Just as I don't fit exclusively within the DSA led progressive wing of the democratic party, neither do I fit exclusively into Yang's ideology either. Both of us have similarities, but we have major differences.
Core similarities
Both of us are members of basic income's third wave, ie, the wave of support that happened after the 2008 financial crisis pushed us toward new solutions to deal with the economy.
Both of us recognize the current jobs based system isn't working. Both of us are for UBI. Both of us were initially for medicare for all but shifted in a more public optiony direction. Both of us are for "human centered capitalism." We seem pretty similar, but we're also much different.
Working class vs entrepreneurial class
Perhaps the biggest difference is our backgrounds. I'm from a more lower middle class background, and in my adulthood, Ive become a bit of a self described champion of the working class. I come at the topics of economic change from a left populist standpoint, combining the class consciousness aspect of things with a more reformist, capitalist outlook. But the whole point of these policies and ideas is to challenge the left. Yang sees himself more as a moderate and a problem solver. I'm less compromising and more ideological, he's more compromising and pragmatic. Basically, I'm more radical, and he's more moderate.
Human centered capitalism
For me, human centered capitalism is a philosophy. It's based in humanism, and defines my ideological goals. It challenges the existing worldview based on fundamentalist christian hegemony and the protestant work ethic, and is intended to be a counter to it, citing that human institutions exist to serve us, work is merely a means to an end, and gee maybe we shouldnt spend all of our time working and focus on things other than GDP than growth.
Yang's take is a bit more...surface level. Its like came into contact with some iteration of my ideas via scott santens and used it in a more pragmatic way. He still wants to downplay GDP and have human centered institutions, but his big goal was to push his american scorecard thing, representing his more pragmatic technocratic background, whereas my goal was an ideological recentering of our institutions in a way to serve us better.
On work
For Yang, work is generally a good thing. He fundamentally believes in the American dream and that work gives people purpose and structures their lives. He just understands that work isn't working and we need some way to take care of people as we automate jobs and the job markets are disrupted.
I'm more explicitly anti work. I want to actually move away from our obsession with work. It's part of the reason my human centered capitalist vision is designed as it is. It's designed explicitly to reorient how we approach the economy morally, and to break all that protestant work ethic nonsense.
I recognize that no matter how ambitious Yang is on the economy, that the powers that be will resist his policy prescriptions. Because we got a huge moral problem with work. Yang is a little too naive and practical for his own good, not understanding this. Anyone who has studied the issue thoroughly knows the issue isnt whether we CAN make a world with less work, the real question is whether that's actually desirable. For me it is, for those in charge it isn't. Even Yang seems to struggle with this, given how we've been brainwashed as a society to be pro work, and given his entrepreneurial nature, i dont think he's truly against work. This is why he's experimented with ideas like "social credit" (not China's social credit, but an alternative currency for doing odd jobs) and stuff. He actually sees the idea of men who don't work as sad and thinks their lives will go badly because humans fundamentally need work. Meanwhile, I see the aspects of the current system that try to coerce people into work. So my focus is on changing the social stigma around not working, making it more acceptable, and crafting a society that allows people to opt out. So my vision is more transformative than Yang's.
UBI and healthcare
Yang's policy expertise (or lack thereof) kind of shows through with his policy ideas. He developed his UBI assuming that the wealthy would stop hiring people and we can't rely on income taxes. So he funds it via a consumption tax. I fund mine on an income tax, seeing it more as a redistribution from the rich to the poor, and understanding that these MFers will always create new jobs for people to do. They wont be good jobs, and they'll pay poorly, but UBI for me, is intended to work around these tendencies. Again, Yang just sees UBI as a pragmatic solution to the problems of the current economy.
On healthcare, we shifted to a public option for different reasons. he got scared off of the logistics of shifting. I dont think the logistics are a problem as any plan would have a reasonable phase in. Even my public option would be similar to the early phase ins to single payer, I just stop at it being a public option and dont ultimately outlaw private insurance or force everyone onto the public plan.
I see Yang as not knowing what he's doing a lot of the time. he comes up with ideas, doesn't know how to implement them, does it poorly and backs away from stuff. I know what I'm doing, and make my decisions a bit more strategically and with intent. Just the benefit of understanding the issues and the policies more deeply.
On ideology and compromise
Due to my working class background and humanist ideology, and desire to crush the republican party and its current ideological hegemony, I'm less likely to compromise. I know what I want and my goal is to get it and win. yang....he seems more willing to compromise. More willing to build relationships. More willing to abandon ideas. And this kind of makes me frustrated with him because he seems to not keep his eyes on the prize. He also seems to diverge into other issues, going into stuff like political reform, which is also important, but then kind of backing away from his core 2020 ideology to make others happy. He's also doing this cell phone thing to try to get people less hooked on smartphones. Meanwhile, as an anti work enthusiast, I dont see the time "wasted" on the internet as wasted. This is, also, to some extent, a generational issue. Being younger, I'm more open to technology while older generations are more in that "back in my day we went outside" mode.
Conclusion
So, with that said, Yang and I are fairly similar in our ideologies, but we also have significant differences. Ultimately, it really does come down to working class populism vs upper class technocracy, as well as ideological dedication to goals, vs pragmatism and willing to compromise. In a way, Yang is more like an "establishment" type figure on UBI, and yes, I know he's anti establishment himself, but he really lacks that anti establishment populist vibe, and I tend to offer that instead. Like, he IS anti establishment, dont get me wrong, but in a much softer way. I'm more hard nosed, more like a bernie sanders in that I'm more fiery, more ideological, seem more aware of what we're up against, and more knowledgeable in getting us where we need to go.
Contrasting with the DSA types
While my ideological goals are closer to Yang than they are to what the DSA types want, I still have that DSA like populist vibe, where I have a leftist critique of capitalism, but I also have more liberal solutions. Yang is just, a moderate lib through and through. he positions himself from the center with his version of the ideology, I position myself with the fiery, populist left. it's why I end up, push comes to shove, falling in line with the left sometimes. Because sometimes Yang just seems to lack that authenticity. Again, he's too pragmatic, he offers too many compromises, there's too much wondering "will he actually do what he says he will do?" I'm more thoroughly loyal to my own ideas, I dont care about compromise, and I care about pushing my goals, even if it does, sometimes, make others unhappy.
Idk, just how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment