Pro-Business Liberalism

This is a critical point. The Democratic Party is the party of business. The Republican Party is the party of corporate theocrats. - Matt

Too many liberals are reluctant to embrace the pro-business label. Meanwhile, the DLC Joe Lieberman types are really corporatists who claim to be pro-business. This contradiction places the Democratic Party in a hole because our political dialogue doesn't distinguish between those who are pro-business and corporatist. The distinction is important because the corporatist Republican Party has benefited from the perception that they are the pro-business party and the modest risk-taking entrepreneur has supported them against their own interests. Meanwhile, the Democrats are enduring the worst perceptions among voters from both wings of their party: liberals reluctance to identify with pro-business policies makes the party appear in favor of handouts while the DLC reinforces the suspicion among voters that the Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans. It's an odd contradiction and a rare feat of political ineptitude: the two wings of the party have managed to make Democrats appear socialist and corporatist at the same time.

The genesis of this affliction occurred in the late eighties when Tony Cohelo, a ranking member in the Democrats House leadership aggressively courted major corporations. Cohelo had good intentions. He wanted the Democratic Party to be more competitive after having its clock cleaned by Ronald Reagan twice. Consequently, the Democrats lost touch with their populist roots as they wined and dined corporate CEOs for campaign cash. Those Democrats who opposed this trend were labeled "protectionist," outside the mainstream, and opposed to entrepreneurial capitalism. Sadly, as the Democrats became less identified with economic populism, the Republicans were able to exploit cultural populism while small business owners were persuaded that Democrats were going to raise their taxes and impose stifling government regulation. As the party's base soured on Democrats for supporting pro-corporatist NAFTA legislation, small business owners responded to Newt Gingrich's rhetoric about reducing taxes and government regulation. In 1994 the Democrats base stayed home, small business owners rallied to Gingrich's banner and the vital center imploded on the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton proceeded to fight a rearguard action from the White House and enjoyed remarkable success but the center of political gravity shifted to the Right anyway.

Bush's failed policies however offer the Democrats an opportunity to become the party of small business and become the majority party again. For one thing, there is an emerging consensus among small and medium sized businesses about the cost of health care. Businesses of all sizes are hemorrhaging money because the increasing number of uninsured Americans is hiking premiums. In that environment a single payer system is an appealing alternative because it will lift a heavy financial burden from employers. Personally, I don't believe single payer health care in America is politically viable but government assuming more of the financial burden certainly is. Real health care reform can be sold to the business community as an economic stimulus package designed to liberate entrepreneurs to invest their profits into growth and development instead of keeping up with the rising cost of premiums.

Another way the Democrats can appeal to the business community is by revisiting the bankruptcy reform law that passed last year. The new law is actually damaging to the modest risk-taking entrepreneur because it takes away a potential safety net in case their business fails. Typically, small businesses are largely financed out of the entrepreneur's pocket and if his business fails, declaring bankruptcy allows him to have a fresh start and take care of his family. Hence, DLC Democrats like Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Evan Bayh actually stifled job creation by supporting this legislation because it will make prospective entrepreneurs more risk adverse. Yet the new law allows large corporations such as Delta Airlines to declare bankruptcy and default on their pension obligations. That's wrong morally as well as economically. Democrats should vigorously campaign on a platform to revisit the legislation. This can be sold to the business community as a safety net for the small entrepreneurs who create jobs.

One interesting perspective about running a small business is from a loyal Democrat named Damon Leavell. Mr. Leavell runs a public relations and marketing firm in New Jersey called Forrest Communications. Specifically, Mr. Leavell's business services firms in the finance and technology industry. Recently, he vented to me about how the political culture doesn't distinguish between pro corporatist policies and helping entrepreneurs like him:

