Monday’s decision against Google will likely be remembered in the same breath as other major antitrust cases throughout history, some antitrust experts said. That list includes the breakup of AT&T’s telephone monopoly and Standard Oil, as well as Microsoft’s illegal bundling of its Internet Explorer web browser with Windows, said Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute.
In each of those cases, Moss said, the courts highlighted a specific business practice or mechanism — such as Microsoft’s browser bundling — as a violation of US competition law.
The Google decision this week is no different, zeroing in on the search giant’s exclusive contracts and finding huge problems with the use of such by large, monopolistic firms.
“This is definitely a landmark,” said Moss, adding that “it’s very clear in signaling that the use of exclusive contracts in the hands of a monopolist violates the law.”
WASHINGTON — Today, Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to Vice President Kamala Harris’ selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate:
“Vice President Kamala Harris has made her first major decision since becoming the Democrats’ presumptive nominee – and it’s a good one. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is something you won’t find anywhere on the Republican ticket: A seasoned veteran of public service who knows how to bring Americans together and get things done.
“Gov. Walz brings the pragmatic perspective of Middle America to the Democratic ticket. He was a high school teacher and coach, a U.S. military veteran, and a former Member of Congress representing rural Minnesota. Now he’s a very popular Midwest governor in his second term, with a solid record of governing success under his belt.
“Throughout his career, Gov. Walz has shown a knack for winning the trust and votes of rural and working class voters. He flipped a swing district to win his House seat. In Congress, he stood out as a consistent public champion of the economic aspirations and moral outlook of ordinary working Americans.
“Nearly 15 years ago, as a junior member of Congress, he called for comprehensive deficit reduction, emphasizing the need to get our fiscal house in order — a vision that, if heeded, would have positioned us better today.
“Gov. Walz is a builder. As governor, he’s launched major infrastructure projects and called for permitting reform to ensure Minnesotans get access to better roads, schools and clean energy soon rather than the distant future.
“Harris’s choice of Gov. Walz to be her running mate contrasts favorably with Donald Trump’s selection of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. The callow Vance is an insult artist who adds little but a second troll to Trump’s ticket.
“Gov. Walz is a proven and radically pragmatic leader whose record shows he knows how to make American democracy work.”
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.
The Jones Act is costing Americans billions in higher energy costs and delaying the deployment of green energy sources. To address these costs, in addition to the energy supply and environmental consequences of the status quo, lawmakers must reassess the utility of the act.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 — commonly called the Jones Act — is an obscure shipping law that requires vessels transporting goods between two U.S. ports be American-made, manned, and flagged. Originally motivated by principles of national security and protectionism, the law was passed to complement a wartime reinvigoration of domestic shipbuilding that saw the U.S. construct one of the most dominant merchant fleets in the world. A century later, however, the Jones Act now presents a major hurdle for domestic offshore energy projects and fuel transportation, resulting in higher energy prices for Americans and slower deployment of cleaner energy sources.
The U.S. offshore wind industry, already plagued by high interest rates, permitting delays, shoddy port infrastructure, supply chain issues, and recent high-profile turbine breakdowns, is desperately searching for ways to improve project costs and expediency. Building offshore wind turbines requires shipping enormous individual components to be assembled on-site, miles from land. In most countries, this is done using specialized vessels called wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs). With no Jones Act-compliant WTIVs of its own, the U.S. employs smaller compliant vessels instead, which take significantly more trips to and from project sites, raising project costs and emissions. Currently, the U.S. only has one WTIV under construction — Dominion’s Charybdis — which has taken both years and hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Building and deploying Jones Act-compliant WTIVs is far more costly than simply enlisting foreign-owned ones, and that cost is ultimately reflected in project price tags. President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law thankfully includes funding for port upgrades which will alleviate some of the infrastructure bottlenecks, but Jones Act reform, in addition to long overdue permitting reform, is essential for scaling offshore wind to meet our energy goals.
The act also has economic and climate implications for LNG markets. The U.S. is a major producer of natural gas, but domestic pipeline infrastructure–particularly in New England–is inadequate to satisfy consumer demand and balance the grid, and attempts to spur new projects are thwarted by neighboring states. This creates a local reliance on shipped LNG to bridge the gap, but foreign-owned vessels bringing gas from the Gulf of Mexico cannot sail to a second U.S. port, necessitating imports from abroad and slowing supply chains in a region where harsh winters make adequate seasonal energy supplies critical. And given New England’s poor electricity and gas pipeline infrastructure, many households there burn extra-dirty fuel oil for home heating that emits more greenhouse gas instead.
