Skip to main content

Progressive candidates and activists don’t do a very persuasive job countering right-wing cries of “free markets,” “government intrusion,” “job creators,” “class warfare” and “the takers.” We don’t have a way to explain what’s wrong with Mitt Romney’s brand of vulture capitalism or distinguish enterprises that contribute to national well-being from scams that enrich a few at the expense of the many. It’s not that progressives need clearer economic thinking; Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Dean Baker and others provide that already. The problem lies elsewhere.

Progressives lack an easily explained alternative framework for talking about the market system—a progressive vision of what makes our economy work, and what would make it work better. “The place to begin,” explains Princeton professor Douglas Massey, “is by exposing the conservative bromide of the ‘free market’ for the myth it is.”

First Principle—Economic policy has nothing to do with “freedom,” it’s entirely about “fairness.”

American voters believe in the conservative ideology of “free markets.” Why shouldn’t they? They hear no real arguments to the contrary. But there’s no such thing as keeping government out and letting the market decide. The government is always biasing markets, always nudging and twisting and bumping around the so-called invisible hand.

American markets are not, and never were, free of government influence. We’re all familiar with at least some of the government structures that police markets to protect employees, consumers, stockholders, and competing businesses. The government inspects food and drugs, keeps unsafe consumer products off the market, regulates air and water pollution, requires minimum safety and health standards for employees, prevents monopolies, protects consumer privacy, insures bank deposits, and so on.

We are less familiar, however, with the many programs that warp markets to benefit the rich and powerful. The government grants direct and indirect subsidies, engages in sweetheart contracts, skews trade agreements to help Wall Street, allows the fine print of consumer contracts to favor big corporations, prevents consumers from suing companies or even knowing what they’re doing, erects barriers to labor organizing, provides gigantic tax loopholes to the richest one percent, and much more.

If conservatives truly believed in free markets, they would be railing against all the market distortions caused by government subsidies and preferences. But they don’t, because they don’t really want government to keep its nose out of economic decisions—they want the government to step in and prejudice the market in their favor. They use the term “free markets” not as a philosophy to follow but as a rhetorical device—albeit a hugely effective one—to skew public opinion toward conservative policy.

The question is not whether government should be involved in the marketplace. It always is. The question is, what principles should guide government’s involvement?

Don’t say . . .

Say . . .

Free markets

Free enterprise


Fair markets

Level playing field

Rigging the rules, gaming the system

Stacking the deck

An economy that works for all of us

Why . . .

Progressives should argue for “fair markets,” not free markets. By fair, we mean markets that are balanced—with government as a counterweight when necessary—so that weaker individuals and organizations compete on a reasonably equal basis against powerful ones. In many cases, balancing markets doesn’t require more government involvement, it requires less—taking away the subsidies and other unfair advantages that some individuals and businesses enjoy over other individuals and businesses. Fair market economics creates real competition, and that incentivizes the lowest prices and the greatest innovations.

Another way of saying this is that we favor “rules of the road” that “level the playing field” and oppose policies that “rig the rules,” “game the system,” or “stack the deck.” Our goal is to make economic competition “fair and open and honest.” Such a system benefits customers and employees when dealing with companies, small businesses when competing against big corporations, and—by maximizing fair competition—America’s economy as a whole.

Say . . .

Our system works when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone gives their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. My opponent’s policies are not fair; they rig the system to benefit the rich over the rest of us. My policies would promote fair markets so that every American who works hard and plays by the rules has the opportunity to live the American Dream. 

Second Principle—Our economy is powered by low- and middle-income working Americans, not by the rich.

Conservative policy is based on the absurd idea that giving money to the rich causes them to produce more products and services, which lowers prices and creates jobs. “Trickle-down” economics defies common sense and all the data we have; businesses create products, services and jobs not because they have money but because they are trying to make money.

Enterprises make money not from supply but from consumer demand. As President Obama put it: “The middle class is the engine of our prosperity…. When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers.”

Don’t say . . .

Say . . .

Job creators

Supply side



Grow from the middle out, not the top down

The disappearing middle class

Trickle-down economics

Unfair breaks and bailouts to Wall Street banks and giant corporations

The economic system isn’t working for the 99% 

Why . . .

