Biden loves to portray himself as the most pro-labour politician in America, but does his policies match up to his rhetoric?
With the American midterms coming up soon I want to discuss president Joe Biden’s policies so far in his term. He has consistently characterised himself as a champion for the working class; a working man who knows the value of organised labour. Is that the case though? From this side of the Atlantic Biden’s policies appear not to actually benefit the American working class. Policies like debt forgiveness for college graduates and being very pro immigration align with the democratic party’s progressive ideals but don’t actually further the class interests of the group Biden wants to portray himself as representing. I think it’s worth considering the real effect of Biden’s democrats’ policies to gain an understanding of why voters would choose the republican party given that republicans have repeatedly claimed that American democracy is rigged, and that former president Trump is the real president. Are the democrats scaring away working class voters by claiming to represent them while simultaneously advocating for policies which are against working class interests?
Consider the student loans forgiveness programme. On the White House’s website the Biden administration writes: “President Biden believes that a post-high school education should be a ticket to a middle-class life, but for too many, the cost of borrowing for college is a lifelong burden that deprives them of that opportunity.” That seems reasonable, and certainly reducing the cost of a university education makes social mobility more attainable. The problem is how the policy is designed rather than the idea. The site continues: “Department of Education will provide up to [...] $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 ($250,000 for married couples). No high-income individual or high-income household – in the top 5% of incomes – will benefit from this action.” To me, setting the limit for qualifying at $125 000 is mad. According to US government census data from 2020 the median income was $67 521. It hardly seems progressive to subsidise university education for people who make literally almost twice the median income; I mean if a first year investment banker or management consultant still qualifies then the grant is obviously too generous. The fact that the article on the White House’s website is titled “President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most” is unintentionally quite funny. To be clear, I support affordable education, but I think the way Biden and company went about trying to reach a laudable goal was counterproductive and wasteful, and it also doesn’t actually address the fundamental issue of American universities charging astronomical sums for tuition. Using deficit spending for debt relief for university students is in my view obviously bad policy, though it may well be good politics.
Immigration is a similar issue in the sense that Biden’s ideas are laudable but the execution of his policy doesn’t actually benefit those he claims to represent. According to Pew Research: “Biden’s biggest immigration proposal to date would allow more new immigrants into the U.S. while giving millions of unauthorized immigrants who are already in the country a pathway to legal status. The expansive legislation would create an eight-year path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants, update the existing family-based immigration system, revise employment-based visa rules and increase the number of diversity visas.” I support immigration and think that diversity benefits society, but it’s also true that an increase of immigrants without higher education tends to increase the competition for entry level and so-called ‘low skilled’ jobs. For the people in the post-industrial areas of the US where the big manufacturing industries went abroad, an influx of immigrants competing for the same jobs creates a downward pressure on wages. Again, I don’t mean to say that immigration is bad, only that it has economic consequences which doesn’t benefit everyone equally. There’s a reason why unions are traditionally quite skeptical towards immigration while business interest groups are traditionally supportive of immigration.
The point of this post isn’t to hate on Biden and his administration. The central point I’m trying to make is to humanise republicans and Trump supporters. I often see American progressives writing Trump supporters off as inherently and essentially bigotted. The reasoning goes that since Trump is a racist/misogynist/fascist anyone who supports him must be a racist/misogynist/fascist as well, as no one in their right mind would think that say a candidate’s economic or school policy could make up for the candidate being a racist/misogynist/fascist. I don’t support that logic, and this post is my attempt at explaining how Biden’s policies don’t support the working class’ material interests, despite Biden’s insistence that he is their president. Material class interests are obviously not the end all be all of politics either, but considering class interests could be a model for understanding why Trump and his republicans remain popular despite their often questionable views on social issues and democracy.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the metaverse here or the rest of my writings here. It would mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Comments