Because the U.S. does not possess any of its own Jones Act-compliant LNG tankers, shipped LNG that the Northeast does receive comes from Trinidad and Tobago and other distant countries. These import inefficiencies widen the rift between supply and demand, further inflating already disproportionately-high energy prices for New Englanders. With no foreseeable plans to revamp domestic shipbuilding to produce compliant LNG tankers, the law leaves regions like New England vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and stuck with an expensive and emissions-intensive energy system. These risks, in tandem with energy security concerns spurred by the war in Ukraine, motivated the New England governors to jointly request that the Department of Energy suspend Jones Act restrictions in 2022. A group of New England senators also wrote to DOE about inflated energy prices, citing increased U.S. exports as the cause of supply shortages. In reality, the Jones Act’s shipping rules and disjointed pipeline infrastructure limit supply mobility and leave consumers in the Northeast cut off from the rest of the country’s gas market, beholden instead to exports from abroad and the volatile international LNG trade.
Energy transportation challenges imposed by the Jones Act also have heightened consequences for Americans outside the mainland. Geographically isolated places such as Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are subjected to shipping constraints, cost burdens, and emergency response threats. In fact, the White House had to waive Jones Act requirements for LNG shipments to Puerto Rico in 2022 to enable the territory to recover from devastating hurricanes. And aside from LNG, Jones Act shipping restrictions on petroleum and oil products force Americans to forfeit roughly $769 million in unrealized consumer surplus annually — a conservative estimation which excludes areas with further inflated prices like Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
Ultimately, lawmakers must reassess the utility of the Jones Act. A protectionist law passed in the spirit of national security is no longer doing its job when it poses looming energy and economic concerns, and even stifles the industry it was designed to protect. Its limitations seem especially frivolous considering that the U.S. has no LNG carrier fleet of its own–and a reported 30-year timeline for building one–while countries such as South Korea are already building them more cheaply and efficiently. The lack of compliant LNG and wind turbine installation vessels, in tandem with the eye-popping costs and timelines for building them domestically, make foreign-flagged alternatives a sensible option if we could only use them.
The obvious solution is to repeal the Jones Act, however the political blowback from powerful proponents of domestic industry could be significant — despite the billions of dollars in potential economic output that would follow. At minimum, specific carve-outs or exemptions must be made for foreign specialized energy carriers to promote energy and economic security, particularly in at-risk regions. A large-scale subsidized campaign of domestic shipbuilding could offer another option in theory, but in practice the combination of high costs, fiscal and political uncertainty, existing difficulties with subsidized Navy shipbuilding, and the current availability of non-U.S. ships all strongly suggest that allowing foreign specialized energy vessels to travel between U.S. ports is the best course of action, at least in the short-term.
Until we adopt such reforms, the harmful effects of the outdated Jones Act are a stark reminder that ensuring security and reliability of clean energy–now and in the future–requires a regulatory regime that is not anchored to the past.
The U.S. military is being tested by the many fires it is trying to put out abroad. These crises pull assets from the country’s network ofhundreds of foreign bases, more than170,000 troops deployed internationally andmutual defense treaties with upwards of 50 countries.
But amid these global missions, the military is increasingly burdened by its responsibility for extinguishing literal fires across the U.S.
The U.S. armed forces have engaged in domestic wildfire suppression forover a century, but asclimate change and historicalforestry malpractices increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, the military’s role in fire response has ballooned.
WASHINGTON — The past several years have been marred by turbulent economic times for the United States, with the COVID-19 pandemic, stubborn inflation, and high interest rates threatening Americans’ economic well-being. Despite these headwinds, some companies continue to show their faith in America’s future by making significant capital expenditures. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) yesterday released its annual report, titled “Investment Heroes 2024: Faith in the Future,” highlighting the top 25 companies with the highest capital expenditures in the United States for 2023.
For the fifth year in a row, Amazon leads the list, investing an estimated $36.8 billion in the U.S. in 2023. This brings Amazon’s total investment in the U.S. to $183 billion since 2019. Such substantial spending has not only created hundreds of thousands of jobs but has also helped hold down consumer price increases.
“From 2021 until 2023, the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, PPI’s Investment Heroes invested more than $900 billion in the U.S. economy. That’s nearly 40% more than the comparable total in the first three years of the Trump-Pence administration,” said Michael Mandel, Vice President and Chief Economist at PPI. “This massive surge in capital spending has been a critical driver of job creation and economic growth.”
In second place is Alphabet, with an estimated $24.5 billion in domestic capital spending in 2023. It is followed by Meta, AT&T, Verizon, Walmart, Intel, Microsoft, Comcast, and Duke Energy, rounding out the top ten.
This year’s top 25 Investment Heroes invested a record $328.3 billion in the United States in 2023, up 1.3% compared to 2022. The growth of domestic capital expenditures by PPI’s Investment Heroes has outpaced the overall growth of U.S. nonresidential investment. Since 2019, domestic capital expenditures by PPI’s Investment Heroes has risen by 34.8%, compared to a 24.2% increase in total nonresidential investment over the same period.
