Harry Targ
Demographics: Who Are the Potential Inside/Outside Activists?
On April 11, 2019, the Pew Research
Center posted a document called “6 Demographic Trends Shaping the U.S. and the
World in 2019.” These trends could be the basis for thinking about a new
politics for the 21st century.
First, the Center pointed out that
so-called Millenials (ages 23 to 38) will outnumber Baby Boomers (ages 55 to
73) in 2019. Millenials are more educated, diverse, slower to marry than prior
generations at the same age. While the younger generation are earning more than
those at comparable ages in earlier generations, they have less wealth. In
part, this is because they are saddled with more student debt than their
elders.
Second, the next cohort, Generation Z
(ages 7 to 22) are expanding with the projection that nearly half the Zers will
be racial or ethnic minorities. By 2020 13.3 percent of the population are
projected to be Latinx, Blacks 12.5 percent, and whites declining from 76.4
percent in 2000 to 66.7 percent in 2020.
Third, there is an increase in the percentage of
parents who are not married and the percent of children living with unmarried
parents has doubled from 13 percent in 1968 to 32 percent in 2017.
“Stay-at-home” parents constitute only 18 percent. Majorities of Americans see
radical changes in families in the years ahead: less marriage and less
children. Twentieth century sociologists used to regard the traditional nuclear
family as the anchor of societal stability, the transfer of norms, the unit of
consumption, and source of personal discipline.
Fourth, the immigrant percentage of the total
population has increased modestly over the last one hundred years, the numbers
of “unauthorized” immigrants in the U.S. has declined.
Finally, the Pew Research Center confirms that while
incomes are rising, inequality has grown as well. What they call the middle
class has declined. And about 56 percent of Americans recognize that being
white is being advantageous (compared with Blacks and Latinx) in terms of
economic advancement.
An
Emerging Progressive Public
Peter Dreier reported on polling data in 2017
confirming that majorities of Americans are liberal or progressive on most
issues relating to the economy, the distribution of wealth and income, money in
politics, taxes, minimum wage and workers’ rights, health care, education,
climate change, criminal justice, immigration, and gender issues. (see Peter
Dreier, “Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It,” The
American Prospect, November 10, 2017).
Data for Progress, a progressive data-analyzing
organization issued a report commissioned by Justice Democrats in April, 2018
called “The Future of the Party: A Progressive Vision for a Populist Democratic
Party.” http://www.futureoftheparty.com Data for Progress seeks to employ
sophisticated social science techniques to gather information that might be of
use to activist groups. They reported that Democratic primary voters want a tax
on millionaires, increased regulation of banks, a government guaranteed program
of health care, and policies to reduce economic inequality. Polling data
suggests a shift toward more opposition to racial discrimination and support
for immigrant rights.
Perhaps the most important findings for the future were
that non-voters preferred Clinton over Trump by a nine-point margin in 2016 and
tapping a broader population of citizens “nonvoters and marginal voters are
more supportive of progressive policies” than not. The report concluded that
based upon a variety of responses that Democratic Party candidates “…are not
representing the progressivism of their constituents.” Using the Rahm Emanuel
strategy of appealing to centrists in prior elections, the report concluded
that, even if it was a good strategy in 2006 to achieve Congressional victory, it
was inappropriate for 2018 and beyond. For the base of the Democratic Party and
those who are a part of the base but are less likely to vote, pursuing a progressive policy agenda is the
only recipe for victory over Trumpism. And by implication, pursuing the
centrism trope may be a recipe for disaster on 2020.
Finally, a Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication reported that the idea of a Green New Deal has bipartisan support
among the public. A sample survey indicated that 81 percent of registered
voters either “strongly support” or “somewhat support “Green New Deal policy
proposals. Researchers asked respondents to indicate their support or
opposition to various policy components of the Green New Deal, including
shifting from fossil fuels to green energy and a jobs agenda to train and
reemploy workers. Most respondents had not heard of the GND and consequently
had not heard that this was a key component of left/progressive Democratic
politicians. In other words, disconnected from the toxicity and partisanship
most registered voters, on their merits, saw the policies as worthy of support.
