Democrats need to embrace "combative centrism"— the strategy of fighting harder against Trump's policies while maintaining centrist economic positions that appeal to swing voters.
I liked the article and agree with most of it. However, I think is a bit that's off-base in regards to learning from past mistakes.
You say, " Biden prioritized jobs through large non targeted spending packages, which worsened inflation and increased the price of goods. He assumed voters would reward him down the line, but that was not the case, and Democrats paid a heavy political price. Policy proposals that prioritize abstract future benefits over immediate economic pain have consistently backfired politically."
I read that as being his Covid recovery spending which actually WAS in response to immediate economic pain! It is now known (or at least knowable as some still deny it) that his Covid spending was too much and did worsen inflation more than was needed. But the impetus was immediate, not long term or abstract.
And the underlying theory is correct. The response to a demand driven downturn IS to run the economy hotter in one or several of a variety of ways.
He had several large bills that were untargeted, not just the COVID recovery package. The American Rescue Plan ($1.9T), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ($1.2T), Inflation Reduction Act ($740B), and student loan forgiveness initiative all contributed to government spending during his term. While some targeted specific sectors, many economists argue they collectively injected too much money into an already recovering economy. The timing and scale of these packages, especially coming after the earlier 2020 COVID relief bills, created excess demand that supply chains had trouble with, contributing to the inflation we experienced. It's worth considering the cumulative impact rather than viewing each bill in isolation.
I recommend this reading from Dylan Matthews on this particular subject, here is an excerpt: "Biden's stimulus succeeded in bringing down unemployment incredibly rapidly, returning economic growth to its pre-pandemic trend. But it also was a direct cause of the 2022 and 2023 inflation, price hikes that in retrospect contributed to Donald Trump's eventual victory in 2024... One group of economists compared the US experience to that of European countries with less ambitious stimulus programs and attributed about 3 percentage points of inflation to excessive stimulus."
Yeah, I am not an expert in this, but many of those bills you mentioned were very much targeted. And on the industrial policy spending, much of that money has not been disbursed and so hasn't actually done anything (positive, or negative from an inflationary standpoint).
I am not disagreeing that what Biden did, primarily with the Covid relief spending, contributing to inflation. It did. But again, there was an interesting in-the-moment trade off between recovery and inflation (that's essentially always the case macro-economically more or less)
Now there is a whole other econ component of whether the non-relief spending, in adding to the deficit, raised inflation. Government debt is inflationary, but I've seen some arguments that that is over a longer time horizon or else more gradual than the effects from direct or indirect cash infusions such as the relief checks, business loans, student debt forgiveness, etc.
Regardless, my main point is that those things were, in fact, targeted.
I can understand how they were targeted in theory but their focus to capture so much into few bills botched their implementation process. If a bill is unable to accomplish its initial goal, while prices continue to soar, the public will view it as throwing money out the window. For example, according to analysis by the Financial Times, 40 percent of major Inflation Reduction Act manufacturing projects have been delayed or paused indefinitely, despite the bill's design to spur private investment in clean energy.
Everyone loves the idea of clean energy, but if the Biden Admin can't do it well and they are left with the pieces of high prices, they begin to sour on the idea.
I liked the article and agree with most of it. However, I think is a bit that's off-base in regards to learning from past mistakes.
You say, " Biden prioritized jobs through large non targeted spending packages, which worsened inflation and increased the price of goods. He assumed voters would reward him down the line, but that was not the case, and Democrats paid a heavy political price. Policy proposals that prioritize abstract future benefits over immediate economic pain have consistently backfired politically."
I read that as being his Covid recovery spending which actually WAS in response to immediate economic pain! It is now known (or at least knowable as some still deny it) that his Covid spending was too much and did worsen inflation more than was needed. But the impetus was immediate, not long term or abstract.
And the underlying theory is correct. The response to a demand driven downturn IS to run the economy hotter in one or several of a variety of ways.
He had several large bills that were untargeted, not just the COVID recovery package. The American Rescue Plan ($1.9T), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ($1.2T), Inflation Reduction Act ($740B), and student loan forgiveness initiative all contributed to government spending during his term. While some targeted specific sectors, many economists argue they collectively injected too much money into an already recovering economy. The timing and scale of these packages, especially coming after the earlier 2020 COVID relief bills, created excess demand that supply chains had trouble with, contributing to the inflation we experienced. It's worth considering the cumulative impact rather than viewing each bill in isolation.
I recommend this reading from Dylan Matthews on this particular subject, here is an excerpt: "Biden's stimulus succeeded in bringing down unemployment incredibly rapidly, returning economic growth to its pre-pandemic trend. But it also was a direct cause of the 2022 and 2023 inflation, price hikes that in retrospect contributed to Donald Trump's eventual victory in 2024... One group of economists compared the US experience to that of European countries with less ambitious stimulus programs and attributed about 3 percentage points of inflation to excessive stimulus."
https://www.vox.com/politics/394712/joe-biden-president-legacy-inflation-manchin
Yeah, I am not an expert in this, but many of those bills you mentioned were very much targeted. And on the industrial policy spending, much of that money has not been disbursed and so hasn't actually done anything (positive, or negative from an inflationary standpoint).
I am not disagreeing that what Biden did, primarily with the Covid relief spending, contributing to inflation. It did. But again, there was an interesting in-the-moment trade off between recovery and inflation (that's essentially always the case macro-economically more or less)
Now there is a whole other econ component of whether the non-relief spending, in adding to the deficit, raised inflation. Government debt is inflationary, but I've seen some arguments that that is over a longer time horizon or else more gradual than the effects from direct or indirect cash infusions such as the relief checks, business loans, student debt forgiveness, etc.
Regardless, my main point is that those things were, in fact, targeted.
I can understand how they were targeted in theory but their focus to capture so much into few bills botched their implementation process. If a bill is unable to accomplish its initial goal, while prices continue to soar, the public will view it as throwing money out the window. For example, according to analysis by the Financial Times, 40 percent of major Inflation Reduction Act manufacturing projects have been delayed or paused indefinitely, despite the bill's design to spur private investment in clean energy.
Everyone loves the idea of clean energy, but if the Biden Admin can't do it well and they are left with the pieces of high prices, they begin to sour on the idea.