“Our report showcases how leading companies are committing substantial resources to the U.S. economy, driving innovation, job creation, and long-term growth,” said Andrew Fung, co-author of the report. “These investments are vital for maintaining America’s competitive edge and ensuring economic stability.”
PPI’s Investment Heroes report emphasizes the critical role of capital expenditures in powering job creation and economic growth. The U.S. economy continues to outperform its industrialized peers, thanks in significant part to the domestic investments made by the companies on this year’s list. Furthermore, these investments help hold down price increases over the long term, particularly in sectors like e-commerce, broadband, data processing and wireless, where high investment correlates with lower long-term inflation.
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
At a Bitcoin conference last weekend, Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) announced forthcoming legislation that would direct the Treasury to buy 1 million Bitcoin, or roughly 5% of the global stock, over five years (which would cost between $60 billion and $70 billion at today’s prices). Lummis claimed that the federal government would be “debt-free because of Bitcoin” if her proposal is enacted, because these Bitcoin could be sold by the federal government at a profit after 20 years. Unfortunately, there are both mathematical and conceptual problems that prevent such an approach from solving the federal government’s budget problems.
Let’s start with the math: The U.S. national debt today stands at nearly $28 trillion (or $35 trillion, if one includes “intragovernmental debt” the general fund owes to other internal government accounting entities such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds). This year alone, the federal government spent roughly $2 trillion more than it raised in revenue, which had to be covered by borrowing that gets added to our national debt.
The United States is going through turbulent times. The shock of the pandemic, followed by soaring inflation and high interest rates, buffeted Americans. Now, despite strong labor markets and continued economic growth, many people feel pervasive uncertainty about what’s next for the country.
Against this backdrop, some companies continue to show their faith in America’s future by putting their money on the line. PPI’s annual Investment Heroes report highlights how the country’s largest companies are investing in the United States using information from annual financial reports. This year’s 2024 Investment Heroes are the 25 companies with the highest capital expenditure investment in the United States in 2023, as measured by PPI’s methodology.
For the fifth consecutive year, Amazon was #1 on the list, investing an estimated $36.8 billion in the U.S. in 2023. Since 2019, Amazon has invested $183 billion in the U.S., according to PPI’s estimates. This staggering spending on productive capital has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, while holding down consumer price increases.
In the #2 spot of the 2024 Investment Heroes list is Alphabet, with an estimated $24.5 billion in domestic capital spending in 2023. It is followed by Meta, AT&T, Verizon, Walmart, Intel, Microsoft, Comcast, and Duke Energy.
Taken as a whole, this year’s top 25 Investment Heroes invested a record $328.3 billion in the United States in 2023, up 1.3% compared to 2022. In recent years, the growth of domestic capital expenditures by PPI’s Investment Heroes has outstripped the growth of overall U.S. nonresidential investment (Figure 1). For example, since 2019, domestic capex by PPI’s Investment Heroes has risen by 34.8%, compared to a 24.2% increase in total nonresidential investment over the same period.
Here’s another sign of growth, In 2021-2023, the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, PPI’s Investment Heroes
invested more than $900 billion in the U.S. economy. That’s almost 40% more than the comparable total in the first three years of the Trump-Pence Administration.
This massive surge in capital spending has helped power job creation and economic growth. The U.S. economy is outperforming its industrialized peers in Europe and Japan, to a significant degree due to the domestic investments by the companies on this year’s list.
But there are more benefits to capital expenditures. Over the long run, more investment in capacity helps hold down price increases. In this report, we highlight the relationship between sectors with strong investment, such as e-commerce and wireless, and long-term low inflation trends for some goods and services.
In this report, we also consider patterns of spending on research and development, which boosts innovation and productivity growth. We note the reasons that R&D spending cannot be directly integrated into the Investment Heroes ranking. Nevertheless, many Investment Heroes have huge R&D budgets. Alphabet, for example, spent $45.4 billion on R&D in 2023. Some companies are making big investments in R&D, but do not appear on the Investment Heroes list because their spending is not reflected in their capital expenditures.
We examine patterns of domestic capital investment by sector and company. The biggest contributor to the Investment Heroes list is the tech/internet sector, with six companies on the list investing a total of $97 billion in the U.S. in 2023. The second biggest contributor is the broadband/wireless sector, with 4 companies and $68 billion in domestic capital investment.
FACT: U.S. public debt 99% of GDP and rising above 166% by the time November’s 18-year-old voters turn 50.
