For all the talk of divides between the left and the center-left on economics, it's becoming harder and harder to pinpoint the rifts. It's obvious, to be sure, where the players think the divides lie, but these imagined arguments appear increasingly unmoored from any debate I've recently heard. Over the weekend, Hamilton Project head and prominent neoliberal Peter Orszag stepped forward to caution against interfering in the direct workings of the market and instead institute a system of robust safety net programs, increased investment in education, and enhanced incentives for saving. Which is, so far as I've seen, all anyone, anywhere, is calling for.
So here's my question to readers: What are the poles in the progressive economic debate? And how far are they really? What does Peter Orszag and the Hamilton Project want that the Economic Policy Institute reviles, and vice versa? It's certainly true that both ends cling tight to historical enmity, but I'm having increasing trouble, in this era, of discerning precisely where they differ. And with all the op-eds, projects, and articles being written to further the fight, it would be nice to pin down what, in fact, they're fighting over. I'll start with the biggie -- trade -- but even there, it's not clear, given a Democratic Congress, exactly what one group would do that the other would not.
Update: In comments, Chris points to this article by Max Sawicky laying out the differences between liberals and "the left." That said, the liberals these days are a little more left, and the left seems a bit more liberal. I'm not suggesting that there's never been a difference, only that, in the Bush-era, there's been a real convergence.
