The triple defeat of American Democrats – Trump won the presidential race, and Republicans secured control of both chambers of legislature – launched a broad discussion in the organization and in its media and expert background about the causes of the loss. Opinions in this debate are frequently contradictory. Many of its participants treat what happened on November 5 as evidence that the complaints they had made to the Democrats for a long time were correct. This applies to both centrists, convinced that the organization Too much left., as well as the organization left, accusing her of the shortcomings of well understood left populism. Both more conservative democrats, blaming the party's adoption of the agenda as well as anti-war activists, convinced that the democratic base has demobilized Biden administration policy on Gaza.
At the same time, all fundamentally sensible analyses agree that the economy or, more specifically, its perception of voters was crucial for the election results. According to exit poll 67% of respondents replied that the economy is in bad shape. 70% of those giving specified an answer voted for Trump. Among the respondents without a university diploma, the number of dissatisfied with the state of the economy was as many as 75%. 45% of respondents said their financial situation was worse than 4 years ago.
Macroeconomic indicators – unemployment, real wages, economical growth, stock exchange listings – represent a very different situation. Against the background of another G7 countries, the American economy has done highly well in post-pandemic-war conditions. This has been contributed by the importantly ambitious economical policy of Biden's administration, from the first stimulus package to projects specified as the Inflation simplification Act and the CHIPS Act.
One of the most interesting questions about the results of this year's elections is: where is the gap between economical indicators and social sentiments? And why didn't poorenomika convince American workers to vote for democrats?
Between indicators and portfolio
The answer to this first question is rather obvious: the overwhelming majority of voters are not macro-economicists. By voting, they are not guided by indicators, but by their individual experience. And despite excellent economical indicators, the experience of many Americans in the last 4 years has been difficult. You can't blame people who have a problem paying bills that they don't get excited about the large stock marketplace results – especially if they don't have shares – or the increase in real wages, the effects of which do not scope people like them.
Speaking of the success of the American economy in the last 4 years, we must not forget the inequalities in it. They make dynamic improvement from Biden's time not necessarily translate into improving the life of a poorer part of society. Like task Syndicate wrote economist Mohamed El-Arian, Biden's period of regulation is not only economical growth and wealth growth of many households, but besides a completely different reality of households with the lowest incomes, which by the fall of 2024 "spent all the savings they accumulated during the pandemic, zeroed out their credit cards, have no financial reserves and operate in conditions of crucial economical uncertainty".
El-Arian cites in his text the arguments from a lecture late given in Cambridge by Nobel laureate Michael Spence in economics: erstwhile people surviving from pay to pay hear in mainstream media experts explaining how large the economy is, they conclude that the media do not know what they are talking about and what real life looks like, or represent hostile interests and cannot be trusted at all. It is not hard to guess what policies can be built on specified a deficiency of assurance in mainstream media and experts speaking in them.
First postneoliberal presidency?
Biden's administration was aware of the fundamental problem of inequality, and launched a series of economical policies to work to correct the American socio-economic model. The key to this was the revival of the manufacture offering Americans – including those without a diploma – stable, well-paid, union jobs. taxation exemptions, duties and another tools were to encourage business to invest in creating industrial jobs in the US and defend them from abroad competition. In particular, investments in green technologies and industries of the future were to be supported.
You can argue, or as in “New Yorker” argued Recently, Nicholas Lehmann, Biden was indeed the "first post-neoliberal president", able to propose a broad-ranging industrial policy, breaking with the assumptions that all presidents had taken in reasoning of the economy since Reagan. However, it is surely not fair to say that Biden simply continued Clinton and Obama's economical policy.
Bidenomika undoubtedly set itself respective highly ambitious goals: reducing supply chains and reducing the dependence of the US economy on China, providing the US economy with advantages in the most forward-looking sectors, rebuilding American infrastructure, facilitating green transition, yet building a more socially sustainable economy – reindustrialisation was to re-enter the mediate class of workers without a diploma – and last but not least attracting a working class to the Democratic Party, erstwhile its natural base. It takes time to measure reasonably how well these objectives have been achieved. There is surely 1 thing that can be said today: on the political level, Bidenomika has failed to meet the hopes it holds.
Signals that Biden's economical policy has not been helping political democrats to support the working class have already emerged since the end of 2023. The results of this year's elections seem to confirm this. Despite the crucial industrial investment that Biden's programs brought to specified states as Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan – 4 years ago voting for Biden – they supported Trump in these elections. Republican won by exit poll among voters without higher education (56 to 42 percent points) and among voters from households who in 2023 achieved little than $50,000 in income (50 to 47 percent points).