And 82 percent of respondents
indicated that they had heard “nothing at all” about the Green New Deal. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/the-green-new-deal-has-strong-bipartisan-support/
Anti-Trumpism:
Black Lives Matter, the Women’s Movement, and the Emergence of Democratic
Socialism
The rift within the Democratic Party was
on full display at the California Democratic Party Convention on May 19 (2017)
in Sacramento, California. Progressives joined members of National Nurses
United, protesting the Democratic Party establishment’s
refusal to support (a) single payer health care system. Rather than follow
through with Democratic rhetoric that
health care is a human right, establishment Democrats have responded to
voters by scolding and attacking them. (Michael Sainato, “Tom
Perez Bombs Speech, California Dem Chair Tells Protesters ‘Shut the F* Up’” Observer,
May 20, 2017).
Since its
inauguration, The Trump administration has been embroiled in a series of
crises, with new ones emerging on almost a daily basis. The president is
bombastic, ill-informed, and narcissistic. In response to his critics he
engages in dangerous and unconventional efforts to transform the dominant
narrative about his incompetence. He authorized ruthless bombings in Syria and
Afghanistan and threatened war against enemies such as North Korea, Iran, and
Venezuela. In a 2017 diplomatic trip to the Middle East and Europe, he reached
a deal to sell $110 billion in weaponry to a Saudi Arabian regime which
supports terrorism throughout the Middle East and a devastating bombing
campaign against Yemen. And at home he appointed cabinet members and advisors
with long histories of white supremacy and anti-Semitism (almost in defiance of
accepted minimal qualifications for public office). In 2019 his remaining
foreign policy advisors, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State and John Bolton, National
Security Advisor, represent the most extreme elements of the neoconservative
war faction of the two main political parties.
Trump’s core constituency all along has been sectors of finance
capital, insurance, real estate, the military/industrial complex, and drug
companies whose profits have come from domestic investments or sales and
speculation overseas. It also includes portions of small and medium sized
businesses whose viabilities have been threatened, not by big government, but
by the further monopolization of the economy.
In addition, some
workers displaced by the underside of neoliberalism, including capital flight,
automation, and trade, have supported Trump because they saw no positive
economic future in a Clinton presidency. Finally, the Trump constituency
includes a sizeable percentage of voters who are ideological legatees of white
supremacy.
Therefore, the Trump coalition consists of fractions of capital who will gain
from a more muscular and economically nationalist policy agenda, marginalized
portions of the so-called “middle class,” sectors of the working class, and
portions of all of these whose political learning has centered on the history
and consciousness of white supremacy (“make America great again”).
Trump’s major adversaries come from a core sector of the ruling class that has
dominated the policy process at least since the 1980s, the neoliberal
globalists. In response to the squeeze on profits of the 1970s, the capitalist
elites began to promote a dramatic shift in the character of the economy in the
direction of “neoliberalism.” Drawing upon an economic ideology with a long
history from Adam Smith, to Milton Friedman, to mainstream neoclassical
economists of the late twentieth century, every administration from Carter to
Trump has engaged in deregulation of economic life, reducing government
programs that help the poor and working classes, reducing the rights of unions,
and privatizing virtually all public institutions. They “went global,” that is
developing a network of economic ties via trade agreements, the globalization
of production, and integrating corporate boards. Capitalist elites from every
continent began to develop common approaches to national policy via such
informal organizations as the Trilateral Commission, meetings of the G7
countries, and the annual World Economic forum.
Debt poor countries were the first to be forced to embrace
neoliberal policies, followed by the former Socialist Bloc countries, then the
Western European social democracies, and finally the United States. A
significant portion of this qualitative change in the way capitalism works has
involved increased financial speculation (as a proportion of the total gross
domestic product), dramatic increases in global inequality in wealth and
income, and increasing economic marginalization of workers, particularly women,
people of color and immigrants.
Candidate Donald Trump
orchestrated a campaign against the neoliberal globalists who dominated the
political process in the United States since the 1980s. While he epitomized
finance capital, albeit domestic as well as foreign, and represents the less
than one percent who rule the world, he presented himself as a spokesperson of
the economically marginalized. He attacked the capitalist class of which he is a
member. In addition, he blamed the marginalization of the vast majority on some
of their own; people of color, women, and immigrants.
Resistance Grows
Since the November
2016 election masses of people have been mobilizing in a variety of ways
against the threatened agenda of the newly elected president. The women’s
marches and rallies of January 21, 2017 and International Women’s Day on March
8 were historic in size and global reach. There have been huge mobilizations to
reduce the use of fossil fuels and prevent climate disaster, to support
immigrant rights, and to provide basic health care. Many of these
manifestations of outrage and fear have occurred as planned events but also
there have been numerous spontaneous acts at Congressional town hall meetings
and even in airports challenging Trump directives to refuse people entry into
the United States.