Today the stock market is roaring and the rich are richer than ever. If trickle-down economics worked, the American economy would be roaring too. But our economy remains extremely weak because consumer demand is weak. The right way to grow our economy is from the middle out, not the top down, because the only lasting, reliable, bubble-free source of nationwide demand is wages paid to average working Americans.

Our economy’s weakness is the inevitable product of supply-side government policies that, over the past 30 years, have enabled the rich to take all the fruits of increased productivity. Through tax policy, trade agreements, deregulation, privatization, the destruction of unions, and perversely high executive pay, the rich have captured nearly all of the national wealth created over the past three decades. Right-wing economic policy, not the hidden hand of the market, has directed our money into the pockets of the top one percent.

Political persuasion requires more than laying out a positive agenda; it is also necessary to make voters understand the difference between you and your opponent. In talking about economic policy, it is essential to call out unfair conservative economics, like “tax breaks and bailouts to Wall Street banks and giant corporations.” It is essential to draw attention to the “disappearing middle class” and declare that “the system isn’t working for the 99 percent.”

Say . . .

The middle class is the engine of our prosperity. Our economy succeeds when it grows from the middle out, not from the top down. We need to stop giving tax breaks, bailouts, and other special treatment to the Wall Street banks, giant corporations, and rich individuals. We need to start building a fair market economy that provides every American a fair chance to succeed. 

Third Principle—Real wealth comes from the creation of products and services that satisfy customers and serve society, not from rigging the rules and cheating the system.

Right wing philosophy glorifies money no matter what its source; greed is good as long as wealth is achieved without a criminal conviction. In contrast, fair market economics seeks to reward hard work, efficiency, and innovation that creates value for society while discouraging schemes that game the system, pass costs to the community, or dismantle healthy companies for quick profit.

Don’t say . . .

Say . . .

All earnings are the same


Creating real wealth

An honest day’s work

Economic predators

Wall Street speculators

Rigging, cheating, churning, loopholes 

Why . . .

The argument for capitalism is that by harnessing individuals’ economic drive, all of society is enriched by their hard work and innovation. But that is only true when the money-making operation creates a product or service that benefits society as a whole. Today, however, an enormous amount of economic activity, especially in the financial sector, diverts money from productive investments to schemes that game the system, exploit tax or regulatory loopholes, dismantle viable companies, and skim or scam profits from working Americans. (Many financial services satisfy customers’ needs and benefit society, but right now far too many do not.)

This is how Wall Street crashed the worldwide economy in 2008 and caused the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Taking advantage of deregulation that allowed them to make enormous profits through fraudulent financial products, the banking sector caused a nearly eight trillion dollar bubble in housing prices that burst, destroying middle class wealth, crushing consumer demand, and collapsing the job market.

We need to stop building our economy on phony wealth. Fair markets would incentivize the creation of real products and services that benefit society and create rules against gaming the system, manipulation of tax and regulatory loopholes, and profiting from negative externalities.

Say . . .

We need an economy that’s fair to everyone. That means structuring a system that not only rewards people for hard work and innovation, but also discourages people from cheating the system or passing costs to the community. We need rules of the road that make economic competition fair and open and honest. 

This article is cross-posted from

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We have far too many Dems who disagree (3+ / 0-)

    With this. If our elected officials know our votes are guaranteed, but that support and money from Corporate America and Wall Street is most certainly not guaranteed, you can guess who will be catered to, and who will be forced to compromise. We need to to start treating these principles as party orthodoxy and punishing those who don't govern and legislate accordingly.

    Great diary!

  •  Don't Concede Freedom to the Conservatives (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned, semiot, unfangus

    America's notion of freedom has always been a progressive view and not a conservative view. To let conservatives monopolize the freedom principle will subjugate progressives to minority status forever.

    Progressives believe in the freedom to breath clean air, the freedom to drink clean water. Progressives believe in free competition is why we are for anti-trust laws and conservatives have generally opposed anti-trust laws. Providing the poor with a safety net gives them more freedom to pursue other interests other than searching for food, clothing and a place to stay.

