With just days until the election and a dead heat in most polls, both parties are vying for the mantle of economic populism. The choice of J.D. Vance as Donald Trump’s running mate was heralded as potentially leading to a populist shift in economic policy for the Republican party, while the Washington Post called Kamala Harris’s economic platform “aggressively populist.”
But what is economic populism; what does history tell us about the two main political parties and their take on populism; and most importantly, what does it mean for the American worker?
Broadly speaking, economic populism is an approach that promotes the economic interests of the common people over the economic elites.
In response to the economic inequality of the Gilded Age, President Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) embraced populist perspectives, working to make the government “the great arbiter of the conflicting economic forces of the Nation.” His legacy includes “trust-busting” to end unfair monopolies and fostering a “square deal” between capital and labor.
Decades later, his cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt (a Democrat), followed in his economic populist footsteps, passing both a federal minimum wage law and a “soak the rich” tax.
Today, with income inequality nearing the heights of the Gilded Age, it’s unsurprising that the political agendas have once again taken on a tone of economic populism.
For many decades, the Democratic Party appeared to be the more populist of the two major parties. Democrats positioned themselves as the party of the New Deal; the union-supporting party of the American worker. In the Biden era, Democrats’ economic populism is rooted in attacks on anti-competitive practices; sector-building industrial policy; a sharp turn away from free trade agreements; and an even more enthusiastic embrace of unions and collective bargaining.
Donald Trump’s Republican Party has also sought the economic populist mantle, but from a very different perspective. The current conservative version of economic populism focuses on aggressive tariffs on imports and strict limitations on immigration, both intended to raise wages and create job opportunities for American workers. These positions are in sharp contrast to the pro-business and free market philosophy economic policies long held by the “chamber-of-commerce Republicans” who previously controlled the party.
So what does this all mean for jobs and workers?
Despite their sharp policy differences, both parties are responding to American workers’ resentment and frustration with decades of feeling left behind by the modern economy. The unequal recovery since the Great Recession and frustration that costly college degrees haven’t always yielded meaningful returns have only hardened those attitudes.
From this diagnosis, the prescription becomes clear: government, the private sector, and the social sector must collectively build an economy that produces jobs that pay a living wage and offer a path to a secure, middle-class life, as well as the skill-building pathways to prepare workers for these jobs. Rising economic populism has already led to a bipartisan acceptance of industrial policy—once considered a fringe economic approach. It should also catalyze the creation of more quality jobs.
The organization I lead, Jobs for the Future, developed a framework for quality jobs with four areas of focus: compensation (paying a living wage and offering benefits); advancement (allowing all workers to develop new skills and advance within their organization); agency and culture (engendering a sense of belonging and recognition for workplace contributions); and structure (offering an environment that is safe, healthy, and accessible).
Today, only 44% of employed Americans have quality jobs. Millions more work in jobs that lack essential provisions like fair scheduling or sick leave, or face barriers because of degree requirements that impose unnecessary barriers to good jobs.
I spent 16 years in the Department of Labor under administrations of both parties, and have seen how the priorities of a presidential administration can impact the labor market and the availability of good jobs for Americans. Many of these issues, from scaling the use of apprenticeships to dropping degree requirements, draw bipartisan support and have been endorsed on the campaign trail by both parties’ candidates.
Even in this seemingly polarized period where economic populism appears to be carving two paths that head in different directions, there are important policies that intersect and offer opportunity for agreement. Economic populism may be able to provide the space for both parties to find—and agree on—shared solutions that serve both their interests as well as the interests of working families and our country’s economic future.