Category: Uncategorized

Ainsley in The Wall Street Journal: The U.K. Elects a No-Drama Prime Minister After Years of Post-Brexit Chaos

Posted on by Alex Terr

Starmer’s tenure nearly came to a quick end. In 2021 the party lost a special election in Hartlepool, a Labour heartland, to the Conservatives, which nearly prompted him to quit, aides say.

Starmer’s aides looked to other social democrats across the world for inspiration. They saw how the Biden campaign had succeeded against Trump in 2020 by promising an alternative to chaos. In Germany and Australia, staid center-left politicians, Olaf Scholz and Anthony Albanese, had won victories running tightly disciplined, unshowy campaigns, says Claire Ainsley, who was Starmer’s executive director of policy and now works at the U.S.-based Progressive Policy Institute. 

“We needed to target towns and suburbs around the country,” she said. “We couldn’t just be the party of metropolitan voters in the big cities.” That meant ditching a lot of progressive policies to attract back working class voters and present themselves as a party which respected national security and business, she says.

Read more in The Wall Street Journal.

Moss in Reuters: Tougher trustbusting will last beyond US election

Posted on by Alex Terr
Other attempts to expand antitrust doctrine have sputtered, too. A judge dismissed buyout shop Welsh Carson from a lawsuit against the dominant Texas anesthesiology practice it backs, undermining fledgling efforts to target private equity firms. The Republican Party faction that rejects neo-Brandeisian notions has attacked such losses with gusto. The House of Representatives recently voted to reduce the DOJ’s already-meager annual antitrust funding by nearly a fifth, to $193 million.
In terms of caseload volumes alone, the DOJ and FTC have not been especially active either. Granted, the number of deals arriving at the agencies has spiked, opens new tab, with more than 3,000 flagged in both 2021 and 2022, up around 50% from most of Trump’s term. Nonetheless, both the number of in-depth investigations of deals and challenges to them, as a percentage of those designated for scrutiny, peaked during President Barack Obama’s administration, according to an analysis conducted by Diana Moss at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Read more in Reuters. 

Ainsley in NBC News: Who is Keir Starmer, the self-described socialist set to lead the U.K.? Some Brits still don’t know

Posted on by Alex Terr

It was a chaotic party under Corbyn, who hailed from the unpolished far left and enraged many colleagues. Starmer held several senior roles but also participated in a failed plot to topple Corbyn, finally replacing him in 2020 after Labour suffered a colossal defeat to then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

“It’s hard to overstate how much that election had damaged the party,” Claire Ainsley, Starmer’s former policy guru, said in an interview. “Morale was at rock bottom, its spirit and purpose had been broken” and it was 26 points behind in the polls, added Ainsley, who is who is now a director at the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

Supporters say Starmer’s remaking of Labour — now 20 points ahead — shows he can enact radical change. It has become a sleek, professionalized electoral force, while Starmer has cast himself as Corbyn’s antithesis.

Read more in NBC News. 

Trade Fact of the Week: The Trump campaign is proposing a higher tea tax than George III.

Posted on by Max Sherrill

FACT: The Trump campaign is proposing a higher tea tax than George III.


THE NUMBERS: Tea taxes – 
Current U.S. “MFN” tariff on black and green tea 0%
Current “301” tariff (applied to Chinese tea only) 7.5%
“Tea Act” 1773* ~8%
Trump campaign proposal 10%
*3 pence per pound of tea; ad valorem equivalent varied with price.
WHAT THEY MEAN:

Parliament intended the “Tea Act” of May 1773 mainly as an emergency bailout of the “East India Company.” In modern terms, the EIC was a “state enterprise” (though one with a military arm) launched in 1600 and, by the late 18th century, governed parts of India. Its conquest of Bengal in the 1760s had left the company nearly bankrupt. To rebuild its finances, the Tea Act authorized the Company to ship a 250-ton stockpile of unwanted tea (bought a year earlier in Guangzhou) to Britain’s Atlantic colonies with the regular 25% export tax waived and a refund for the tariffs it had paid bringing the stockpile into London. The Tea Act left in place an existing 3-pence-per-pound tariff to be paid by colonial buyers, and by requiring export licenses for overseas tea sales, also confirmed that only the EIC was allowed to sell tea to colonial customers.  Two often missed details about this very tediously written law:

(1) The 3 pence per pound tea tax wasn’t especially high. Here’s the arithmetic:

Tea cost 3 to 4 shillings per pound in the 1770s.  (Prices varied a bit each year.)  In Britain’s confusing 18th-century currency system — golden guineas, pounds sterling, shillings, pence, and farthings — one shilling equaled twelve pence.  So “3 pence per pound” meant a tariff varying in a range from about 8% in low-price years to 6% in high-price years. To put this in context, the “301” tariff the Trump administration imposed on Chinese tea in 2019 is 7.5%, essentially identical to the Tea Act level, and the 10% tariff the Trump campaign has pitched is well above the George III rate.  (The permanent U.S. tariff on tea is zero for black and green, but 6.4% for some flavored varieties.) Of course, at the time, nobody in Parliament or the Ministry pretended the Chinese tea-growers would somehow pay it; everyone knew colonial consumers would do that.

(2) The tea tax wasn’t new.

Parliament had launched it in 1767 as part of the larger “Townshend Revenue Acts”, which also had imposed tariffs on colonial purchases of molasses, sugar, tea, glass, and some other products. These had all been canceled after colonial protest — no taxation without representation – except for the tea tax. Parliament’s hope in dropping the export tax (apart from rebuilding the EIC’s finances) was that tea prices would fall, inducing the colonists to stop buying tea from other sellers.

Why then did the Tea Act arouse such emotion? Here we can look to the two global-economy grievances cited in the Declaration:

Grievance #16: “For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world” refers most immediately to the blockade of the Port of Boston, begun in mid-1774 in retaliation for the previous December’s Tea Party.  (See below for the startling trade data.) The longer-term issue were laws called “Navigation Acts” passed between 1651 and 1696, which (a) banned colonial imports of anything except British-made goods or products such as the EIC tea shipped via British ports, (b) prohibited exports of colonial products to anyone but British buyers, and (c) required use of British-owned ships, with crews of at least 75% British or colonial sailors, to carry goods.  The colonists had mostly ignored these rules up to the 1750s, except for the security-sensitive case of timber exports reserved for Royal Navy shipyards. They resented renewed enforcement in the 1760s and 1770s as having financially damaged some of them and eroded everyone’s freedom to buy what they liked, and saw the Tea Act’s attempt to reinforce the EIC’s tea monopoly as escalation.

Grievance #17: “For imposing taxes on us without our consent”, is, of course, the famous “taxation without representation” dispute about the imposition of tariffs (and earlier, stamp taxes) without approval by colonial legislatures.  Even at relatively low rates, the Tea Act re-ignited the whole 10-year-old argument by confirming a tax at any level. As with Navigation Act enforcement, the Tea Act’s declaration that Parliament retained its right to impose new ones also seemed to promise lots more to come.

With that, the links between the Declaration’s opening abstract discussion of government principles (“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”), the references to specific grievances such as those caused by the Navigation Acts, Tea Act, and Boston Port Act, and the risks the signatories are willing to take to redress them (“we mutually pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”) link up. A bit more below for those interested in whether the tea controversy of 1773 and 1774 has any modern relevance.  Either way, PPI trade staff wish readers and friends a happy Fourth.

*By tonnage, Argentina is the top source of U.S. tea at 43 million kilos, or nearly half the 104 million-kilo total in 2023. Traditional growers India, China, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka come next by tonnage; Japan, however, earns the most money selling tea to Americans, with their 3,500 tons of high-end sencha and matcha bringing in $105 million of the U.S.’ $493 million worth of imports last year. 

FURTHER READING

250 years later, is the tea tax controversy relevant for anything but historical interest?  If the main question is whether a tax is “legitimately” imposed, here’s the catalogue of current tea policy and proposals:

*    The modern zero-tariff rates for black tea and green tea, and the 6.4% for flavored teas, may be good policy or not depending on one’s point of view, but are the result of old tariff bills passed and trade agreements ratified by Congress.  So from the ‘representation’ perspective, no problem.

*    The 7.5% tariff imposed on Chinese tea during the Trump administration is open to question.  It avoided Congressional action and seems at face value in tension with the Constitution’s Article II, Section 8: “Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” It still, however, came through a Congressional law (“Section 301”) ceding some Congressional control over tariff policy in cases when administrations want to use tariffs as negotiating leverage.