    Progressives have always been for greater civil liberties than conservatives. Progressives believe that the public has the freedom to choose to build goods provided by the government that ordinarily the private sector does not provide. Conservatives would not provide us with that option.

    No, Progressives believe in freedom and should not concede the principle to conservatives.

    •  And the freedom to take risks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nice Ogre

      A good social safety net makes ordinary people freer. Living in fear is the opposite of freedom.

      "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

      by Demi Moaned on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, we believe in freedom when it comes to (4+ / 0-)

      fundamental rights, like freedom of speech and religion. But there is no such thing as a "free" market and we should call the conservatives out on it.

      •  Progressives vs Conservatives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Conservatives believe that the biggest obstacle to freedom is the government and labor unions. Thus, freedom is achieved by destroying unions and making government as small as possible. I also argue that government intervention to restrict monopolies and large corporations makes the market freer.

        Liberals believe that the government can restrict freedom, but recognize that anyone or institution with great power can restrict freedom, too. Thus, liberals resolve the dilemna by forming a government that is as inclusive as possible. That is why they were willing to let the government impose civil rights laws on segregationist states.

        Conservatives believe that monopolies are natural outcomes of the economy, but then why isn't labor unions a natural outcome of the economy?

        You are right that one can argue that a truly free market does not exist, one's freedom is another person's burden. But progressives should frame the issue to see that their market policies results in more freedom than conservative policies.

        •  I am looking forward to the final (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          semiot, unfangus

          Republican implosion, when we can shift the debate to the space between the corporate Democrats and the Progressives. Elizabeth Warren, among others, already frames the economic and financial issues quite well. As to ConservaDems,

          It is very difficult to get a man [sic, but that was then] to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
          Sinclair Lewis, I, Candidate for Governor, and How I Got Licked

          There was a time when "Free Market" meant free from distortions such as subsidies, protective tariffs, and other favors to particular businesses, not Laissez-Faire/anything goes. It still makes sense to say, with Jim Hightower,

          The Free Market is wonderful—we should try it.

          Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

          by Mokurai on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:52:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If It Were a Debate You'd Be Right. (3+ / 0-)

      But the rw succeeded 30 years ago in establishing that only government can infringe on freedom. When you say freedom now it means only freedom from regulation and taxation, not freedom from pollution, union busting, corporatocracy in general.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:08:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps, but maybe (0+ / 0-)

    they don't understand what it means to be progressive, and maybe we ought to lay it out for them.

  •  3 Principles of DLC Messaging Maybe. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nice Ogre, annieli, semiot

    The fundamental principle of conservative economics is severe brakes on the top end accumulating concentrated wealth and power.

    This principle, known in one form to Jefferson and Madison in their proposal for a Bill of Rights freedom of the people from economic monopoly, which was rejected, is older than our system.

    That a principle that was first finally applied seriously during the original Progressive Era is too radical to be included in a discussion of progressive economic principles is a telling sign of our position.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:18:54 PM PDT

  •  Global Warming and Freedom (0+ / 0-)

    In recent years, progressives have advocated the use of tradeable permits to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Although once a conservative idea, today's conservatives reject the idea and embrace the idea that the government intervention to establish a market for permits is an infringement on the free market. But isn't establishing a market for permits an increase in freedom (in a free market sense)?

  •  Suggested Reading by George Lakoff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mokurai, unfangus

    I would suggest reading the book "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea." A description of the book can be found here:

    I agree with George Lakoff that the battle over the idea of freedom is an important battle that progressives must win.

    •  It is fortunate that we are winning, even though (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      only by the "angry White guys" gradually dying off in the normal manner and being replaced by young people who actually know Blacks, immigrants, gays—even women or men, as the case may be, personally, on TV, and in social media.

      The polls show growing majorities for Progressive measures on almost all current issues, including abortion.  The only things that hold us back are the gerrymanders and the filibuster, and a lack of sufficient GOTV. We may be thankful that the Republican overreaches are finally getting Democratic and Progressive voters to the polls in record numbers.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:59:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Definitely Need To Counter The Simplicity (0+ / 0-)

    of the free market message. Well done.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site