Most progressives have long embraced a clear alternative to the
conservative story that prosperity flows best from a “free market” unfettered
by government regulation and taxes. The standard progressive response:
government incentives and spending are essential to spur the creation of jobs,
and unions and regulations can make them “good jobs.”
President Obama’s re-election by a surprisingly healthy margin (he
won by 3.5 million in the popular vote and by 126 in the Electoral College)
confirmed substantial support for this overall approach to the economy. Despite
deep economic suffering throughout Obama’s first term, the public validated his
advocacy for more progressive taxes, his ideas about the positive role that
government must play in regulation, and his call for public investment in
training, education and research. All of this adds up to a significant defeat
for the free-market ideologues who lined up behind Mitt Romney.
But here’s the catch: while Obama’s policies have the short-term
potential to improve the lives of many Americans beleaguered by the economic
slump, the approach he champions is insufficient to tackle the long-term
problems we face. To secure a safe and prosperous future for subsequent
generations, efforts to reduce unemployment and curb inequality must be
considered alongside urgent threats to the environment and democracy. These
crises present a compelling argument for systemic change.
http://www.zcommunications.org/its-the-new-economy-stupid-by-john-cavanagh