THE NUMBERS: U.S. debt/GDP ratio –
2024:
99%
2054 (baseline):
166%
2054 (PPI “Paying for Progress” budget blueprint):
48%
WHAT THEY MEAN:
PPI’s 160-page budget blueprint, out last week and entitled Paying for Progress, assesses the next 30 years’ fiscal choices — taxes of all kinds, debt buildup and interest payments, health and retirement programs, national defense and “America in the world,” bridge repair and fiber-optic cable deployment, “discretionary” spending on everything from housing and science to pre-kindergarten and apprenticeship — proposes lots of ideas, and opens with a warning about the future of American government:
“Every election, we choose leaders who are supposed to levy taxes and use the revenues they collect to fund programs that benefit society as a whole. The principle that our leaders allocate public resources consistent with the values of the people who elect them is often known as “fiscal democracy.” Regrettably, in the United States today, fiscal democracy has deeply eroded.”
Authors Ben Ritz and Laura Duffy give us a way to measure this, by tracing the share of budgets that are mandatory and automatic — that is, interest payments and entitlement programs — and the share that’s ‘discretionary’ over time. A generation ago in 1994, the ratio was 63% mandatory to 37% discretionary. Now it is 73% mandatory, and 27% discretionary. And assuming no change, according to the August Congressional Budget Office, by 2054 it will be 82% to 18%. CBO also believes that in this “no-change” scenario, we will be spending 6.3% of annual national income — more than goes to Social Security, Medicare, or any other budget “line” — simply to pay down the national debt.
In more human terms, this November’s 18-year-old first-time voters will be middle-aged parents and homeowners in 2054. The 82%-to-18% ratio means their taxes will overwhelmingly go to their parents’ retirement costs and interest payments, with a bit for national defense. Their ability to make other choices — tax rates, road-building, new telecom technologies to replace today’s fiber-optic cables and satellites, help for the poor, arts and environmental quality, international programs from PEPFAR to Peace Corps and embassy security, scientific research, workforce development — will be small and cramped. One likely consequence is to further inflame the already great temptation to shift the electoral debate away from practical choices and into emotional culture wars. Another, again per the Congressional Budget Office, is that the 166% debt-to-GDP ratio in 2054 implies a fall of $5,400 in our 18-year-old’s income (in today’s dollars, using CBO’s per capita income projection) relative to the level it would reach were the current 99% ratio simply stable for 30 years.
PPI’s budget shows the way to do better, by (i) shifting taxation from work and investment towards consumption and unearned income; (ii) controlling “mandatory” spending by reversing debt buildup and saving costs on retirement; and while doing these things (iii) restoring the ability for a disciplined government to be an activist government. One among seven center-right-to-left think-tank blueprints* commissioned by the Peterson Foundation last fall, PPI’s plan is distinctive for three big results:
Fiscal democracy restored: Mixing savings in some areas, process and enforcement reforms in others, and thorough revision of the tax system, PPI’s plan by 2054 places the mandatory/discretionary spending ratio at 62%/38%, more or less the level of the mid-1990s and the most balanced ratio among the seven plans. The result puts discretionary spending at 6.5% of GDP, the highest among the seven plans, and sufficient to give the Americans of 2054 the chance to choose both an activist government and a low-debt government.
Interest burden reduced: Through tax reforms, savings in spending, and efficiency and process reforms, PPI’s plan brings the debt/GDP ratio down from today’s 99% to 48% in 2054. This debt level, last seen in 2009, is about the same as that achieved during the 1990s boom. The 48% ratio is easily the lowest among the seven plans; those in the other six range from 59% to 118%. The lower debt burden under PPI’s plan reduces interest payments by almost 75% (relative to CBO’s “baseline” projection), freeing up resources for other public purposes.
Tax policy made fairer, cleaner, and more pro-growth: To pay for the restored fiscal democracy lower debt/GDP ratio, and the reduced interest burden, PPI proposes a thorough revision of tax policy, fundamentally based on reducing taxation of work, shifting taxation towards consumption and pollution, and encouraging progressivity. This includes canceling the payroll tax and replacing it with a value-added tax and a carbon tax; replacing the antiquated estate and gift tax with a progressive inheritance tax; and replacing several regressive and inefficient tax expenditures, such as the state and local tax and college savings deductions, with better-targeted grant programs. Alone among the seven plans, PPI’s blueprint also looks hard at the tariff system, reducing hourly-wage families’ cost of living and stopping selective taxation of goods-using industries — e.g. manufacturing, retail, construction, farming — by cutting away most Trump-era tariffs and pre-Trump tariffs on industrial inputs and consumer goods not made in the United States.
In sum, a very ambitious plan with a lot of ideas: a restoration of eroded fiscal democracy; a shift in taxation from work to consumption and unearned income; a vote for disciplined but activist government; and a hope to lighten the burdens now accumulating upon hourly-wage families and this year’s young voters.
* In alphabetical though not ideological order, the American Action Forum, the American Enterprise Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Manhattan Institute.
… and the Peterson Foundation compares and contrasts PPI’s approach with 6 other plans.
And for those wanting a bit more tariff background:
Ed Gresser on inclusivity, regressivity, and bias in tariff policy.
