Puncturing the Myth of Bidenomics
Many progressives have praised Biden’s economic policy as a paradigm shift from prior Dem Party orthodoxy. As calls mount for Biden to drop out, we should admit that Bidenomics has borne little fruit.
The first debate of the 2024 presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump made it impossible for the liberal media and Democratic party leaders to any longer ignore the president’s obviously declining mental capacity. There is now a groundswell of mainstream voices calling on Biden to drop out of the race — joining those on the left who for months have been disgusted with “Genocide Joe” because of his support for Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza.
Yet Biden still has his champions, even among the left. Bernie Sanders and much of the Squad, including AOC and Ilhan Omar, are continuing to back the incumbent president. This isn’t too surprising. Despite occasional criticisms, especially on his policy toward Israel, Sanders and AOC have been rather staunch Biden allies.
Why? A big part of it has to do with their support for his domestic agenda, especially on economic policy. In fact “Bidenomics” has received significant praise across the left, with many commentators hailing it as a historic break with the neoliberal orthodoxy of the Obama and Clinton administrations.
As it looks increasingly likely that Biden might be forced to step aside, it’s worth asking whether this assessment of Bidenomics is correct. That’s the topic of my article in the latest issue of Dollars & Sense. (Reminder to subscribe if you haven’t already!)
To make a long story short: I think it’s undeniable that, in some ways, the Biden administration’s approach has been different from his predecessors’, in ways the left should welcome. But in the absence of the sort of powerful labor movement or left-wing parties that could mount a real challenge to elites — the kind of movement that established the robust European welfare states and collective bargaining regimes and won more anemic versions of those in the US — Biden’s main focus has been handing out corporate subsidies and strengthening private sector investment. As I put it in the article:
What we are seeing with Bidenomics is in this respect quite different from the New Deal, let alone European social democracy. It looks to be an attempt to shore up liberalism in the absence of a real working-class challenge. But that means an economic program that by and large suits the interests of capital rather than labor.
That the administration’s policy has produced decidedly mixed results in terms of raising living standards and greening the economy is a consequence of this fact. Biden’s industrial policy has been “all carrots, no stick” when it comes to nudging firms to invest in green energy, as I pointed out with Andrej Markovčič last year. So too is its failure — despite Biden’s much-vaunted pro-worker National Labor Relations Board — to stop organized labor’s continued decline. And the Inflation Reduction Act itself failed to set high standards for working conditions and union rights in new electric vehicle manufacturing, a point that United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain has been highly critical of.
Sanders and other progressives are now apparently negotiating with the president to get him to campaign on more ambitious policy proposals in exchange for their continued support. Given Biden’s record-low popularity and his obvious incapacity — and a failed assassination attempt against Trump promising to give new, dangerous life to the MAGA movement — it’s an incredibly risky bet. But even if Biden could somehow pull out a win in November, the experience of his administration so far suggests that reversing labor’s fortunes and winning a more just society, as ever, will require revitalizing the labor movement and building a political alternative to the Democratic Party and the GOP.
