Old-School Economics

Take a look at this provocative commentary in today's New York Times, and ask: Does this apply to Pittsburgh?

Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing.

If Republicans have had more luck talking about the economy for the last generation or so, it is because they were the less folkloric of the two parties. Broadly speaking, they cut taxes and regulation and trusted that entrepreneurs would hasten the arrival of the economy to come. There were Democrats who did the same, but they shared a party with others who were nostalgic for a disappearing world, reflexively backing unions and fighting management. Republican optimism beat Democratic nostalgia.

This campaign season, Republicans no longer look so confident. Mike Huckabee suggested to a group of Detroit executives that “instead of talking to people in the corporate boardroom, you talk to people on the line.” He aspires to remind Americans “of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.” The latter guy, in Huckabee’s view, resembles Mitt Romney, who may have triumphed in Michigan, but only after promising to restore 250,000 factory jobs lost to layoffs. Republican rhetoric about trusting the transition to a new economy is not allaying fears as it once did.

The reason is simple. It is that the transition is over. The new economy we have been promised is in place. While the economy of 1998 was a world away from the Internet-less, land-line-dependent, non-Nafta, I.B.M.-Selectric-powered, partly Communist world of 1988, today’s economy is fully recognizable as the one we inhabited in 1998.

Today’s economic anxiety is not the same anxiety that simmered between 1980 and 2000. Back then, recessions and slowdowns were understood as the pangs of a new economy struggling to be born. But the recession we now seem to be entering is to the information age what the recession of, say, 1957-1958 was to the industrial age — a “normal” recession in the midst of an economy with stable bases, an economy that (to use a current cliché) “is what it is.” The “jobs of the future” that were promised 20 years ago are here. Choreographers, blackjack dealers and security guards have replaced factory workers as the economy’s backbone, if not yet its symbol. . . .

Cutting taxes and slashing regulations were appropriate strategies for managing a transitional economy. But we no longer live in such an economy. This does not mean that Republicans need to embrace a single-payer health system or subsidized day care. But neither can they go on automatically favoring the hypothetical needs of tomorrow’s entrepreneurs over the real needs of today’s dental hygienists and landscape gardeners. The future is now, as the late Redskins’ coach George Allen used to say. The promise that prosperity is just one more tax cut or one more rescinded regulation away is a rapidly depreciating rhetorical asset.

Back Steel

At Tube City, Jason Togyer strikes just about the right tone in celebrating U.S. Steel's Austin Powers-ish announcement that it will invest $1 billion of its own money in the Clairton Coke Works.

Pittsburgh Looks Forward

Luke Ravenstahl's victory in the Mayor's election was no surprise. As it must, Pittsburgh looks ahead. Will Mark DeSantis remain publicly invested in the vision of a New Pittsburgh that he tried to articulate during the campaign, and again last night? If you want to review that vision, it's online. In his entry today, Chad Hermann posts the full text of DeSantis's eloquent concession speech. Let's hope, for Pittsburgh's sake, that DeSantis isn't one-and-done. Whether or not he has the stomach for another run in two years, Pittsburgh needs his voice.

What will the 35-percenters do? Will DeSantis's supporters gravitate back to Bill Peduto -- the long-standing voice of the Eastern neighborhoods, or align with the emerging Patrick Dowd? The revolution, such as it is, needs a face and a voice. If DeSantis isn't it, who's up next? And will that person be able to find backers willing to invest in building a political organization that doesn't rely on Pittsburgh's long-standing party apparat?

Someday, Pittsburgh will look back. Will city and regional residents of the future look back on the election of 2007 as just another example of Democratic dominance? Or will they think that Mark DeSantis and his supporters energized a sustainable politics for a New Pittsburgh? Will 2007 be regarded as a turning point, or as another bump in the road for the Democratic juggernaut?

The same old themes -- Old Pittsburgh / New Pittsburgh; Democrat / Republican; young / old; authentic Pittsburgher / carpetbagger; immature juvenile / mature adult -- can get overplayed in these reviews. Pittsburgh can use some new themes. On NPR this morning, I listened to a report about the first African-American to be elected mayor of a major American city: Carl Stokes, in Cleveland, 40 years ago.

And I wondered what it would take for Pittsburgh to elect an African-American mayor.

UPDATE (11/10/07): What he said.