Did Inflation Save Us From 'New Progressive Economics'?
Anti-market progressives dominate the Biden administration. Their policies also help discredit it.

The Biden era's high inflation has been terrible for the economy and the country generally. But did it save us from a more permanent progressive takeover of federal government policy?
That's the tantalizing question hanging over a recent piece published by Vox Senior Politics Correspondent Andrew Prokop that chronicles the rise, and pending fall, of "New Progressive Economics."
President Joe Biden obviously was not the left's preferred candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary.
But, as Prokop tells it, he staffed his administration with lots of ultra-progressive wonks and political operatives who wanted to overthrow the Democratic Party's perceived "neoliberal" consensus on trade and regulation in favor of aggressive anti-trust enforcement, proactive industrial policy, protectionism, and a massive increase in social spending.
They basically got most of what they wanted, starting with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP)—a law pitched as a pandemic recovery bill that was stuffed full of progressive spending items.
Now, however, depression is setting among the New Progressives. There's a good chance that no matter what happens in November, they'll see their influence and policy legacy crumble.
That's obviously true if former President Donald Trump wins and Republicans get a shot at staffing the executive branch.
But Vice President Kamala Harris also appears a lot less enamored with "post-neoliberal" ideas than her boss. Her campaign trail overtures to big business, friendly relations with select billionaires, and a general instinct to run away from every progressive position she's ever taken (save on abortion) all have them sweating.
Should she get elected, the New Progressive agenda might still be a dead letter.
If that's true, they have only themselves to blame.
Biden is historically unpopular. Voters give him extremely low marks for his handling of the economy, and they rank the economy as their number one issue. The president headed for defeat even before his disastrous debate with Trump.
Polling has consistently shown that voters are mad about decades-high inflation and the cost of living specifically. Prices went up under Biden, voters got mad, and they stayed mad.
Inflation didn't just happen on Biden's watch. His budget-busting American Rescue Plan—which dumped a bunch of monopoly money on an already recovering post-pandemic economy—predictably sent prices through the roof.
At the time, "neoliberal" economists who'd held prominent positions in previous Democratic administrations, but had been largely replaced by the New Progressive types Prokop profiles, publicly warned that the ARP was too big and would generate lots of inflation.
The New Progressives shrugged off these criticisms as reactionary snipping from careerists steaming over their loss of power and influence.
But neoliberals turned out to be right. Progressive dismissals of their warnings ended up endangering their entire political project.
The silver lining to Biden-era inflation, for all the hurt it caused, is that it might end up discrediting the New Progressive's economic policies within the Democratic Party.
That's cause enough to celebrate. Before one points and laughs too hard, it's worth stressing that the New Progressive agenda might not be so self-correcting in the future.
One can imagine a different order of operations that would have been less self-defeating.
Had Biden listened to the inflation hawks on spending early in his term, while still giving Lina Khan carte blanche at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) it's quite possible that he'd be cruising to a second term right now. The post-neoliberals would have another four years to entrench their more subtly economically ruinous agenda.
While high inflation makes voters mad about the status quo, it also leads them to endorse dangerous policies to counter it.
While Harris is not running as a progressive firebrand, she has been willing to endorse radical price and rent controls to deal specifically with the problem of rising prices. If she wins in November, it's possible she'll press for those policies—and we'll have inflation to thank for that too.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Had Biden listened to the inflation hawks on spending early in his term, while still giving Lina Khan carte blanche at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) it's quite possible that he'd be cruising to a second term right now.
No, he would still have dementia.
Wait, what? Aren't all the experts saying that the economy stronger than it's ever been?
And crime is down?
And the price of second-hand spittin' tabackey is lower than ever!
I’m swimming in cheesy poofs!
— Lying Jeffy
Scrooge McDucksauce.
Inflation is Trump's fault because he signed the covid bill and dems added it to the baseline budget. - sarc
He definitely started the ball rolling. Which you will deny until the day the world is pleasantly relieved of your painful existence.
He definitely did not.
Article I Section 7 Clause 1 Revenue
That’s where the revenue, or lack of it, ball started rolling. The spending ball started rolling in Congress too. He should have made Congress override his veto, but he didn’t start it rolling.
When he signed the bill it became law.
You’re talking about conception and en-utero development. I’m talking about birth. He could have tried to abort it with a veto. I’m all about abortion when it comes to legislation being birthed.
Instead he enthusiastically signed it, and called out the few Republicans who voted against it. As ML has pointed out so many times, he faced a veto-proof majority. Thing is, Democrats didn’t have a veto-proof majority. It was bipartisan.
