44 percent.”
For ALICE a “household survival budget” is “a basic
budget that includes the cost of housing, child care, food, transportation, and
health care.” ALICE household measures include the percentage of households
living in poverty in each state plus those households that exist somewhere
between poverty and living on a household survival budget.
The United Way studies make it clear that those living
below a household survival budget (categorized as ALICE), are “young and old,
single and married, with and without children, and is every race and ethnicity.
Many hold jobs, pay taxes, and provide services that are vital to the local
economy. They are child care providers, retail salespeople, customer service
representatives, health care aides, and laborers and movers. And some are
underemployed, unemployed, disabled, or retired.”
The executive summary of the ALICE Report suggests
four fundamental reasons why households live below the household survival
budget. These include low wage jobs, in
12 of 13 states, one-half the work force earns less than $20 an hour. In
addition, the cost of living,
adjusted for local differences, makes it difficult to provide for households.
Further, in every state studied, majorities of households lack savings to help them maintain their living expenses during
periods of unemployment. Finally, what, the report called “economic challenges” include increased threats to household
survival budgets such as affordable housing near places of work.
Given these factors, in 13 states studied from 2009
until 2016, the percentage of households living below the ALICE threshold
increased from 4 percent (Washington) to 40 percent (Maryland). In each state
the cost of a livable budget increased and many families faced reduced income
because of unemployment, fewer hours worked, or newer jobs with less pay.
Therefore, the Indiana story was being replicated
everywhere. Household threats to economic survival continued to grow. In this
context any candidate for local, state, or national office who does not address
in a convincing way pathways to overcoming the profound economic crisis that
millions of people face, while the rich get richer, is likely to fail. This is
particularly the case for any political party that claims to represent the vast
majority of the population. In addition, many potential voters will not show up
on election day if they perceive the available candidates are representing Wall
Street interests and not their own.