"I agree with you that there is a huge difference. Pro-business shouldn't be an excuse to give huge pennies to huge businesses so they can get campaign donations. I run a small business. I'm always amazed by what the Republicans say they're doing to help small businesses. In fact, each year, I only see the things they are doing to hurt small businesses. I'll give you an example. For the early years of running a business, guys like me are hit with a double tax that you the employee avoids. When you pay social security, 6% is taken from your salary each year. When I pay social security, 12% is taken from my salary. And I can't write a penny of that off. That's a huge number when you're taking a hit in your salary and taking financial risks to run a business. I would like a pro-business politician to do something like this: Eliminate the double taxation up until the first $80k, but extend the maximum social security payment for upper income business owners, who are more able to pay an additional 6% when their business is a couple years old. But that'll never happen. I think that times have changed and our government will be bought and sold in the future. It's always happened, but never to the degree it's done now. But I don't know how it can be stopped. The very people who we elect to stop it benefit from it, and nobody seems willing to provide real public funding for candidates. I don't know what the solution is, other than to try to make as much money as we can so we can be the buyers of politicians instead of the other way around."

Mr. Leavell's desire for elimination of double taxation is quite sensible and one all liberals should embrace enthusiastically. If employers such as Mr. Leavell were relieved of this burden he would have greater incentive and flexibility to hire more employees. Unlike Republican supply side nonsense that give tax breaks to corporate CEOs earning seven figures, it makes more sense to help those entrepreneurs who are on the frontlines of job creation. I find it especially interesting that an entrepreneur such as Mr. Leavell actually supports public financing for candidates as well. Perhaps leveling the political playing field with a new campaign finance structure can be sold to the business community as a way of replacing crony capitalism with legitimate competition.

I am a liberal Democrat opposed to corporatism but strongly pro-business. Liberalism and pro-business sensibilities are not in conflict. They go hand and hand.

Intrepid Liberal Journal



Display:


Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

Totally agree. Universal Healthcare would save small business a ton of money. Im attending business school in New York and the anecdotal evidence I've encountered from students and professors alike are that current policies are destroying our future economy and depressing potential growth.


by NJDEM1 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:45:26 AM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

And here I sit at that nexus:  an entrepreneur and business owner, selected to teach at one of the top three MBA programs in every annual survey, and a full throated progressive.

The U. S. Chamber reprsents big business against the small guy and entrepreneur who creates most new jobs.

They lobby for protective big business regulation and carveouts that hurt innovation and small business, just to protect their own competitive positions.

Single payer health care would unleash a surge of hiring in the small business world, overnight.


by Pachacutec on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:48:59 AM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

If you notice, the tyop people in BushCo, like Cheney and Snow (and O'Neill befrore him) come from industries that depend on government contracts and/or a heavily regulated market to prosper.  They really aren't free marketeers, let alone entrepreneurs.   They rely on contributions to get gov't to rig the markets.

The Dems do have a golden chance to appeal to entrepreneurs and small business.  Health care is one aspect, and trying to reduce reporting requirements is another.  Having stronger regulation to protect competition is yet another, so that the little guys aren't always shafted by the big guys.  Freezing the estate tax at this year's level or even the 2009 level, but keepoing it for the largest estates (over $2M-3.5M) protects small business but keeps the revenue coming from the large estates.   Patent reform is another area.


by Mimikatz on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

Count me in. Free enterprise is a basic tenet of Liberalism. The right-wing corporatist view is a distortion of the Liberal ideal of personal liberty. We Liberals accept the reality that price information is the most efficient means to determine allocation of production. We also believe that this efficiency is only achieved when all citizens have equal access to the markets.

I believe that if we have equal access to the markets to all citizens (this includes proper opportunities for education and experience), that we will achieve the goals that most in the "anti-business" camp wish to achieve.

Small business is the largest creator of jobs in this country and is the primary means of wealth creation for average citizens. By helping more citizens to achieve this dream, we empower individuals to better protect their own rights and reduce the amount of state intervention necessary.

I've paid those self-employment taxes, I've paid the taxes for employees. Starting a small business in this country requires an enormous amount of resources, just for book keeping and tax purposes. The best opportunity for Americans is to make it easier for them to take risks. The bankruptcy laws were made weaker than England's precisely for this purpose. The idea that taking risk should be permanently disabling for many Americans is counter productive to creating self-sufficient citizens.


by cjohnson on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:02:17 AM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

This comment sounds like it's based on RNC/Chamber of Commerce talking points.

I object to this whole "anti-business" rhetoric. I suppose since I am in favor of stronger labor unions, a higher minimum wage, tougher worker health & safety, consumer, and environmental regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, and so on, I am pegged as one of these anti-business types.

