1 week Ago By Benjamin Clark
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Image: AAP/Mick Tsikas) Anyone discussing the US election ought to affix this important caveat: the dust is still settling, results are still being processed and analysed, and it will probably take months to draw definitive conclusions. Nonetheless, there are some early indications of why many American voters failed to support Kamala Harris in sufficient numbers. These will not only provoke soul-searching among Democrats, but also spell bad news for Anthony Albanese and his Labor government.
And facing an impending election amid dwindling poll numbers, he doesn’t have time to wait for the fully fleshed-out results before acting. Crikey ’s Bernard Keane has already detailed how Peter Dutton may emulate Trump’s success by weaponising immigration and its assumed link to inflation. But even setting immigration aside, the Albanese government is vulnerable on cost of living.
Why? Because all governments are. The US election is not one dismissable event; it is the latest in a long line of ominous data points. The following graph should keep Labor MPs and their advisers up at night: Just to clarify: this isn’t just the first time since WW2 that all incumbent parties in developed countries lost vote share.
It’s the first time since this data was first recorded in 1905. Essentially the first time in the history of democracy (universal suffrage began in 1894). pic.
twitter.com/04hdpN8aq0 — John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) November 7, 2024 It was inflation wot won it Every governing party in a developed democracy facing an election this year lost vote share, for the first time on record. The only trend universal enough to explain this is inflation, which rose sharply during the terms of all these chastened incumbent or now-exiled parties.
Will Australia be dumb enough to match Trump’s stupidity on tariffs? Read More Many American commentators have focused on national factors — Harris’ policies on Gaza, for example, or her courting of defecting Republicans such as Liz Cheney — while ignoring this broader global trend. Harris’ campaign was imperfect and the Democrats have lessons to learn about reaching disaffected voters. But given Joe Biden’s late exit and the unpopularity of his government, the fact Democrats lost less vote share than most other incumbent governments suggests she also made reasonable strides in a short space of time — and Trump was comparatively unable to fully capitalise on voters’ anger, on account of being a rambling, dissembling embarrassment.
But for all this, Harris still couldn’t shake off the stench of inflation. Polls before and immediately after the election showed American voters were principally concerned about “the economy”, by which they usually mean high prices. Those who thought the economy was worse, and that it was affecting them disproportionately, broke decisively for Trump.
But wasn’t the Biden economy good? Two caveats. First, American voters who identify with one particular party tend to have their economic assessments warped by their political preferences. Trump supporters partly thought the economy was bad because Biden was managing it, and their preferred media sources encouraged this view .
In fact, Biden’s economy was in many ways excellent, from record-low unemployment to growing wages. I have no idea what you do about this lol. It's so polarized on partisan lines.
pic.twitter.com/l2EO2Yhkiu — Hunter??? (@StatisticUrban) November 8, 2024 Nonetheless, enough voters whose brains hadn’t been fully recontoured by Fox News and its conspiratorial knockoffs still graded Biden poorly on economic management by the one metric he failed on: prices.
Harris suffered by association. Second, just because these voters identified as having disproportionately suffered from inflation does not mean they are objectively disadvantaged, nor that they fit the label “working class” by any measure other than the number of trucker hats owned. Australian commentators have been quick to jump to such conclusions in the past.
Like clockwork, the Australian Financial Review ran an op-ed this weekend by pollster Kos Samaras parroting platitudes about the working class turning off “wokeness”. In fact, Harris appears to have still won those earning the lowest (and highest) incomes. She lost the middle (and a chunk across the board).
Despite media distortion, this roughly tracks material reality. Biden’s emphasis on full employment and the concurrent uptick in labour organising has reaped significant benefits for lower-income earners, making them better off despite rising prices. But for the middle, price rises outpaced wage growth.
This is interesting. Bidenomics did actually benefit the bottom 10% of earners, but lost because it couldn’t do the same for the middle. https://t.
co/UQbglsIosC — Michael Walker (@michaeljswalker) November 7, 2024 A tough conversation for the left This makes for awkward reading for many on the left. Many of us, including myself , cheered on Biden’s decision to run the economy hot and risk a little extra inflation in exchange for more jobs and better working conditions. His pivot influenced governments around the world to follow, with varying degrees of caution and gusto.
I won’t renounce this position; improvements to inequality demonstrate its immense benefits. There are previously struggling people now earning more than they ever have. And as inflation — the bulk of which was caused by post-COVID supply chain shocks and pent-up demand — subsides, more people will feel the benefits of a full employment economy.
This is fine: Risk of economic shocks aside, Australia has no need to worry about Trump, Labor says Read More But inconveniently, the middle class often doesn’t share the left’s priorities. People often prefer higher unemployment to higher inflation — at least, those who suspect it’d be other people on the chopping block. For some this is self-preservation, for others pure selfishness.
The left must work on dampening inflation in every conceivable way that doesn’t increase unemployment, pump the economic brakes when absolutely necessary, and persuade the public of full employment’s merits. Pretending, as many on the populist left did throughout the 2010s, that the public latently, consistently supports egalitarian positions is wilful ignorance. That some, struggling and otherwise, would vote for a fascist over cooling inflation shows just how much persuasive work the left must do.
Albanese should be scared Back on the home front, Albanese is in an objectively worse position to fight an inflation election next year. His government hasn’t pushed as hard on full employment as Biden’s did, so wage rises haven’t compensated price rises as much. Do we think Albo is going to fare better than Kamala or worse than Kamala? pic.
twitter.com/FjgtmvqRUL — Steven Hamilton (@SHamiltonian) November 8, 2024 Its stimulatory efforts — think of the budget’s energy rebates, for instance — have been poorly designed, verging on inflationary, haven’t significantly advanced social goals, and have gone largely unnoticed. Literally the worst of all worlds.
Other items, such as his HECS reforms, won’t kick in until after the election — a common American strategy with hardly inspiring results. Peter Dutton, while undeserving of office, doesn’t appear to persuadable voters as cartoonishly unfit for office as Trump does. And Labor won’t benefit from Kamala’s “fresh face” boost unless Albanese makes a shock departure.
They are careening towards a cliff. Instead of faffing around with distracting brain farts like this week’s social media age limit, Albanese needs to develop a credible economic plan. If not, he risks being a one-term leader with far fewer achievements than his ageing American counterpart.
.