Elaine Wei explains how, uniquely in the world, U.S. clothing tariffs tax women’s clothes higher than directly analogous men’s clothes.
Reps. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX and New Democrat Coalition Trade Task Force Chair) and Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) introduce the Pink Tariffs Study Act, directing the Treasury Department to review the tariff system for gender bias and regressivity.
In 1992, James Carville coined his famous phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Inside the Clinton campaign, a laser-like focus on economic issues resonated deeply with voters grappling with a recession they attributed to the policies of George H.W. Bush. Carville’s focus ultimately propelled Clinton to victory. But that famous slogan was only one of three key messages on which the Clinton campaign focused. The lesser-known others were “Change vs. more of the same” and “Don’t forget health care.”
As Democrats gear up for the upcoming elections, it’s clear that voters have a lot on their minds. Recent swing state polling data, commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute, sheds light on what’s really driving voter concerns. The full poll results and an accompanying memo present a golden opportunity for Democrats to solidify their standing as the party of pragmatic solutions for Americans’ concerns on the economy and where voters believe healthcare costs have run amok.
Let’s face it: The economy is top of mind for most voters. Inflation and the skyrocketing costs of food and housing are causing serious anxiety across the board. This trend cuts across all demographics, signaling a pressing need for an effective economic strategy accompanied with a simple message that voters can understand. Democrats have long struggled in the past to win over voters on economic issues, but there’s a real chance to change that narrative by tackling these concerns head-on.
When it comes to health care policy in general, voters generally trust Democrats to handle the policy. Half of the voters trust Democrats more on setting policy related to the price of prescription medications, compared to 40% who trust Republicans. Democrats are also seen as more reliable when it comes to ensuring U.S. drug makers continue to innovate and develop new treatments. And with abortion rights under threat, Democrats will again mobilize voters as they vow to protect access to abortion, contraception, and women’s health care priorities.
Looking specifically at health care costs, while important, they rank third on the list of costs that are most concerning to voters — well below food and housing. A total of 13% of respondents named health care costs as their most pressing concern, compared to 22% who said food and another 19% who pointed to housing costs This suggests that while health care costs remain critical, Democrats need to balance their focus with broader economic policies to truly resonate with the electorate.
The poll then delves into health care costs more specifically. The cost of health insurance is by far the biggest worry, with 28% of voters citing it as their top issue. Out-of-pocket costs and the expense of doctors and hospitals are also major concerns, particularly among Republicans and non-college white voters. While capping the cost of key prescription drugs like insulin is a popular move and common talking point by Democrats on the campaign trail, only 8% of voters think Congress should prioritize expanding Medicare negotiations for more medicines. Voters are much more concerned about the overall cost of health insurance and are looking for more from their leaders on this challenge.
Additionally, the poll highlights several other policy areas that voters prioritize. When asked about the most important policy priorities for the party that controls Congress next year, a significant 30% of voters want to see more investment in manufacturing, energy production, and other industries. Another 24% support increased IRS action to ensure billionaires and millionaires pay their fair share of taxes. These priorities show that voters are looking for comprehensive economic strategies that extend beyond health care.
The poll’s findings underscore the need for strategic messaging that balances health care costs and more pressing economic priorities. When crafting their pitch, Democrats should consider:
• First and foremost, emphasizing broader economic policies that address inflation, housing, and food costs, which align with voters’ top concerns.
• Advocating for investment in manufacturing and fair taxation policies, which resonate strongly with key voter demographics and are more top of mind than health care costs.
• Refocusing the primary message on health care costs to address the cost of health insurance message, rather than solely the cost of prescription drugs, in order to better match voter priorities.
By adopting a balanced approach that addresses both healthcare and broader economic issues, Democrats can effectively connect with voters and reinforce their position as practical leaders committed to addressing the most pressing concerns of the American people.
Over the past few years, there has been a rise in illiberalism across the United States. One of the most concerning places where this is occurring is at our higher education institutions, the very place that is supposed to nourish freedom of thought and the free exchange of ideas. According to the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings report by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), almost two-thirds of surveyed college students believe that it is acceptable to “shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.” While there are many reasons for this intolerance of different viewpoints among college students, one very important reason is due to poorly constructed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at these institutions. Diversity, inclusion, and equal access to opportunity are important values but can be harmful when implemented with the wrong approach. These programs have been heavily influenced by anti-racism, an ideology that promulgates that all racial disparities are due to racism and calls for unending discrimination in order to make up for past injustices. An ideology such as this elevates race as the most important attribute, pits racial groups against each other, and increases intolerance for those that differ in opinion because if you are not anti-racist, you are a racist.