Whatever. Let the record show that the US economy performs far better - lower unemployment AND inflation, and higher growth - when high-taxing, big spending, regulate-everything-in-sight Democrats are in charge.

That's the only kind of "pro-business" that matters.


by tgeraghty on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 03:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

I object to this whole "anti-business" rhetoric. I suppose since I am in favor of stronger labor unions, a higher minimum wage, tougher worker health & safety, consumer, and environmental regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, and so on, I am pegged as one of these anti-business types.

Why would you even think that? This comment really strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. We are clearly discussing the issues that make it difficult for average citizens to empower themselves, not for multinationals to continue ripping us off. Your conclusions contains far more then the premises you've based your comments on, which BTW, is a classic RNC talking point tactic.

BTW, small businesses have lifted more people out of poverty than unions. I fully support unions, but individual workers are far better off owning their own production than just owning a seat at the bargaining table.

Also, look at how the Dems achieved this record. They did so by supporting small business in favor of large corps. Quite frankly, I wish they'd done more.


by cjohnson on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:13:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

BTW, your points about small business are conservative talking points:

. . . businesses employing fewer than 100 or even 500 workers do not create many new jobs; are not becoming a more significant portion of the American economy; and offer workers lower wages, poorer benefits, inferior working conditions, and less job security than large employers.

If you are interested in the reality-based view of the economy you kight check it out here

And if Dems achieved their economic record by "supporting small business," as you say, how come small business owners are the most rabidly right-wing, retrograde group of people in American politics? They're the ones who killed universal health care back in the '90s, after all. Of course small business does better when the economy grows faster and living standards are rising, but most small businesspeople don't seem to realize that active government plays an indispensable role in keeping the economy growing fairly.

Lastly, if you're really concerned about "individual workers owning their own production" than I suppose you are in favor of more worker coops and employee share ownership in corporations? Giving workers a greater say in how firms are run would be about the best thing we could do do restore full employment and rapid wage growth, but unfortunately that encroaches on "management prerogatives" and most small businessmen are opposed.

No, I'm afraid you are the knee-jerk, not me.


by tgeraghty on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

First of all, please cite economic references less than 16 years old. There is no way for me to verify that this data is still valid. Something written in 1990 doesn't address the massive changes in our economy since then, like the 300% of self-employed businesses vs. 30% payroll growth overall(US Census).

I might agree with this assessment up until the late 80's. Since then, the corporate jobs have increased in disparity between professional and non-professional labor. The bulk of non-professional corporate jobs are low-paying, low-benefit jobs which employ workers that lack professional skills.

Your comment about the right-wing tendencies of small business owners is spurious at best. While certain types of small-business owners, like landscaping and doctors, trend to the GOP, others like lawyers trend Dem. I don't think you can really go extrapolating much. Also, if you've been following the GOP noise machine since the late 80's, you'd know that they'd tailored their message directly to many small-business owners. They sabotaged health care reform by framing it as if small-business owners would be picking up the full bill for their employees. They scared small business owners into thinking regulations would destroy their business while it let their larger competitors take advantage of opportunities that would have been available to small business.

Just like rural whites, small business owners who support the GOP have been voting against their own best interest. The Dems helped out a lot of rural whites during the 90's and they didn't vote Dem either. I don't see how your criticism on this point is valid unless we should ignore all those people that you'd like to give a larger say in the corporate world to.

Let me put it this way, I'm interested in keeping corps from exploiting workers. I support unions as part of the economic ecosystem that maintains balance of power and keeps things less centralized. I also believe that a living wage is required so that workers are able to defend their rights and take advantage of opportunity on their own. That being said, I see fewer opportunities to efficiently reform large businesses than I do to encourage small businesses. Besides, do you really think you'd be better off working for a union than owning your own business? If you're that interested in running a business or managing production, why wouldn't you start your own company?

Giving workers a greater say in how firms are run would be about the best thing we could do do restore full employment and rapid wage growth

How? Through eminent domain? Is there some inherent right that a worker has (beyond a living wage) to their employer's property (shareholder or small business owner)? How do you force firms to give up wealth and power internally without forcing the state to baby-sit every company in the nation? Also, how will giving employees more say in the company make say, the auto-industry better able to compete globally? We might be able to win a living wage in the US, but imagine what kind of work it would take to get China to pay a wage that allows American workers to remain competitive at the same production levels.