A multiplicity of groups have formed or increased in size since
January, 2017: former Bernie Sanders supporters; anti-racists campaigns; those
calling for sanctuary cities and defending the human rights of immigrants;
progressive Democratic organizations; and women’s mobilizations. Traditional
left organizations, such as the Democratic Socialists of America, benefiting
from the Sanders campaign, tripled in size. And organizations such as The
American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood have reported large
increases in financial contributions. The mobilization of millions of people
has bolstered the spirits of progressives everywhere. They feel that at this
point in history a new progressivism is about to be born. But the story is made
complicated by the nature of the opposition to Trumpism.
Oppositions to
Trumpism: Neoliberal and Progressive
Paradoxically, while this is a teachable moment as well as a movement building
moment, progressive forces are struggling to be organized. In and around the
Democratic Party there is a conflict over the vision and the politics it ought
to embrace at this time and in the coming period. The Sanders supporters,
inside and outside the Democratic Party, have marshalled much support for a
progressive agenda: single-payer health care, a green jobs agenda, protecting
the environment, tax reform, building not destroying immigrant rights,
defending women’s rights, and cutting military spending. With the brutal
policies advocated and already instituted by the new Trump administration,
progressive democrats and their allies on the left are struggling mightily to
articulate a program and create some organizational unity to challenge Trumpism.
However, on almost a daily basis stories have appeared in the
mainstream media about Trump’s incompetence and irrational and ill-informed
statements. Most importantly, allegations of the connection between the Trump
presidential campaign and Russian spying, have dominated the news. As a result,
the neoliberal globalist Democrats, activists in the presidential campaign of
Hillary Clinton and leaders of the Democratic Party, have consciously embraced
the Trump/Russia connection as the real reason why their candidate lost the
election. By implication, they deny that there was anything perceived
negatively about mainstream Democratic Party policies on trade, health care,
mass incarceration, bank regulation, jobs and wages, and other neoliberal
approaches to policy in the years when Democrats were in the White House.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton was identified with this neoliberal agenda. But
understanding the election outcome through the lens of Russiagate is a recipe
for disaster.
The dilemma for
progressives is that opposition to Trumpism and all it stands for has been and
must be a key component of reigniting a progressive majority. But if it does
not address the fundamental failures of the neoliberal agenda, including
challenging neoliberal globalization, the current stage of capitalism, Trump’s
grassroots support will continue. Working people who ordinarily would vote for
more liberal candidates for public office need to believe that future
candidates are prepared to address the issues, often economic, that concern
them.
Therefore, the fundamental project for progressives today includes mobilizing
against Trumpism while articulating an alternative political and economic
analysis of the current state of capitalist development. In concrete terms,
this approach means challenging the legitimacy of the Trump administration
and its allies in Congress while articulating the perspective that mainstream
Democrats, the neoliberal globalists, are part of the problem, not the
solution.
This alternative analysis requires a bold challenge inside the
electoral arena and in the streets that calls for radical reforms: single-payer
health care; cutting the military-budget; creating government programs to put
people to work on living wage jobs in infrastructure, social services, and
public education; addressing climate change: and fiscal and regulatory policies
that reduce the grotesque inequality of wealth and income which has increased
since the 1980s.
The tasks are challenging but another world is
possible.
A Postscript:
So far the data indicates that there is a base of
solid support for a whole range of progressive policies and an additional
subset of the population who might be inclined to support a progressive agenda.
However, the Pew Research Center recently reported that “trust in government”
is at an all-time low (17 percent) https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/ One
can assume that those with distrust in government are less likely to vote.
Therefore, since the potential base for building a progressive majority is
great, there is a need to articulate and campaign around an agenda that can
appeal to the disenchanted. Therefore political mobilization should first
concentrate on mobilizing its activist progressive base and then mobilize the “uncommitted” who as some of the data
suggests would embrace progressivism. The final, and perhaps least plausible,
population to engage would be those who oppose a progressive agenda.
Reflecting upon the globalization and perniciousness
of neoliberal globalization, its transformation of the political economy of the
United States and the global political economy, the increased marginalization
of all who work, rising global inequality in wealth and income, the particular
impacts of this system on people of color, women, and other socially
marginalized groups, the progressive project of the near-term future is clear
both for inside and outside political strategies. Boldly, convincingly, and
with passion and respect, articulate a progressive agenda.
Harry Targ is a retired Professor of
Political Science, Purdue University. He is currently a co-chair of the
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS).