First Six Weeks

Has the 116^th Congress Inspired Yet?

William Sundwick

Legislation is a slow process. On January 3, 2019 a new Congress was sworn in. The once and future queen, Nancy Pelosi, became the nearly uncontested House Speaker. And Democrats, for the first time since the 111^th Congress of 2009-10, became the House majority. It was an impressive mid-term election romp – best flipping record in over forty years, exceeding even the Republican sweep of 1994 and Newt Gingrich.

The Senate, not so much. Indeed, Democrats lost a net two seats in the august senior body. Granted, the founding fathers intended the upper house to be essentially “anti-democratic” in its design. As if the non-proportional makeup of the Senate were not enough, minorities use the filibuster to further their status quo goals. No clear signs that either side in the Senate wants to dilute their privileges there. Perhaps the 2020 presidential campaign now cranking up will force the issue, perhaps not.

But, what of that mercurial lower chamber? Many of us had great expectations for the new Democratic controlled House of Representatives. There would now be hearings, subpoenas, radical legislative proposals. Morning had arrived in America.

Or, had it?

After six weeks in session, we can see things brewing, but legislation is a slow process. We’ve already seen exciting media circus hearings with Michael Cohen, but regarding the business of crafting real legislative proposals, it seems a bit frustrating. There are bright lights, however. Elijah Cummings, as chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee has captured the spotlight, so far, with that Cohen testimony on February 27. Jerry Nadler at Judiciary is ramping up, and we’ve seen his first work – H.R.8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019” pass the House. H.R. 8 and its companion H.R. 1112, “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,” constitute the first meaningful gun control legislation in nearly ten years (since before Sandy Hook). No small accomplishment.

Eliot Engel, chair of House Foreign Affairs, has held interesting hearings on Middle East policy, and the situation in Venezuela, envoy Elliott Abrams testifying. And the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Homeland Security Committee has recently visited Atlanta for “field hearings” on the 2016 elections in that state.

The most important bill yet to be introduced in the new Congress is H.R.1 “For the People.” The omnibus legislation is aimed at many ills in our current political environment, from corruption to voting rights to election interference. It is very ambitious and has captured the attention of several House committees.

But the most spectacular proposal thus far is the “Green New Deal.” It was introduced as a resolution by freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (and Ed Markey in the Senate), but yet to go on the official calendar for any House committee or subcommittee. We may see it brought up soon, but judging from the initial reaction of the Speaker, it is not clear when. Since it has become such a high profile, sexy proposal, all announced Democratic presidential contenders are forced to take a position on it – one to the left of the Speaker or other “old guard” Democrats, like Sen. Diane Feinstein.

Michael Cohen also testified before Adam Schiff’s Intel Committee twice, in closed session. Criminal conduct of the president was plainly revealed during the open hearings. And, Richard Neal, chair of Ways and Means, is now prepared to subpoena the President’s tax returns, thanks mostly to an adroit question posed to Cohen by Ocasio-Cortez.

Other significant actions include the new Medicare For All Act of 2019, to replace last Congress’ H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal on February 27. And, It may be interesting to see what happens when President Trump vetoes the resolution to invalidate his border “national emergency,” expected to pass both House and Senate as I write.

The bigger issues surrounding the 116^th Congress may be the large number of judicial confirmations sailing through the Senate, or the strange case of S.1, introduced by Marco Rubio on Jan. 3 (first day of new session) – it essentially endorses state laws barring support for anti-Israel “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions). Legal scholars feel this is endorsing unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment. It passed the Senate easily – but has not yet been brought to House floor. While the House gets all the media attention, the Senate continues to quietly undermine democracy.

Since legislation (the “sausage making” of government) is such a slow process, it is perhaps understandable that mass media tends to focus more on colorful personalities in politics. The circus atmosphere around the process comes from certain personalities who are adept at demanding attention. These people often rise to the top in politics, just as they do in entertainment; people like our President, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Bernie Sanders, or Steve King. They are all stars. This is not necessarily a bad thing. They contribute to greater public awareness and sensitivity toward real issues. That, in turn, leads to pressure – both during election campaigns and while in office.

The greatest danger during a presidential primary campaign is that the sausage making in Congress is easily ignored. Once the election occurs, too much animosity has spilled over from top-of-the-ticket battles. Arguably, Congress has been less than fully functional over the last decade because of these battles -- from 2008, to the reaction of 2010, then 2016. The 2018 mid-terms showed some cleavages between certain freshmen (Ocasio-Cortez, and others) and House leadership. Senate Democrats have been largely saved from this by the disappearance of most of the “blue dogs” in the past few Congresses (Joe Manchin survives). A strong presidential candidate for 2020 can bring the Senate with them, and we should see a cooperative arrangement between executive and legislative branches commensurate to the mounting emergencies we face with climate, inequality, and democracy itself.

As it stands now, however, the “unity” mantra needs some pumping up in the Democratic Party. Let’s see some division among Republicans for a change! To answer the question in the title, yes – it is inspiring, within reason.

Lessons of GA06: Dems still need better candidates ... and, grass roots support just isn't enough!

The Professional Class in America: Time to Step Aside?

William Sundwick

Lately, there has been much written about the changing role in American politics (perhaps, Western democracies, in general) of the upper middle class – we are now calling them the “professional class.” How did this social class become so dominant in advanced societies? And, where does it leave most workers, who lack higher education, who can barely hope to maintain basic middle class living standards, much less advance to something better?

Early American Professions

In eighteenth century America, land surveying became an established profession. It was the profession of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abe Lincoln, prior to moving on to military, legal, and political pursuits. Before you could practice surveying, you needed to have appropriate training, and be certified by some legal authority. These were the standards for professionals, as they are today.

The number of occupations that had such requirements steadily increased through the nineteenth century. Even the early colonists had recognized medicine, law, and divinity as professions. Land surveying was the first to be added, followed in the young republic by actuarial science, dentistry, civil engineering, architecture, and accounting. As technology and medicine continued to grow through the century, social complexity also grew, adding teaching, librarianship, nursing, optometry, and social work to the list.

Population growth itself increased the need for human services, and the establishment of new towns required public works. New ways of accumulating wealth through capital motivated a job market for experts in a variety of capital-intensive pursuits, including finance and economics. New potential for achieving the “good life” began to point toward psychology and pharmacy as professions. As we moved through the twentieth century, it became apparent that there would be many different specialized occupations, all needing both training and “accreditation.” With these developments, the gap between the ever enlarging “professional class” and the working class, who did not have such skills or accreditation, would continue to grow.

The Autonomous Class

Compensation levels between some professionals and others, as their numbers grew, often was based on educational attainment. Education became the primary membership marker in the New Class of professionals. Yet, all professionals share one thing in common -- autonomy. We rely on them to make knowledge-based decisions in their respective fields. They may be charged with carrying out an organizational mission based on exercise of their judgement, if they are employed by an organization; or, if self-employed (i.e., “hanging out a shingle”), they market themselves to clients.

Regardless of the education required, it’s fair to say that professions concern themselves primarily with abstract concepts, symbol manipulation, and analysis. Some would generalize to say that professionals “work with their heads, not their hands.” Although this is clearly a generalization (artists, musicians, surgeons?), the distinction between knowledge work and manual work is the key point. And, the acceptance of the professional as an autonomous authority, by corporate hierarchy or client, is enforced by professional associations, who have considerable influence -- and, who promote scarcity of professionals, via those educational requirements, to keep compensation high. 

Rentiers

 Inequality has been rising as professionals of various stripes account for a greater share of economic activity, compared to labor. If income is derived from ownership of scarce resources, it is rent income. Those resources can include land, airline routes, and oil tankers … and, they can include knowledge. They clearly include intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights. They also include licenses  required by professions. Universities possess licensing authority, as do state and local governments. A degree from an accredited institution of higher education is always a “license.” The rental income for the university is tuition. Once licensed, the income generated by a professional holding that license is also rent – it is ownership of a scarce resource.

Karl Marx considered all professionals of his time to be participants in “rentier capitalism.” A rentier is what some economists came to know, colloquially, as a “coupon clipper” -- those whose income is derived from anything other than production. In Marx’s time, they would be the bankers and landlords, the accountants, architects, and actuaries. In the modern era, the portion of the economy that Marx would describe as rent-based has increased manifold. One wonders whether our definition of economic rent shouldn’t be narrowed.

But, the other side of the coin is that the growth in power of the much-enlarged modern professional class has been at the expense of those who cannot match the scarcity of credentials held by the more powerful organized professional groups. Blue collar labor unions don’t even have the clout of teachers’ unions in contemporary American politics.