This intolerance has seeped deep into our higher education institutions, and I have seen it first hand in the classrooms. For example, I took a political science class this past year at the University of Michigan and one day, we were debating about DEI and its funding at the university. The first student who spoke for the side of “increasing funding for the university’s DEI program” ended their argument by saying “and if you don’t support a strong DEI program, then you shouldn’t be here.” This was followed up by a round of finger snaps from the students’ side which showed that they supported the message. Now, whether or not the student meant that you shouldn’t be in the classroom, in the class, or at the university, is not important. The message was clear, an opposing view of the DEI program was unwelcome. I believe that this moment perfectly encapsulates what DEI currently stands for. A program that calls for diversity and inclusion, and yet does not value diversity or inclusion of differing opinions.
This intolerance, however, is not exclusive to the University of Michigan. An analysis by the EAB, an education consulting firm, of 130 statements by U.S. and Canadian universities on racial justice and anti-racism in 2020 after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police found that 60% of the statements included some sort of short-term institutional commitment to anti-racism. This ideology is clearly not a fringe theory at our higher education institutions and has some substantial, negative consequences for free inquiry. A statistical analysis by the Heterodox Academy, a non-profit advocacy group working to protect free speech and viewpoint diversity on college campuses, found that “the size of a university’s DEI bureaucracy is […] strongly correlated with how students feel about allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus.” This means that the larger the DEI bureaucracy, the more intolerant students are of allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus. For example, when looking at support for preventing a speaker who once said “Black Lives Matter is a hate group”, a predicted 66% of students at universities with the smallest DEI bureaucracy support the prevention while a predicted 80% of students at universities with the largest DEI bureaucracy support the prevention. Furthermore, the study also found that “the size of a university’s DEI bureaucracy is significantly and positively correlated with student support for disruptive action.” More specifically, “universities with the largest DEI bureaucracies are predicted to have student populations” that are 19 percentage points “more supportive of shout-downs,” 10 percentage points “more supportive of blockades,” and 12 percentage points “more supportive of violence” than student populations of universities with the smallest DEI bureaucracy.
While this study does not indicate causation, it does show that there is a strong connection between the size of university DEI bureaucracies and intolerance of conservative speakers, who usually hold a differing opinion from the majority of students at liberal universities. However, this does not mean that DEI must be dismantled. Instead, it needs to be reimagined. First, these programs must distance themselves from anti-racism as there is no benefit in following an ideology that calls for continuous discrimination based on race which pits racial groups against each other. This only creates division among students and intolerance for differing opinions. Second, there must be a commitment to diversity and inclusion, not only of different races, but also of different political perspectives. In a time of rising illiberalism, universities should be at the forefront of free speech, allowing for different viewpoints to be disseminated and debated. Only then, will students of all different perspectives feel like they belong in the classroom and the university community.
Looking back on the past 40 years, many working-class Americans are justifiably glum about their economic position in the country.
According to opinion research conducted with working-class Americans (defined as those without a college degree) over the past year for the Progressive Policy Institute’s Project on Center Left Renewal, two out of three believe the working class is worse off today than it was four decades ago while only one in five believe the working class is better off. Despite overall displeasure, working-class Americans do retain hope for the future and look specifically to improved educational opportunities as a possible pathway to economic mobility for their children and themselves.
However, this research finds working-class voters divided on which political party will actually advance their educational and economic interests.
Amid America’s current news cycle, it can be hard to see past the daily barrage of political crises and focus on the underlying policy offerings of each campaign.
But with November rapidly approaching, policymakers — especially Democrats who hope to hold the presidency and win back control of the House — must not forget about the issues voters care about.
Our organization, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), is looking closely at the issues that matter most to working-class Americans, a constituency once considered the bedrock of the Democratic Party that has been almost completely co-opted by Trump and the populist right.
By ending his bid for a second term, President Biden did something Donald Trump could never do — he put his country’s interests over his personal ambitions. Biden showed Americans what real patriotism looks like.
Biden’s selfless act has thoroughly discombobulated Republicans, who reacted like kids at a birthday bash suddenly deprived of their pinata. Trump, who enjoys kicking people when they are down, huffed that Biden is America’s worst president ever.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also descended into partisan hackery, insisting absurdly that Biden resign immediately. Nutty conspiracy theories took wing across MAGA world, including the claim that the “deep state” engineered Biden’s ouster from the race.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Elan Sykes, Director of PPI’s Energy and Climate Solutions Initiative, issued the following statement praising the introduction of new permitting reform legislation led by Senators Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.):
“The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is a major step forward in the necessary effort to speed up environmental reviews, federal permits, and electric transmission development. PPI thanks Senators Manchin and Barrasso for their efforts and calls upon Democrats to uphold the spirit of the 2022 Schumer-Manchin agreement to implement the Inflation Reduction Act alongside the permitting reforms needed to harness the IRA’s clean energy programs to the fullest.