A substance of time and communication?
What didn't work? Lehman in this text for the “New Yorker” – written before the elections – puts the thought that bidenomics, in order to full work, request time and little than 4 years of administration of the outgoing president, are not adequate for voters to feel the full effect of the programs initiated by him.
It did not aid without uncertainty that after Biden's withdrawal from the Bidenomika race she was somewhat "orphaned". Harris did small to build her message on the defence of the economical achievements of the administration she co-created, this subject only appeared in fresh weeks of her campaign, during meetings with voters from the Midwest states. How maliciously, though wrong, She summed it up. Kate Aronoff in The fresh Republic: "Trump promised to make America large again. Biden that will make America produce large things again. Harris is mostly not going to be Trump.”
Trump's message was able to express the frustration and anger experienced by many Americans, and pointed to their problems: unfairly competing with the American economy of China, the inept globalist elites that let them to do so, migrants taking distant American jobs. The message of the democrats lacked this populist-affective dimension, they could not even decently attack the oligarchs most engulfed with Trump.
However, the problem may not be limited only to Timing and Communication. How notes Adam Tooze, due to the situation in the Bidenomice legislature lacked a social dimension, a program tailored to Obamacare. due to the fact that the social problems of the United States are not limited to the deficiency of well-paid jobs in industry. A immense part of the politician base does not work in industry, but in the frequently underfunded public sector or in low-paid services. All are affected by the problems posed by the shortage of public services or the situation in the housing market. As Aronoff reminds us, in the last 4 years housing prices have increased by 45 percent in the US – which is good news for their owners, large for flippers, and at the same time a large problem for those who want to buy their first flat or cottage in the suburb.
New economical Governance and Value Issue
All these arguments are collected by the Boston Globe. Article Ro Khanny – present the most interesting intellectually typical of Democrats in the home of Representatives. Khanna puts the thesis in it: we lost due to the fact that we did not present a convincing imagination of economical improvement for the working class. alternatively of the slogans “sounding as if they were generated by ChatGPT” we request to present real solutions, we request to talk constantly about “how we intend to reindustrialise places specified as Gelesburg, Illinois or Anderson, Indiana”.
Khanna calls on her organization colleagues to present "New economical Deal" to the Americans (New economical Deal). It would consist not only of a Bidenomika-known policy to rebuild industry, not only support for trade unions and higher salaries, but besides social solutions – Khanna is the author of the bill freezing pre-school care costs for families earning little than $250,000 a year – and well understood populist rhetoric, capable of sometimes hitting billionaires, even those generously supporting democrats.
It seems that in the discussion, what will happen to the Democratic organization after the defeat of November 5, specified as Khanna will be given to the left. The question is, is that enough, given even the second key issue in these elections: migration. Or the effectiveness of Trump's run to show the rights of transgenders.
After the election on the X Sohrab Ahmadi portal – an interesting commentator on American politics, a conservative Catholic, sympathetic to the economical and social transmission of the Sandersian wing of democrats – wrote“In consequence to the election results, I see more contemptible denial on the left than on the Liberals. The left-wings seem to think that if a democratic socialist were to launch, he would win, so there is no request to make any concessions in terms of migration or trans-persons. Delusions’. Already commentators like David Brooks attentionthat Bidenomika may not act politically due to the spread of the values of the working class and the elites of the democratic party, which would peculiarly be manifested in 3 areas: in addition to migration and the rights of transgenders inactive in relation to crime and police.
Khanna writes in her text from The Boston Globe: "Let us be honest, that our message on economical issues be heard, we must show simple common sense about crime or household security, we must not embarrass and cancel those who disagree with us on a circumstantial social issue."
On the another hand, it can be argued that Harris' run problem was not an excess of progressive content at all, but that she was trying to mobilize a progressive Democratic base in Michigan, conducting a run there together with a totally unconvincing electorate Liz Cheney. Giving up progressive content would besides mean demobilizing any part of your own base.
The Democrats are now waiting for a number of strategical choices. Among them, the decision on what to do with the legacy of Bidenomika – abandon it or effort to incorporate it into a wider task – requiring a hard reconciliation of the progressive economical and legal agenda.
How the organization responds to these dilemmas will depend on a lot, not just in American politics. After all, Bidenomika was the main inspiration for Starmer's government's program and its defeat surely gives the Laburians quite a few thinking. another left-wing progressive forces around the planet should besides look closely at these discussions.