*    The 10% tariff on all tea the campaign has proposed — Sri Lankan, Argentine, Japanese, Chinese, whatever — seems, if imposed by decree, to evade Congressional tax powers altogether.

Data:

Census’ 1975 collection of trade data from the Colonial era and the early republic:

“Cutting off our trade with all countries of the world”: Boston in 1772 — a town of 15,520 by the 1765 census — was getting about 850 ship arrivals a year, and receiving about a fifth of all U.S. trade.  After the blockade began this all stopped, and other colonies began refusing British goods in protest.  Here are the colonies-UK trade data:

Colonial exports Colonial imports

 
1776 £0.11 million £0.06 million
1775 £1.92 million £0.19 million
1774 £1.37 million £2.59 million
1773 £1.37 million £2.08 million

 


Background and documents:

The U.S. National Archives’ official text of the Declaration.

… and discussion from the Monticello Foundation.

The UK National Archives explains 18th-century British currency (four farthings per pence, 12 pence per shilling, 20 shillings per pound sterling, and 21 shillings per golden guinea).

… and reprints British government reaction to the Tea Party.

… and Yale Law School reprints the text of the verbose Boston Port Act which followed.

And a book recommendation:

The Smithsonian’s essay collection The American Revolution: A World War looks at the Revolution from abroad, with appearances by French admirals, Chinese tea merchants, Spanish viceroys, German warlords, Dutch gun-runners, and the intrepid Sultan Haidar Ali of Mysore, admired by the colonists as a fellow enemy of the East India Company and namesake of one of the Continental Navy’s 65 ships, the 40-ton Hyder-Ally.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Getting the War on Junk Fees Right

Posted on by Max Sherrill

President Biden and his team may have found a winning issue protecting consumers (and voters) from junk fees and hidden costs — but only if they play their policy (and political) cards right.

Regulation that solves old problems without creating new ones will strengthen the economy and bolster Democrats’ brand as practical leaders who put consumers first. But overreach that puts talking points ahead of tangible gains — or regulates for regulation’s sake — is sure to backfire. So far, the Administration’s junk fee push has been a little bit of both.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) CARS rule banning phantom charges in auto sales and DOT’s new requirement that airlines automatically refund canceled fights have been clear winners, delivering concrete, immediate benefits without harmful side effects or unintended consequences.

On the other hand, the FTC’s centerpiece proposal requiring businesses to disclose “total prices” before consumer purchases is turning into more of a mixed bag.

On the surface, this one should be a policy and political gimmee. No one supports surprise last-minute charges or Rube Goldberg pricing schemes that make it impossible to figure out what something costs until you’ve clicked through multiple screens to buy it. The basic idea is so logical and popular that the worst offenders — industries like ticketing services, hotels, and short-term rental services — have been scrambling to get ahead of the regulators and banish or more clearly disclose dubious “convenience” and “destination” fees.

But the FTC’s proposed rule doesn’t only apply to these obvious targets; it covers the entire economy. And in its rush to pump out the broadest possible rule ahead of fall elections, the agency is ignoring costly unintended consequences that could undermine both the policy and the political benefits of the rule.

The biggest problem is the FTC’s failure to consider the confusion and other harms caused by applying the new rules to consumer businesses that are already subject to existing transparency requirements. This oversight isn’t surprising, given the agency is clearly focused on a handful of high-profile consumer industries that do not already have such obligations. But by sweeping everyone else in too, it poses real problems for businesses that are already fully regulated and for consumers who would end up swamped with confusing or conflicting disclosures.

Banking services, for example, must comply with the extensive requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, including disclosure of “life of the loan” borrowing and financing costs a well as company policies around default, late payments, and service charges and fees. Adding new disclosure obligations alongside these existing requirements would be confusing, duplicative and costly, driving up borrowing costs and potentially freezing lenders in place with no way to satisfy conflicting regimes.

Communications companies are also already covered by industry-specific — and absolutely mandatory — rules dictating how they describe and disclose prices and related policies, including the 2019 Television Viewer Protection Act as well as the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) recently enacted “All In Pricing” and “Broadband Nutrition Label” regulations. And these existing requirements differ substantially from the proposed FTC rules on critical issues like whether or not to include government fees and taxes in “total costs” (required by the FTC but not the FCC) or how to explain regional pricing variations to consumers (the FCC says companies can reference these differences in ads while the FTC does not).