He got the inflation ball rolling with the first round of checks with his name on them.
Then Biden made it worse.
Poor sarc.
IOW, you admit he did not start the ball rolling. Then you again claim he started the ball rolling.
You like to say you want honest discussions and references. I provided the reference. You did not provide an honest discussion.
When do you define “rolling”? When do you define “life”? When do you define “legislation”? When do you define “personhood”?
At many points along the journey, the ball can be easily stopped. It can halt and stand still. But at some point, if it’s lucky, it gets unleashed! It is born unto this world! And once that happens it can’t be stopped. It is rolling! Well, it can. I guess. Not very ethical. Or legal.
Starting the ball and starting the ball rolling aren't the same.
LOL
Begin
verb
1.
start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).
Who started the spending negotiations with ridiculously high numbers (didn’t it start at 6 trillion and include bailouts for Democrat shitholes who refused to open back up)?
Yes. There was no spending prior to Trump. Great argument retard.
Until they try the New New
MinglewoodProgressive BluesConservative Kamala Harris: She's RIGHT For America
Anti-market progressives dominate the Biden administration. Their policies also help discredit it.
Now do "harm reduction", "reform prosecutors", "defundthepolice" and the "non-carceral forms of accoutability" movement.
So strange that an administration full of "anti-market progressives" produces exactly the economic result Koch-funded libertarians crave: billionaires getting richer.
tl;dr: Pendulums swing like England do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuSwnnoW1Js
But Vice President Kamala Harris also appears a lot less enamored with "post-neoliberal" ideas than her boss. Her campaign trail overtures to big business, friendly relations with select billionaires, and a general instinct to run away from every progressive position she's ever taken (save on abortion) all have them sweating.
Or Kamala is lying to you on the campaign trail.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
She wouldn't do that. And jeopardize her reputation for integrity?
Harris isn't "enamored with any idea. She's chosen to run as an empty cypher because "generic Democrat" is always the strongest candidate that her party can put up. Her predecessors have, by and large, made the mistake of advancing some kind of agenda at some point (usually they've had to because they'd either had to distinguish themselves in a primary field or have faced reporters who won't just eagerly polish her empty platitudes and filibustering to present to the public as some kind of ingenious new style of "leadership". Even Obama didn't get it this easy from the press in 2008.
Other than having promised to do the same thing in 2025 that Obama had promised to do in 2009 and "codify Roe" into law (something which the wording of the Dobbs ruling might actually have rendered impossible without a new amendment), the current campaign has indicated as much likelihood of a potential Harris administration going the way of the new Argentinian President and closing half the government as there is that she'd try to enact Medicare for All, the "Green New Deal" and a $5k/week UBI all at the same time. There's probably no chance that Congress would be on board with either of those agendas, but if someone were to parse out the entirety of the word salad she's been tossing so far, her actual agenda could be literally anywhere within that range (as would every possible agenda be, which is the point).
The fact that her roots are in the California Dem Party machine, and specifically out of the SF/Bay Area faction, the most likely case would be for her to break lunatic-progressive if she were to end up in possession of any meaningful degree of authority.
If we’re saved, it’s probably temporary.
Neo-liberal economics was started by Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan which had the effect of handing our government and Supreme Court over to the corporations. The Democrats had nothing to do with it.
Leftard self-projection.
And which party passed endless UN-Constitutional bills that allowed 'corporations' to lobby for Gov-Gun favors? Surely it wasn't FDR and his [D]-trifecta. Which party keeps campaigning on "Gov-Gun Centrally planned economies"? Oh no; surely that isn't the very premise of the entire DNC.
Will they ever LEARN?
Nope. Point & Case right there.
They just Blame-Shift everything they themselves do.
I sometimes ponder, was it a good thing Manchin and Sinema killed BBB because it saved us from even worse inflation, or was it a bad thing because that bill passing and the resulting inflation would almost certainly have kneecapped the eventual Harris campaign?
From Education, to Healthcare, to Housing a Great Depression & Recession later......
No. Just no. 'Progressives' don't LEARN a d*mn thing.
It's quite nice to dream that they might someday though.
"Anti-market progressives dominate the Biden administration. Their policies also help discredit it."
"Anti-market progressives?"
What?
You can't spell "communists?"
While Harris is not running as a progressive firebrand
Wrong. She's pretending to not run as a progressive firebrand, because she's lost pretty much every voting bloc but white karens and illegal aliens.