A Conversation with Julianne Malveaux

September 26, 2001

Dr. Julianne Malveaux is an MIT-trained economist, writer and syndicated columnist whose thoughts on national affairs, the American workplace and the economy appear each week in more than 20 newspapers nationally. She is well known for guest appearances and commentary on national network programs and outlets such as Politically Incorrect, the Lehrer News Hour, CNN, the Fox News Channel, MSNBC, C-SPAN, and CNBC. Dr. Malveaux has taught economics, public policy, and African-American Studies. Dr. Malveaux is a board member of CPA.

Do you think average Americans feel government hasn’t addressed their needs?
I think people at the bottom are pretty cynically jaded because they simply haven’t seen government policy work for them. I think when people talk about public policy it seems very out of reach for people who are literally making the minimum wage or a little bit more. Let’s look, for example, at the reaction to this terrorism: We want to bail out the airlines; we want to have more money for Amtrak; we’ve got millions of dollars for the UN. I don’t have a problem with any of those things. But if you are Jane Jones who works at a concession stand at the airlines making $6 an hour, who is responding to you? So when you talk about public policy, and see that it immediately goes to bailing out the airlines but it doesn’t trickle down to working people, that’s problematic.

How can a domestic agenda be pushed in the current context?
The current context forces us to look at our labor policies and what we do about people who are unemployed and underemployed, and it also forces us to look at education in different ways. Who has access to what, when and where and how? Those are two things that I think are very critical to our domestic agenda. I’m not sure how we work them out, but I think certainly we’ll be able to raise some questions.

Do you think a distinction exists in the way Americans of color perceive the causes, and solutions to, the terrorist attacks?
I go back to the Gulf War of 1991, and remember that there were six votes against militarization then, five of which came from the Congressional Black Caucus. Fast forward to September, and Barbara Lee, a black Democrat Congresswoman from California, was the sole dissent to our militarization. Chair of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights Mary Frances Berry coined the concept "the paradox of loyalty," which is about African Americans fighting for the right to fight. While some of us are patriots, at the same time we understand this is a country that has never treated us fairly. At the World Trade Center and the Pentagon there were African-American deaths just as there were American deaths. I don’t think anyone says, I want to fight to avenge African Americans. I’m going into save African Americans. But I think African Americans are always aware of indignities, inequities and differential access. So that when you look at those numbers of firefighters that were lost, I think some of us are cognizant of those black men and women who were not even afforded the opportunity to join the fire force.

What’s the pragmatic role for states in our new political and economic environment?
State leaders are stakeholders. As state leaders emerge from this crisis, their responsibility is to articulate the concerns of their citizenry, regardless of their ideological views. Their responsibility is also to make clear to their citizens the impact this engagement has on them. Will their economies be impacted? Will they have less access? Part of their responsibility is also to make their citizens understand that we’re not so disconnected from the rest of the world. One of the greatest flaws of foreign policy in the U.S. is that most people don’t know very much about it. Most Americans think that we give more money for foreign policy than we do, when it’s less than 1% of our GDP. We really don’t have a clear idea of why we went to Bosnia, but not Rwanda. These are the things we need to talk about. We talk about our economy. We talk about other aspects of our social policy, but we don’t talk about foreign policy. As these conversations happen, we begin to enlighten the citizenry and people begin to shuffle their own priorities about life, living and where we intervene.

What does that mean for the single mother who’s a waitress, consumed with how she’s going to pay the rent and what kind of education her kids are getting?
I think the single mom is probably someone who puts foreign policy concerns on the back burner and this situation brings them to the front. It forces her to look at a trade off – where is our money going and what are we doing? It also raises questions for her about how military intervention could change the assistance and benefits she receives from the government. One of the positive things that rises out of this situation is that Americans are going to be reminded of the role of government. There now exists a renewed sense of government patriotism and that the government can make a difference through increased spending and involvement. So you’re sitting in a situation, where, on the cusp of a recession you want to know what government can do, but you also understand that you have competing government needs. If you’re a single mom, your job is to assert what your needs are and understand how they can or cannot be met by government.

What’s the impact of the economy on the states?
The problem for states is that most states operate off of sales tax revenue and other revenues that are a function of how healthy the economy is. So states are looking at very different budgets than what they had a year ago. They would be looking at this situation whether there were an attack or not, quite frankly. I won’t say that we would have been in recession without the attacks, but it certainly was a possibility. So states, especially the majority that don’t have the ability to deficit spend, are going to have to do some cutting. This situation requires progressive voices to say, "These are what our priorities are. These are the things we think are important. These are the things that we hold sacred. These are the things that we will not have cut."

What does this mean to TANF reauthorization?
It makes it a more ominous process. With TANF, we correctly predicted that an economic downturn would mean that people would have less access to jobs. On the cusp of a recession and massive layoffs, we have unemployment rates ticking up. Policymakers ultimately need to acknowledge the role of terrorism in the downturn and shape supports accordingly. Unemployment insurance for most people is 26 weeks-should it be 52 weeks? What else can we do? The current employment context, in which TANF women emerge, is less friendly than they would have found a year ago. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be the political will to change the terms and conditions for their entry into the labor market, and there should be.

Why are programs like ABC’s Politically Incorrect and Fox’s Hannity & Colmes important outlets for you to discuss public policy, especially economic issues?
I think we have to talk about ideas a lot more. It’s something I’m committed to. I think we spend too much time entertaining and affirming. I’m committed to being who I am, which is left liberal, also iconoclastically race and gender focused. And I think that’s a focus in the media that is missing a lot-especially after 10 years of economic expansion which was good for a lot of people. Until you look at the expansion from a progressive perspective, you just sort of look at it macro-economically and say it’s okay, it’s all good. The question I always ask is, is this as good as it gets? Good for somebody meant 12% poverty for the nation. Good for somebody meant 75% pay equity for women. Good for somebody meant double unemployment for African Americans. So, good is a relative term.

What advice would you give to state legislators and activists right now?
People should understand that everybody is being hurt and that industry should not get any considerations that the little people don’t get. States need to figure out what they’re going to do and how they’re going to make sure those consumers, who’s confidence is depended on to grow the economy, are compensated when their employment opportunities are illuminated.