The result would be defensive, “double messaging” to consumers offering two different and conflicting sets of disclosure, as businesses subject to overlapping regulatory regimes attempt to manage the tension. Consumers would almost certainly be more confused and prices would likely rise in these industries due to the high costs of complying with such complex and risky overlapping obligations.

One tool to avoid these missteps is the Bipartisan Regulatory Early Notice and Engagement Act, which requires agencies to give an early heads-up when they are considering new regulations — giving the people and businesses affected a chance to flag potential conflicts and unintended consequences.

Another is even simpler — regulate where needed — but no farther. By limiting the application of their new rule to industries that aren’t already covered by more specific, tailored regulations, policymakers can stop confusion and conflicts before they even get started.

That’s how to protect consumers, boost the economy, and win the war on junk fees without making the Democratic brand collateral damage.

Moss and Gold for ProMarket: Federal Legislation, Not the NCAA Antitrust Settlements, Should Drive a New Model of College Sports

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Diana L. Moss and Jason Gold

The prospect of playing a sport in college has motivated countless young Americans. How could it not? The simultaneous benefits of getting a degree, athletic training and team camaraderie, representing a college, and the poten­­tial to carve out a future professional sports career are all in play. Since the first college varsity football challenge in 1869 between Princeton and Rutgers, colleges have been a major venue for young, amateur athletes to pursue these worthy goals.  Developments in the traditional college sports model of “amateurism” have, at times, put these considerations to the test. But it is the more recent changes in the legal and economic complexities around college sports that are now redefining the norm.

The fundamental shift in the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) long-standing model came in the 2021 Alston v. NCAA case. There, the Supreme Court found that the league violated antitrust law by restricting athlete compensation to preserve the spirit of amateurism.

The NCAA’s loss in court meant that college student athletes are now able to control and profit from Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements and other endorsements. However, settlements in ongoing private antitrust class action cases will also affect how colleges share revenue from sports programs by directly paying student athletes.

Keep reading in ProMarket.

Kahlenberg for The Liberal Patriot: Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Richard D. Kahlenberg

The United States is celebrating its 248th birthday at a moment when people across the political spectrum agree that the country’s experiment in liberal democracy is in deep trouble.

A decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that the presumptive Republican candidate for president would be someone who had tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and speaks of suspending the Constitution. The threat to liberal democracy on the left is less stark, fueled by the power of culture, rather than the power of the state. But it too is chilling. More than half of very liberal college students say it’s acceptable to block fellow students from hearing speakers, (compared with only 13 percent of very conservative students.) College campuses have become deeply corrosive cultures, in which eight in ten students surveyed feel they can’t speak their minds. Illiberalism on the left rises as people become more educated. Antisemitism, a former Harvard dean notes, has taken stronger root in elite colleges than in other American institutions, from libraries to hospitals, because of the way students are being taught.

It is especially worrisome that the willingness to give up on democracy is much greater among young people than those who are older. Whereas only 5 percent of those over 65 said, “Democracy is no longer a viable system, and America should explore alternative forms of government,” a shocking 31 percent of youth ages 18-29 agreed.

Why now?

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: The Trumpists’ Dangerous ‘Peace’ Plan for Ukraine

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE imagines that a re-elected President Donald Trump would be much of a friend to Kyiv. But the so-called “peace” proposal leaked last week by two former national security staffers from the Trump administration, now at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, is even more toxic than many expected.

Predictably enough, the plan stipulates an immediate ceasefire, obligatory negotiations with Russia and a temporary—in truth, likely to be permanent—abandonment of Ukrainian claims to the 20 percent of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Moscow. The poison pill was less predictable: Under the plan, the United States would strong-arm Kyiv to defer membership in NATO “for an extended period”—again, in the real world, most likely forever.