Why would workers, with newfound control over their own workplace, go on a job creation binge? How would your proposal actually achieve full employment?

The list of problems with trying to create a benevolent large corporate entity is huge. The list of issues with encouraging small, innovative and nimble businesses have to be solved anyway for our economic health. I fail to see how your proposals here would actually achieve the goals you state, at least not as well as encouraging small business creation. Increased small business creation would rapidly increase wages simply due to the lowered supply of workers. Another point, wouldn't a large number of small businesses in a large number of fields mitigate much of the economic risk that you would leave concentrated at the corporate level? I fear that further embedding corporate structure into our economy (which your employee ownership schemes will do) will lead to more problems than it solves.


by cjohnson on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

This statement pretty well sums up my views on the employee voice issue:

. . . a new principle should guide corporate governance: Employees who invest and put at risk their human capital should have the same rights to information and voice in corporate governance as do investors who put at risk their financial capital.

-- Thomas Kochan, MIT Workplace Center, Regaining Control of Our Destiny: A Working Families' Agenda for America

And, yes, this does have implications for jobs and living standards because corporations are using their power to divert resources away from job-creating investments and wages and toward excessive executive compensation, merger and acquisition shenanigans, and so on.

The rate of investment in the present economic recovery is the lowest since the 1950s.

This stuff matters.

You know, I'm not really opposed to this pro-small business approach. It's kind of populistic in a way, and you do have a point that more people should be free to follow their dreams and start up their own firms with more security that their lives and finances will not be utterly wrecked in the process.

Plus, small businesses do produce more innovations that large firms, which is a point I'm surprised you didn't make.

So I'm not optimistic that huge numbers of small business owners are going to come over to our side, or that huge numbers of new jobs are going to be created, but as long as we don't have to sacrifice needed regulations in health, safety, consumer protection, the environment, and so on, I'm not opposed to the argument made here.


by tgeraghty on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (3.00 / 2)

Anytime I see the "double taxation" mantra, I am skeptical.

Your example, as self-employed, pays both for the employer and employee side, that is about 12% for SS purposes.  I am an employee, and I pay a bit over 6% (rounded in both cases..you get the point.  The small business owner pays twice as much, I don't dispute that).

And, as an employee, I don't get to write off a bunch of stuff, like parking, or gas, or supplies, or other things I buy for my job because I'm not the employer, I'm the employee.  Mr. Double-tax gets the write-offs.  He also gets to pay 12% instead of my 6%.

And these are choices, and while the actual set-up can be tweaked, the double taxation idea is silly.  Corporation shareholders get "double-taxed" on income and dividends, but wait, not anymore.  Of course, the "double taxation" was based on the fact that both were absurdly low rates, and they were low because they recognized that the "double" tax would only apply to a few folks WHO COULD AFFORD IT.

No one forces you to cash in dividends you don't want to be taxed (donate them), and no one forces you to be both an employer and employee.  Room for change, of course.  Double taxation for you small businesses...hardly.  You occupy both roles, you pay both taxes.  

I am sympathetic when it comes to health care costs and other items, but those are different (and much more screwed up) issues.  The term double taxation is just a misused term and has nothing to do with being pro-business.


by abjectfunk on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:34:41 AM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

Plus, nobody worries about "double taxation" when it happens to ordinary workers instead of the wealthy. You know, like when workers get hit once with the payroll tax and then gain with the income tax.


by tgeraghty on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 03:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

We're not talking about corporate income tax here. We're talking about employee taxes. If you are self-employed, expect to pay about 40% of your revenue in taxes. Ever billed yourself out at $65 an hour, only to find your not making any more than you would making $20 an hour at a corporate job? This is because you have to cover the taxes that were previously paid by an employer (not to mention benefits). Try to grow a small business with that kind of burden on your revenue. The costs eat up your margins.

The tax write offs don't cover the tax burden. The government gets their money up front (every month), making you cash-poor. In order to get the write-offs you have to spend more money. Also, most service jobs, like consulting, have little in the way of expenses.

