Finally, a real debate on government and the economy
A coalition of labor unions gathered at the Minnesota Capitol Rotunda in 2025 to demand funding for services, including education and health care. Credit:MinnPost photo by Deanna PistonoMost of us tend not to. . .
A coalition of labor unions gathered at the Minnesota Capitol Rotunda in 2025 to demand funding for services, including education and health care. Credit:MinnPost photo by Deanna PistonoMost of us tend not to reflect on the nature and boundaries of current political discussion and how it came to be. We’re like fish who have no idea what water is. We just live in it. But the terms of our political debate did not drop from the heavens. Rather, they are themselves the product of politics. Powerful actors constantly seek to frame issues in a way that’s favorable to them and discredits alternative perspectives. Specific words and phrases are invoked to create narratives, and then discussion takes place within the confines of prescribed rhetorical limits. And today, mainstream discussion on government and the economy has moved so far to the right that it is almost unrecognizable by historical standards. For much of the 20th century, while there were clear differences between the two parties, conventional discussion acknowledged that unchecked free markets had substantially negative and unnecessary effects on the population. Public services – those funded by government through taxation – were generally understood as necessary. Related:Minnesota and Wisconsin primaries next to feature progressive clash with Democratic establishmentLabor unions had a strong presence, and at least partially countered corporations’ assessment of economic conditions and policy options in public debate. Government was seen in a positive light. And policies like increasing taxes to pay for public programs and periodically raising the minimum wage were at least meaningfully debated. Moreover, politicians of both parties used the word “public” regularly. But beginning in the late 1970s and early 80s, as corporations became more powerful, unions were crushed, and government was increasingly vilified. The discussion of government and the economy became entirely one-sided, dominated by corporations and the wealthy and reflecting their interests. Conventional political debate framed taxes and regulations as oppressive and stifling to economic growth. The two political parties came to represent slightly different versions of the same, free market, anti-government, anti-public services dogma. Further, corporate culture became our culture. Corporate priorities, language and values became mainstream priorities, language and values. Corporate words like “efficiency” and “innovation” were not to ever be questioned or even reflected upon. And the word “public” all but vanished from most political discussion. As a result, the federal minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009. Deregulation of every major economic sector has continued unabated, and our economy has drifted toward monopoly. Labor unions have been crushed and the right to collective bargaining hangs by a thread. Ongoing unionization struggles at corporations likeStarbucks, Amazon and Trader Joe’s go largely ignored in mainstream policy discussion. The tax code has become far less progressive, and income and wealth inequality have skyrocketed. Privatization of public services was imposed with no debate whatsoever, as the profit motive penetrated every square inch of our lives. But today, thankfully, we’re seeing snippets of meaningful political debate outside of the corporate framing about fundamental economic issues, and it is being led by progressive candidates around the country, some of whom label themselves as “Democratic Socialist. ”This is shocking to corporate interests and President Donald Trump himself, who — sounding like the reactionaries who railed against Social Security or Medicare decades ago — seek to label anything not put advocated by corporations as “socialism” or even “communism. ” But the policy positions of many progressives represent fairly modest proposals by historic standards, a fact which highlights our current one-sided non-debate on fundamental economic matters. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s proposedpolicyof opening a handful of publicly owned grocery stores is akin to Minnesota’s municipal liquor stores, which were created after Prohibition to control the sale of alcohol. As of 2023, 176 citiesoperated210 liquor stores in the state, and Minnesota has yet to descend into full-blown communism. Related:Are communism and socialism the same?Theplatformof Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong, also a self-described Democratic Socialist, reads like it could have been that of many Democratic Party candidates as recently as a few decades ago: anti-trust and breaking up monopolistic corporations, reigning in unchecked corporate power via a one-year moratorium on data center construction, and support for organized labor, among other very popular policies. And theprominenceof raising the minimum wage and Medicare for All in Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan’s U. S. Senate candidacy should give us hope. Hope for an actual discussion on the role of government in the economy instead of mindlessly continuing to operate within the stultifying confines of our current corporate-dominated political culture. But this process can only happen if we first explicitly acknowledge that mainstream political debate on the economy is not meaningful debate at all. It’s a one-sided corporate echo chamber that has Paul Wellstone rolling in his grave. The policies that have resulted are destroying the planet, created levels of inequality never seen, and, unsurprisingly, placed democracy at risk while the freest version of free market capitalism booms. Besides, what’s the point of even having two major political parties if both represent corporations and the wealthy?Neil Kraus is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. He is the author of three books, including “The Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement,” and is president of United Falcons, the campus chapter of AFT-Wisconsin.