Trump hasn’t yet endorsed the plan, but his comments on a podcast last month suggest he is open to a NATO ban. “If Ukraine goes into NATO, it’s a real problem for Russia,” the former president told a trio of sympathetic Silicon Valley investors. Echoing a claim that Moscow and its proxies have been peddling for years, Trump argued that it was President Joe Biden’s support for Ukrainian membership in the alliance that provoked Vladimir Putin to invade in February 2022.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Manno for Forbes: The 4th Of July—Past, Present, And Future

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

This 4th of July brings back memories of my extended immigrant family of over two dozen relatives gathering yearly to celebrate Independence Day at my grandparents’ Italian tavern, the Golden Gate Inn, on the east side of Cleveland, Ohio. We lived in an Italian American neighborhood called Collinwood, surrounded by other ethnic neighborhoods, where similar gatherings occurred. I have five vivid memories of our gatherings, spanning from the early 1950s when I was around five years old to the mid-1960s when I went off to college.

First, it was always hot and humid. There was no air conditioning. Eventually, Dad would plug in one of the big square electric box fans and put it on a small table in the kitchen so it would spew its version of cool air on anyone lucky enough to be close to it. Sooner or later we kids would assemble in the graveled backyard—there was no grass where we lived—and use the green-colored garden hose to spray cold water on each other so we could cool off for a few minutes.

Keep reading in Forbes.

PPI Lauds Department of Energy’s East Coast Geothermal Pilot Program

Posted on by Max Sherrill

WASHINGTON – Today, Elan Sykes, Director of Energy and Climate Policy, and Alec Evans, Energy Policy Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement regarding the U.S. Department of Energy’s second-round funding opportunity for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) demonstrations under President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

“The Progressive Policy Institute applauds the Department of Energy (DOE) for providing funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for East Coast enhanced geothermal energy pilot projects. The DOE’s announcement follows a recent publication by PPI’s Energy and Climate Solutions Initiative that advocates for East Coast geothermal pilot plant construction. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) have the potential to provide consistent and plentiful renewable energy throughout much of the United States, and expanding geothermal’s footprint will accelerate the technology’s adoption and rollout. An East Coast geothermal program would prove especially beneficial for securing investments, collecting data, and counteracting public skepticism towards renewables, three of the largest hurdles inhibiting EGS adoption.”

“Moving forward, it is critical for the DOE to consider the implications of its site selection carefully. Although several regions in the Eastern U.S. are viable for geothermal, Appalachia would prove most beneficial for the initial development phase. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are among the most geologically feasible locations for geothermal, and they rely heavily on producing and generating energy for their workforces, exports, and economies. Furthermore, the energy future of these states is at risk due to the declining use of fossil fuels. Prioritizing West Virginia and Pennsylvania for geothermal pilot projects would provide an opportunity for local energy workers to transfer their skills toward clean energy and allow these states to maintain their status as energy exporters. PPI recommends that prospective developers and the state governments of Pennsylvania and West Virginia collaborate to secure a project in Appalachia and to remove any undue regulatory or permitting obstacles to this crucial resource.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American: Strengthening Our Liberal Democracy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — Liberal democracy in the United States faces unprecedented challenges from both ends of the political spectrum. On the right, actions to undermine the peaceful transfer of power and suggestions to suspend the Constitution pose severe risks. Meanwhile, on the left, cultural forces on campuses are creating an environment where liberal students increasingly find it acceptable to block opposing views. But why is it happening now? And what can be done about it?

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a vital framework that offers a diagnosis and a solution.  The report titled “Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American” pins the decline of liberal democracy on the rise of identity politics that causes extremists on both ends of the political spectrum to erode liberal democratic values. Report author Richard Kahlenberg, Director of the American Identity Project, offers a comprehensive solution to strengthen liberal democratic values through education. The report outlines nine actionable strategies at the K-12 and college levels to teach students a common American identity, including:

1. Providing more resources and accountability for teaching civics and American history

2. Spending more time teaching students about life in nondemocratic societies

3. Offering an honest account of American history, acknowledging both its flaws and redemptive qualities

4. Overhauling diversity, equity, and inclusion and ethnic studies programs to uplift without demonizing

5. Emphasizing what makes America exceptional

6. Integrating schools by race and income through public school choice

7. Promoting community service and national service

8. Teaching the art of civil discourse

9. Securing federal support for these educational efforts

The report’s release aligns with the upcoming Independence Day, serving as a reminder of the enduring importance of American democratic principles. It also underscores the urgent need to address divisive educational practices, particularly given the rise in antisemitism on campuses.