Not all businesses are equal. The small ones are as vulnerable as an individual and are quite often just an individual. The idea that anyone is cashing in dividends here is silly.

You will never achieve wealth working for other people, the best and most assured way to insure you and your family against poverty is to own your own business and generate your own income. With that wealth, you have the ability to defend your rights and don't have to rely on the state's good graces.

If you want to achieve the balance of power against these large corporate interests, then you had better get on board supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs.


by cjohnson on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

My question is where does Bill Clinton fit into this spectrum? It seems to me that one reason for Clinton's continued popularity ... and, arguably, for America's economic prosperity during his term ... was that he successfully balanced the need for businesses to expand and profit while preventing corporate excesses against the interests of the working class, the environment and consumers. Was it perfect? No, but I beg one to find a point in contemporary America where the scales have ever been completely balanced -- at least for a period longer than it took for the labor-management pendulum to swing from one side to the other.


by MoCrash on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:03:32 AM EST

What? (none / 0)

How about just sticking to Liberalism.  Being fair, even handed and open minded.  All those things already apply to business interests.

Pro-business liberalism to me is code for selling out.  It buys into the CAFTA, big business mentality.  That isn't to say we shouldn't help business, especially small business.  But the nomenclature isn't right.

How about supporting "family and small businesses", because "small businesses are the economic backbone of this country".  Who can be against that?


Enough already...
by pjv on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:30:42 AM EST

Re: What? (none / 0)

I think we'd be better off framing corporatists as anti-business. They concentrate power, which leads to monopoly, oligarchy and in general is anti-competitive and anti-innovation.

The basis of the "free market" fundamentalism on the right is the misinterpretation and distortion of the Austrian school's observation that price information is integral to efficient allocation of resources. I can't think of anyone serious who has an issue with this.

The fundamentalism part comes in when this correct assessment is used to in combination with the belief that the "free market" is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that regulation is somehow an unnatural actor, as if concentrated corporate power doesn't have the same effect.

We need to retake the banner of "business friendly" by pointing out how unfettered corporate support is anti-business, anti-growth and anti-innovation. Attack their strengths, show how our position is the only real choice. Natural markets, what the right incorrectly calls "free markets" concentrate power by default. We're for decentralization of power and power is wealth. We're not socialists, we're for increased competition.


by cjohnson on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 10:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

I would add that a lot of corporate America is liberal too, except where their individual pocketbook interests are directly involved.  But the over all political indentities of boards of directors and management is often quite liberal. The big exception is the finance community.


by dickmulliken on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 10:55:29 AM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

All of which underlines the fact that one class of people in this country, namely the poor, have been utterly disenfranchised over the past 30 years.

Small wonder their lot has become quite progressively worse off, with rising costs and market-rationing making health-care ever more inaccessible for them and their children, housing costs in most urban areas exploding and new construction of affordable housing lagging far behind the exploding growth of families below the poverty line, and rising heating and fuel costs eating into what's left to pay for food and clothing.

When you have two parties spouting supply-side, trickle-down Reaganomics, aka neo-liberalism, the poor lose.

When Democrats distinguish themselves from Republicans by claiming they are more pro-business than the GOP, the poor lose.

When, in a rigidly two-party state, right-wingers take over the Democratic party and shift it first to the center and then to the right, and in so doing facilitate the GOP's shift towards outright fascism, a whole class of people are disenfranchised and ultimately, the poor lose.

Thanks you for demonstrating this point and reminding me why I am an independent and not a Democrat.


by redstar66 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 11:06:18 AM EST

I'm pro-capitalism (none / 0)

Which is why I vote Democrat.

History shows repeatedly that capitalism prospers under Democratic administrations, who encourage growth through policies of opportunity and mobility. But capitalism stagnates and collapses under Republican administrations, who encourage corruption through cronyism and promiscuous spending.


by Chris Andersen on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:39:11 PM EST

Re: Pro-Business Liberalism (none / 0)

Good call.  The mantra needs to be "economic success" - economic success for businesses, communities, and individuals.  Democrats and business also share priorities in the workforce and economic development realms...  


by austingrrrl on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:55:02 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.