“The clean energy transition requires the manufacture and installation of millions of new machines for generating, moving, and using clean power — without passing these reforms, America will not be able to deploy sufficient clean technology fast enough. While the bill also increases the frequency of oil, gas, and coal leasing, the reforms to renewable energy and storage permitting (especially for geothermal), the use of public lands, expansion of Categorical Exclusions, and especially changes to planning, paying, and permitting for new lines and technologies on the electricity grid will far outweigh any increases in fossil fuel production while keeping consumer costs low and maintaining public support for the energy transition.
“The same is true for the changes to LNG export permits, which should aid our allies and trading partners in transitioning from coal to gas while benefiting from the Biden administration’s methane mitigation policies. PPI also calls on state and local governments to match these reforms with parallel changes to their own planning and permitting authorities to ensure that all levels of government work together to unleash clean energy growth.”
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
Even after 100 years, Paris/1924 has a strong claim for the best U.S. “away” Olympics ever. That year’s awe-inspiring team, featuring — among many — Hawaiian surfing legend Duke Kahanamoku, Hollywood action-hero Johnny Weissmuller, women’s pro tennis pioneer Helen Wills Moody, and first African-American gold medalist DeHart Hubbard, won 45 of the summer’s 129 gold medals. Only the Mexico City/1968 team has matched that total, and by then there were 210 medal events. As a sample, here’s the NYT’s Paris correspondent joyfully reporting demoralized French crowds booing the U.S. rugby team after its 17-3 finals win (adding that “the three points scored by the French were lucky”) and concluding that after a rare U.S. silver:
“[W]hen a non-American winner was called up for the official tribute, the crowd cheered lustily, and the band ceased to play the Star-Spangled Banner for a moment.”
A century on, Paris/2024 has 329 medal events, from Friday’s first archery shots to the women’s marathon tape on the 11th. So expect a lot of antheming as Team USA meets its familiar rivals: Caribbean sprinters, Aussie swimmers, Southeast Asian boxers and badminton aces, Chinese divers and gymnasts, East African distance stars, Japan’s martial artists, Brit cyclers and rowers, South American and Baltic basketballers, Ukraine’s sentimental favorites in track and boxing, France’s high-expectations home team – tipped by a personality no less than President Macron for their most medals since the 31 golds of 1900 – et al. Specifically, an Olympic anthem arrangement has to be 80 seconds or less. So even if there are no ties, expect six and a half hours of music, nearly as much as all the track races combined. Whose idea was this, anyway? Here you go:
Warmups: Like the Red Cross (1863), the metric system (1875), international patent and copyright agreements (1883 & 1886), time zones (1884), and Nobel Prizes (1895), the Olympics (1896) are a survivor of the pre-World War I “globalization” era, centered on Europe and organized by aristocrats and business executives as much as by governments.
The first “anthems,” meanwhile, are a bit older and weren’t originally composed for ‘nations’ as such, but for European royal families. The earliest, Het Wilhelmus, is a 15-verse marathon honoring the House of Orange. Dating to 1572, it stood alone for 170 years until joined by Britain’s God Save the King (the anthem in longest continuous use) in 1745. France’s La Marseillaise (1792) seems to be the first specifically for a country rather than a ruling family, but also has a long discontinuity. (Banned by Napoleon and subsequent Bourbons, not re-designated until the 1870s.) Japan’s Kimi Ga Yo, officially adopted in 1879 as a Meiji-era westernizing reform, laps the field in Katie Ledecky-like style for the most venerable lyrics, drawn from a 1250-year-old poem recorded in the Heian anthology Kokinshu.
Qualifying Heats:Anthems spread worldwide a bit later. The Ottoman Empire hired an Italian bandleader to write an anthem in 1844; two founders of newly independent Liberia wrote one in 1847; Francisco Acuna wrote two, Uruguay’s and Paraguay’s, in 1833 and 1846. China, though austerely declining for a while, gave in after the 1912 nationalist revolution. Americans were technically even later adopters: though frequently played in the 19th century and chosen as the military anthem under the Wilson administration, the SSB only got official “national” designation in 1931. The newest is South Sudan Oyee!, composed by University of Juba students for independence in 2011. Given the South Sudan basketball team’s remarkablepre-Olympics matches, SSO! has at least a long-shot hope for an August 11th performance.
Medal Round: How, then, did ‘country-specific’ anthems join up with the ‘internationalist’ Olympics? The abstract “playing anthems at sports events” concept has several origins. Americans for example note regular SSB performance at sports events since the 1918 World Series, but Wales says they started it at a 1905 rugby match with New Zealand. Probably it has multiple independent authors. As to the Olympics, the aggravated French crowds of 1924 had only themselves to blame. It was their government’s idea to launch the “playing anthems at medal ceremonies” concept as a new thing for that year’s Paris Games, and it has held on ever since.