“The key to preserving our liberal democracy lies in educating our youth about the values that unite us as Americans,” said Richard Kahlenberg. “As we approach Independence Day, it’s a critical moment to reflect on our democracy and take decisive steps to fortify it. The American Identity Project will provide policymakers with practical tools to promote social cohesion and democratic resilience.”

Note: This report is the first in a series. It provides an overview, and subsequent reports will delve deeper into each of the nine policy ideas briefly listed above.

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: It’s Election Time in the UK

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Claire Ainsley

This Thursday, the United Kingdom is heading for a historic day. Voters across the UK will go to the polls in the first general election since December 2019, when the Labour Party lost its fourth successive election to Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, who won a thumping 80-seat parliamentary majority. Extraordinarily, it looks like the Labour Party will now win this election, and usher out fourteen years of continuous but chaotic Conservative governments.

In fact, pollsters are predicting not just a Labour victory but a Labour landslide and a Conservative wipe out, at the hands of a resurgent Labour Party, revived Liberal Democrats, and support for Nigel Farage’s new party Reform UK.

Most of us who have fought for the last five years working for a Labour turnaround are reluctant to talk about election certainties. Part of this is our heads—polls have been wrong before, especially about “shy Tories.” A lot of voters are still undecided, and voters are much more likely to switch parties than they used to be. But part of this reluctance is our hearts, too.

Observers could be forgiven for thinking Labour have been the passive beneficiaries of the Conservatives’ collapse, waiting for the contradictions in the party’s electoral coalition and inter-political rivalries to take them down. They could not be more wrong.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

Teaching Students What It Means to Be an American: It Provides the Key to Preserving Our Liberal Democracy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Executive Summary

Almost 250 years after the nation’s founding, there is broad agreement that American liberal democracy is in deep trouble. The leading Republican candidate for president has tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and speaks of suspending the Constitution, while activists on the left shout down speakers with whom they disagree and create a climate where large majorities feel they can’t speak their minds. Illiberal tendencies are worse on the political right than the left because they invoke the power of the state, while the left invokes the power of culture, but both are profoundly troubling and feed off of one another.

It has long been observed that authoritarian tendencies are greatest among those with less education and income, but today illiberalism on the left actually rises with increased education, the opposite of what one would hope. Disturbingly, the willingness to give up on democracy is much greater among young people than those who are older.

Why now? After a long period in which the Civil Rights movement helped make the country more democratic, why is America now backsliding? Central to the problem is the loss of a common American identity. White identity politics on the right, and racial identity politics on the left, make fights seem existential, which justifies cutting corners on democratic norms. Voters on the right are more likely to excuse authoritarian actions when they feel as though they are losing control of the country. Meanwhile, the left promotes critical race theory and antiracism policies that say racial oppression is a permanent feature of American life that can only be countered by discrimination in favor of oppressed groups.

These theories about the centrality of racial identity lead to an eerie convergence on the left and the right that questions a series of fundamental liberal democratic principles. For different reasons, both sides have become skeptical about treating Americans as individuals rather than members of racial groups. They both question concepts like advancement based on merit and the possibility of discerning objective truth. The hard right and the hard left agree that school integration makes little sense; and they both, in their own ways, are skeptical about free speech, press freedom, and the freedom to read controversial books. For different reasons, they both question academic freedom, and are both willing to embrace antisemitic beliefs.

What is the path out? Historically, public schools in America accomplished two pretty miraculous objectives. By placing a priority on teaching students the importance of liberal democratic principles, they helped keep a democratic republic going for over two centuries; and by instilling a common American identity, they provided the glue that held together people whose ancestors came from all corners of the world. In recent years, K-12 schools and colleges have moved away from this vision. They’ve placed more focus on economic competitiveness than democratic citizenship. And many focus on a vision of American and world history that divides the racial and ethnic groups neatly into categories of oppressed and oppressors, and undercut a shared American identity through poorly implemented ethnic studies programs. This new emphasis within public schools, in turn, promotes calls on the right for privatization of public education, which will only Balkanize the country further.

This report is the first in a series that will offer nine ways to once again teach students what it means to be an American.

The stakes of teaching American identity are enormous. Human beings have a natural yearning for identity and a larger purpose and if educators don’t provide young people with a love of country, authoritarians will offer false alternatives, often centered around race or ethnicity. The good news is that the public supports a better path. Instilling a renewed sense of American identity could inspire a “patriotism dividend” that could put the country on a better path for the next 250 years. Among the towering issues of our time, few are as important as this one.