Class Resentment

Among the byproducts of rising inequality between workers and professionals is the resentment that comes when your supervisor is not one of you -- if they come from a different class, a professional class, rather than rising through the ranks. The attitude of “I’d like to get out of this rut, too” is becoming more common in America as inequality increases, with wages stagnating. Those who have not invested in education to the same extent professionals have ask: “Why do the professionals deserve those fancy salaries?” Or, they question whether the professional (rentier) is more producer or consumer (“maker” vs. “taker,” to use political rhetoric of the 2012 presidential election).

 

In contemporary American society, one of the principal tools professions use to increase their influence, and fortunes, is to create “Barriers to Entry.” The greater the educational requirements to gain the license to practice, the more rent income goes to the university, and the more income can be earned by the practicing professional. Their knowledge and skills become dearer, scarcer. Hence, politically, it’s easy to see a natural alliance between the academy and the professional association. One can argue, however, that the current state of this alliance (or conspiracy, depending on your point of view) is out of balance. As higher education now requires extensive debt (rental income for student loan finance), the income for the academic partner may decrease, since nobody can afford to enter … or, at least, stay for their credentialing ceremony! The alliance is threatened. Unless we grant this activity is somehow increasing net productive value, the likely result is a state of social entropy (see blog post, 4/14/2017, “Social Entropy: Tribalization and Decline of Elites”).

Democrats vs. Republicans

American politics, since the late nineteenth century, has been dominated by two political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. These two parties, however, have not talked to the same constituencies over the last hundred years. The Progressive Era of the early 20^th century featured the Republican Party advocating most effectively for working people and consumers. The Democratic Party of that era was regional and agricultural, suspicious of any threat to the existing social order. However, the First World War saw an internal upheaval among Republicans, and they emerged in the twenties clearly the party of capital, and against labor.

Only after the Crash of 1929 did “New Democrat” FDR rescue his party, by openly opposing the free-market capitalist agenda of Republicans. Throughout this period, the professional class was steadily increasing its influence on American culture, in general. Government became very technocratic, with expanding bureaucracies, employing a multitude of experts, much like the growing capitalism of the previous century. The continuation of the New Deal, after Roosevelt’s death, managed to co-opt even the Republican Party of Eisenhower and Nixon. Professionals became a dominant constituency in both parties.

Then, in the 1972 election, the Democratic Party imploded. After the humiliating defeat of George McGovern, Democrats embarked upon a two-decade project to remake their party into a pro-capitalist, pro-growth, pro-rentier advocacy group. This is the thesis of Thomas Frank’s book, “Listen, Liberal” (2016). No more policies for the working man … campaign rhetoric, yes, but no longer any concrete policies to benefit the working class. It reached its peak during the Obama years; and, by extension, Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the last election.

Thomas Frank’s Prescription

Of course, working people didn’t disappear, but the Democratic Party, at least, focused, instead, on “identity politics” of racial and educational commonalities. As Frank develops it, if Democrats are to win elections going forward, they must rediscover the working class, probably at the expense of the professional class. The Party, he claims, has lost its roots … gone is organized labor, one of the three pillars of the party at mid-century: labor, POC (People Of Color), and the professional/technocratic class. Only two legs of the stool remained after the turn of the 21^st century. Barack Obama succeeded only because his two challengers were even more obviously beholden to the world of capital, and rent, than was the Democratic Party. The off-year drubbings Dems have received over the last decade in Congress and statehouses, support his contention.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party also has a three-legged stool, social conservatives (also known as the “religious right”), business interests (especially, small business), and certain professionals (especially, military, and law enforcement). In election after election, state after state, these three legs proved more durable than those supporting the Democratic stool. Surely, a re-energized labor contingent could easily find itself loyal, once again, to the Democratic Party, if only that party would welcome it into its ranks. For its part, organized labor may have to do some restructuring, too, before it can make any difference in future elections. How about clear, focused positions on some of the economic issues around rent and inequality – for openers?

And, we could also use a broader definition of productive labor … is not any labor that increases net social benefit productive? Perhaps it’s time to let Karl Marx rest in peace.

Bernie Sanders' main strength has always been that "I" next to his name, that's why he re-registered as Independent after the primary. Dem apparatchiks who think that hurts him as spiritual leader of party don't understand American political dynamics ... future belongs to left, get ppl off their sofas to vote, don't waste time trying to steal them away from Republicans!

what to do about polling non-responders? Or, folks who just don't tell pollsters the truth, for fear of disapproval?