What comes next? PPI’s Diana Moss and Jason Gold ponder NCAA chaos, antitrust law for student-athletes, and the implications for the “non-revenue” college sports programs that stock U.S. Olympic teams.
More about anthems –
Almost all anthems use the Western military-march or hymnal arrangements popular in the 19th century, though Latin America has a few experiments with operatic style, and some Persian Gulf monarchies use concise trumpet flourishes. Few concede anything to modern musical forms or non-western music theory: Jamaica’s Week 2 sprinters will hear no reggae on the stand, Indonesian and Malaysian badminton standouts no gamelan, and Japanese judoka and Nadashiko stars no shakuhachi solo. South Asia is an exception, with India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all at times using South Asian musical forms.
How good are anthems as music? The BBC’s Music Magazine, bravely or recklessly attempting a ranking for quality and emotional impact last month, put Het Wilhelmus first by virtue of longevity, with the SSB second, La M. third, and Argentina’s Himno Nacional Argentina fourth. Next come Germany’s Das Lied der Deutschen, Italy’s similarly titled Canto degli Italiani, and Kimi Ga Yo, with Kenya, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Spain, Russia, and Wales next. (“As stirring as it gets — even the stoniest-hearted Englishman surely feels the hairs standing on the back of his neck at the sound of ‘Gwlad! Gwlad!’” Perhaps so.) The BBC’s top 14…
And if there were “last-place” medals –
If Paris/1924 has a claim for the best U.S. “away” team, what’s the best of the nine “home” teams? LA/1984 for top modern-era medal count? Lake Placid/1980 for inspiration? Your call, of course, but don’t let raw medal counts trick you into picking St. Louis/1904.
In that third Olympiad, the U.S. team won 239 of the 280 possible medals, but the garishly big total is more travesty than triumph. The bumbling business group that ran the Games strung them out for four months, from July to November, to build publicity for a money-losing World’s Fair they were managing at the same time. Few foreign delegations could afford the lodging bill, so 523 of the Games’ 651 competitors were Americans. The managers later claimed this didn’t matter since U.S. athletes were so good that foreigners wouldn’t have won much anyway. (Defiant sample: “It is doubtful, indeed, if a single Frenchman could have finished even fourth in any of the events”; conceding that “one” Brit had a chance, they add “and that man’s name was Shrubb.”) The Games’ many lowlights, from swimming events held in a muddy temporary pond to competitions invented on the spot with crowd-sourced competitors, all culminate in the infamous 1904 Marathon, whose official record begins with a bang — “The Marathon race, from a medical standpoint, demonstrated that drugs are of much benefit to athletes along the road” — and only gets better as it recounts a race which, 120 years and 30 Games later, still has a good bid for “worst-run, most dangerous Olympic event ever held”.
* Two of the 31 runners nearly died. Eventual winner Thomas Hicks was, in fact, almost killed by his managers, who refused to give him any water and instead made him drink an experimental “energy” potion made of raw eggs, brandy, and strychnine. (A kind of rat poison). Hicks began to hallucinate at 20 miles, became obsessed with food, and collapsed after crossing the finish line. He finished at 3:28:53, the slowest winning time in Olympic history by more than half an hour, and spent the next two weeks in a hospital.
* Two more contestants collapsed from heat, dehydration, and dust kicked up by automobiles on the course, ten dropped out with stomach cramps after drinking contaminated water, and a loose dog chased another man off the course.
* Clever New Yorker Fred Lorz dropped out after 9 miles, hitched a ride on a car until he was close to the finish line, then jumped back in and pretended he won. He temporarily got the medal, but they later took it back and gave it to Hicks.
When Democratic primary voters selected Joe Biden to be the Party’s standard bearer in 2020, the faithful made their choice in a very specific context: the Trump administration. Like with Labour facing a Tory government gone off the rails, progressive in the U.S. were determined to nominate a candidate who would appeal to the electorate as a whole—who would, namely, be capable of drawing together the anti-Trump vote. Joe Biden was, without a doubt, perfectly suited to play that role. The man from Scranton—a figure with bipartisan sensibilities rooted in his experience growing up as a working-class kid in Pennsylvania—met the moment and succeeded. He vanquished the incumbent populist.
But then things changed. In an odd twist ostensibly fueled by a moderate’s determination to unite progressives, the man who ran most notably as a beacon of the center chose to govern as a paragon of the left. There’s no mystery to why Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist who competed against Biden in the 2020 primaries, was among the most vociferous figures hoping to keep the incumbent atop the ticket. The rationale was clear: Biden had allowed himself to become a vehicle for Sanders’ leftist agenda. Ironically, it was the party’s centrists, figures who had originally propelled Biden’s candidacy, who now wanted him to exit. They wanted the change not only based on the debate debacle but based on defending an agenda they did not sign up for.
