Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the Economic Club in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and outlined her economic plan. Viewed through the lens of Catholic social education, the speech earned a B-minus, but Harris is not running for head of the Office of Integrated Human Development. In terms of political merit, this speech received an A-.
Harris began by defending the Biden administration’s economic achievements, but then moved to the present, saying, “The cost of living in America remains too high.” Further, she broadened her critique of economic policy, saying, “Over the past few decades, our economy has grown better and better for those in the uppermost classes, but it is difficult to earn, build, and maintain a middle-class life.” “It’s becoming increasingly difficult for people trying to do it.”
By recognizing the extent to which Democrats are complicit in neoliberal governance and its market orthodoxy, Harris may have increased the attention this speech received and appealed to moderate voters. And she needs to craft a better narrative about the economy the Biden administration has inherited, the impact of the pandemic, and maybe even acknowledge that the economic hardships weren’t entirely the fault of former President Donald Trump. That may mean nothing to his supporters, but undecided voters may see the contrast with Harris’ often vulgar characterizations. Showing unwarranted leniency in holding people accountable for the economic fallout from the pandemic is something President Joe Biden would never do, lending credibility to Harris’ claim that she wants to unite the country. It will be too.
The vice president and his speechwriting team have improved the way they talk about jobs and workers, which is critical when campaigning in industrial states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. “For Donald Trump, our economy works best not because of the people who actually build the skyscrapers, or the people who do the wiring, or the people who mop the floors, but the people who own those huge skyscrapers. The phrase “men who wire”, along with her praise for the “International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers” later in the speech, reflects Harris’ understanding of the lives of blue-collar workers. It shows growth in speaking.
Most importantly, in this section of the speech dedicated to the growth of the middle class, Harris offers common good indicators that would have been laughed out of the room in the feverish days of Reaganism and Clintonism. That’s what I showed. She said there was a need to “ensure our economy works for everyone.” Market economies require competition, but they don’t need to compete to the death. From TV shows like “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” to movies like “The Wolf of Wall Street,” the glorification of selfishness in American economic life is paving the way for the depredations of Trumpism. I did. Harris said he is a capitalist, but a capitalist bound by the values of “fairness, dignity and opportunity.” Harris understands and is able to successfully communicate the central Catholic teaching on economics: “The economy is not made for man, and man is not made for the economy.” (See Mark 2:27-28).
Harris then quoted President Franklin Roosevelt’s promise of “bold and persistent experimentation,” and that reference warmed my heart. She has strongly advocated pragmatism in government economic intervention, which should soften President Trump’s efforts to paint her as a radical. “I believe that we should not be bound by ideology, but should seek practical solutions to problems,” she added. She expressed a desire to incorporate “good ideas from everywhere.” She went on to propose very specific pro-family policies, including increased parental and family leave and subsidies for elderly care. One of the most moving parts of her speech was when Harris talked about caring for her mother.
Another proposal, a departure from Clinton’s meritocracy, called for Harris to eliminate degree requirements for apprenticeships. She says the time has come to “value skills, not just degrees.” This is a number of steps that ultimately led Harris and Democrats to realize that student loan forgiveness must be yoked with something for people who don’t go to college, like start-up funds for new businesses. We can expect this to be the first step. And both loan forgiveness and start-up capital should be tied to national service.
From the perspective of Catholic social teaching, the biggest problem with this speech was what it did not contain. There was no focus on poverty. Did the political force who led the war on poverty die in 1968 and be buried with Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy? Some of Harris’ proposals have anti-poverty effects. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has shown, expanding the Child Tax Credit would go a long way toward reducing child poverty rates. But it is a measure of how far America’s social imagination has strayed from Catholic social teaching that Democratic presidential candidates do not take the lead in the fight against poverty.
Biden has made significant legislative achievements that move our economy away from neoliberal thinking and toward a mindset shared by Catholic social teaching. Sadly, he lacked the rhetorical ability to create a narrative that explained the purpose and value of his accomplishments. Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton had oratory skills but avoided abandoning neoliberal policies.
Harris’ oratory style is better than Biden’s, if not better than Obama’s or Clinton’s. But her policies far exceed theirs and build on Biden’s solid policy accomplishments. Harris is somewhere in the middle, which could be just enough to win in November and, more importantly, move away from neoliberalism and, as she has said, bring policies and politics centered around a more humane economy. This may be enough to continue the shift.
