close

OP-ED: Which presidential candidate is better for the working class?

By Kent James 6 min read

Traditionally, Democrats have been the party of the working class, while Republicans appealed to business interests.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Great Depression by regulating banks, protecting unions, building infrastructure and providing jobs for the unemployed laid the foundation for strong working-class support for the Democratic Party. Although FDR pushed back against populists like Louisiana Gov. Huey Long, and was a member of the East Coast elite, in his 1936 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, he took on the populist mantle, welcoming the hatred of the “economic royalists” whom he believed were exploiting hardship for profit.

Democratic support for unions helped them thrive, and in the decades that followed World War II, strong economic growth allowed unions to get enough compensation to bring their members into an expanding middle class. The social disruptions of the 1960s, especially the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, along with the decline in many of the heavy industries that unions had recently organized, such as steel, coal and automobiles, caused many in the working class to think the Democrats were failing them. Although Ronald Reagan himself had been the president of a union, he was very anti-union as a politician, famously firing the air traffic controllers when they went on strike in his first term as president of the United States.

Reagan appealed to the social conservatism of the working class, standing up for religious groups and the military, and opposing abortion and affirmative action. He argued that Democrats had failed them economically. Many members of the white working class became Reagan Democrats and began voting for Republicans.

As president, Reagan championed so-called “trickle-down economics,” which reduced taxes on the rich and regulations on business. To its proponents, this would unleash economic forces that would benefit everyone, because once their tax burden was reduced, the wealthy would invest that extra cash in enterprises that would provide jobs for workers.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work that way.

After 40 years of trying, it has become clear that allowing the rich to pay less in taxes simply allows the rich to grow richer and for deficits to soar. Increasing the spending power of workers creates demand, which then inspires investment. Economic growth comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

Democratic programs tend to get more money into the hands of people with less of it, while Republican tax cuts inevitably benefit the wealthiest the most. Donald Trump’s signature achievement during his term as president was passing tax cuts that drove up the deficit and benefited the wealthy. Trump has promised to renew them, while Kamala Harris wants to reconfigure them so the benefits accrue more to the less wealthy. Harris’ plan would also increase the deficit only about half as much as Trump’s plan. Ironically, while Republicans often complain about the deficit, Republican presidents have increased it much more than Democratic presidents in the last 40 years.

While Trump claims to be on the side of the working man, both his words and his deeds say otherwise. In a conversation with Elon Musk, Trump praised him for firing striking workers. He said, “They go on strike and you say, ‘That’s OK, you’re all gone.'” Trump bragged about refusing to pay his workers overtime. As a real estate developer, Trump had a history of employing cheap foreign labor – he employed, then failed to fully pay, undocumented Polish workers in Manhattan, and his resorts often use immigrants on work visas.

As president, Trump made very anti-labor appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which adjudicates labor disputes, and he has appointed very pro-business judges. When autoworkers went on strike, President Biden walked the picket line with them, the first president to ever do so, while Trump created a photo op with workers in a non-union shop, trying to give the image of supporting workers while undermining their cause.

Populists have always viewed big business as a powerful actor that exploits the working class. Unlike many traditional Republicans, Trump running mate JD Vance has talked about the problems with large corporations. But neither he nor Trump have proposed anything to rein them in. Instead, they are promising tax cuts and reduced regulations. and their whole lives have been devoted to increasing their own wealth, not trying to help the workers.

Democrats, led by Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Lena Kahn, a Biden appointee to the Federal Trade Commission, have successfully pushed back against big businesses on behalf of workers and consumers. They’ve blocked mergers, and limited bank nuisance fees, which disproportionately hurt the poor. They’ve also limited prices drug companies can charge for some drugs and forced airlines to be more customer friendly.

They’ve also promised to end price gouging, which may be difficult to implement – and possibly a problematic policy – but is certainly populist. Harris’ history as the attorney general of California, where she forced banks that improperly foreclosed on homeowners during the mortgage crisis to pay a large fine, demonstrates that she’s more likely to rein in corporations than do their bidding.

In contrast, at a fundraising dinner with oil executives, Trump promised to do whatever the oil companies wanted if they gave his campaign $1 billion. Trump tried to stop the merger of AT&T and Time-Warner to punish CNN because he didn’t like the way the network covered him. For Trump, it only matters if it affects him.

While Trump claims to be a friend of the working class, his economic policies are traditional Republican policies that benefit the wealthy. His promises of reduced taxes on the rich are why billionaires like Peter Theil and Elon Musk are backing him; a Trump win will save them a lot of money.

In addition to changing the tax code to get more revenue from the wealthy and big corporations, Harris has proposed allowing Medicare to pay for in-home services to help people care for aging parents at home, a $50,000 tax credit for business start-ups, and a $25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. These will help address the real problems facing the working class.

Both Trump and Harris are trying to win the votes of the American working class. But Trump’s policies are traditional, business-oriented Republican policies that benefit the wealthy, while Harris is using the traditional Democratic approach of shoring up the economic status of workers and the middle class.

Kent James is a member of East Washington’s borough council.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today