Read the full report.

Regulators Deserve a Nudge, Not a Shove

Posted on by Max Sherrill

SCOTUS just did away with Chevron deference, effectively trimming the discretion enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of federal regulators across 70+ agencies.

As expected, anti-regulation voices are sounding off with unbridled glee as conservative lawmakers blow the dust off of old legislative proposals that have never garnered bipartisan traction.

If such reactions are misplaced, then how should one process this admittedly momentous decision by the high court?

Let’s start by acknowledging a truth that some on the left are loathe to admit: the work of federal regulators—thousands of new mandates every year, imposing tens of billions of dollars in costs–largely escapes oversight by elected officials. In my recent report for the Progressive Policy Institute, I note that just 8% of all new rules are reviewed by the White House, and just 17% of all new rules are required by Congress. Regulators are most certainly driving the bus.

And let’s acknowledge another truth ignored by some on the right: the public benefits enormously from regulation. Benefits exceed costs by a large margin—a conclusion drawn across numerous studies, including annual reports from the Office of Management and Budget. And polling shows that the public overwhelmingly supports regulatory protections—think clean air, safe transportation, unadulterated medicines, fiscally sound banks.

So what can and should be done, if anything, to ensure appropriate checks and balances on the so-called administrative state?

Deferring to the courts is not a viable long-term solution. Judges are ill-equipped to play the role of regulator—they lack expertise in the very technical matters that are often at the heart of any rulemaking action.

Greater reliance on the president is better, but not much. Executive orders govern the regulatory review process, but executive orders do not have the force of law, and some of the most active regulatory agencies are, by design, not subject to White House control.

No, the key take-away from the SCOTUS ruling is that Congress, which delegates its authority to regulators, needs to elevate its game when it comes to oversight. It should pass a law that shines a light on troublesome rules before they are issued. But it should do so without sacrificing the issuance of necessary rules, which are legion. Regulators deserve a nudge, not a shove.

Fortunately, such a solution—in the form of regulatory early notice—was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill, H.R. 8204, co-sponsored by Rep. Don Davis (D-NC), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), and Tim Burchett (R-TN), would require agencies to disclose to Congress every newly initiated rulemaking, along with an explanation of its necessity and the rationale behind it. And the public would be invited to submit ideas on how best to achieve the regulatory objective at the lowest cost.

In many ways, the bill does not break new ground. It borrows language from a Clinton-era executive order that has been in place since 1993 and affirmed by every President since. And it embraces recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which was established to convene legal scholars and other experts to identify needed reforms.

What is new is this: the bill would allow Congress to see exactly how federal agencies use their delegated authority long before a new rule is issued. Just as sunlight is the best disinfectant, disclosure is the best way to ensure stronger, more defensible regulation from the get-go. The concept is, to coin a phrase, radically pragmatic. Congress should act on it.

For more on the need for regulation reform that promotes transparency and accountability in federal rulemaking, check out a recent PPI paper titled “Stronger Regulation from the Get-Go.”

About the Author

Keith B. Belton is Senior Director, Policy Analysis and Statistics, with the American Chemistry Council. His research and writings explore the intersection of public policy and private markets, with particular focus on economic development, regulation, and competitiveness.

Marshall for The Hill: The GOP’s pessimistic platform for the future is the worst of our past

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

Gathering in Charlotte four years ago to renominate President Donald Trump, Republicans didn’t bother to draft a party platform. Evidently, they figured, “more Trump” was all the public needed to know about their second-term plans.

It probably was, although not in the way Republicans had hoped, as the voters dumped Trump and hired Joe Biden.

Americans vote for people, not platforms. But these manifestoes, however platitudinous and boring, are like a quadrennial Rorschach test of a party’s state of mind. The GOP’s decision to recycle its 2016 platform seemed calculated to paper over internal ideological rifts as well as their nominee’s frequent lapses into incoherence.

This time, party leaders plan to write a new platform for next month’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. This time, having thoroughly routed traditional conservatives and the GOP’s dwindling band of dissenters from his “stolen election” fantasy, Trump can expect blind obedience from his party.

Keep reading in The Hill.