The End of New Deal Liberalism

[oddlots]

Nice description of our moment:

We have reached a pivotal moment in government and politics, and it feels like the last, groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism. When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.

Political events of the past two years have delivered a more profound and devastating message: American democracy has been conclusively conquered by American capitalism. Government has been disabled or captured by the formidable powers of private enterprise and concentrated wealth. Self-governing rights that representative democracy conferred on citizens are now usurped by the overbearing demands of corporate and financial interests. Collectively, the corporate sector has its arms around both political parties, the financing of political careers, the production of the policy agendas and propaganda of influential think tanks, and control of most major media.

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...eal-liberalism

[llanlad2]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Nice description of our moment:

We have reached a pivotal moment in government and politics, and it feels like the last, groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism. When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.

Political events of the past two years have delivered a more profound and devastating message: American democracy has been conclusively conquered by American capitalism. Government has been disabled or captured by the formidable powers of private enterprise and concentrated wealth. Self-governing rights that representative democracy conferred on citizens are now usurped by the overbearing demands of corporate and financial interests. Collectively, the corporate sector has its arms around both political parties, the financing of political careers, the production of the policy agendas and propaganda of influential think tanks, and control of most major media.

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...eal-liberalism

I don't think it helps anyone's cause when attacks against "capitalism" are made. It implies that socialism is the answer and capitalism is to blame-which it certainly isn't. Corporate interests have conquered American democracy.
Corporatism and capitalism are not the same. Capitalism needs strong and fair government to exist successfully. This is what is missing at present. Unfortunately corporate interests are winning the argument in convincing the people that government per se is to blame and less government will be a panacea. Total bollocks.
If you dismantle government and what remains still supports corporate interests how have things improved?

I actually don't think things will change. From 1850-1920 almost every country in Europe had a revolution and consequently the ruling classes had to be more democratic (economically and politically) out of fear for their own lives. Riots, deaths,police shooting and being shot, lynchings, mass strikes , marches, rallys, etc were commonplace. Leaders were scared of the people. This is not true today. Nowadays if you join a rally you are considered "unAmerican", a liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic. If violence ensues the media will label you as a thug.

The corporates control all the levers of power, have a greater understanding of psychology, which with their control of the media enable them to "manage" the population.
Capitalism is the fall-guy, democracy the loser.

[flintlock]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Good point. Corporatism is the problem. And that can only prosper in an atmosphere of corruption and cronyism. To simply blame capitalism is to conveniently ignore the massive rise in standards of living that it has produced in the last hundred years.

I don't think most people want NO government but rather a more efficient, focused government that prioritizes the big issues and spends less effort on things like groping its citizens in airports. I wish they were as intense in searching for real criminals like the ones responsible for this fiasco of an economy. And many people, me included, think this government out of control business is a bigger issue at the local level than at the federal one. If we accept this kind of micro management of our lives now, what will things be like in 20 years? History shows us that this type of behavior by government never slows on its own. There has to be some sort of push back by people or the natural tendency is for a completly centralized government, one which the founding fathers never intended and even warned about.

I also agree that the corporate controlled media will paint any resistance, even though peaceful, as thuggery. People who think they can fix this by passively sitting around discussing it in hush tones with friends and neighbors don't understand history. An excellent example you gave by mentioning Europe in the mid 19th century. People lament the violence Europe went through during the last few hundred years but would they rather still be living as peasants under the Royalty that used to rule? Things change, but they don't just happen quietly. I hope things change here, and peacefully. But they won't if every time someone speaks out they are labelled a wacko or nut job. Critics of reform need to be aware at how easily they are being manipulated by the modern press. We saw a lot of the same back when people like Ross Perot warned of the dangers of the national debt. But it turns out they were right.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

All that I want is a LOWER cost-of-living, and I don't really care what kind of "-ism" or dogma delivers the solution. It's irrelevant. Who cares?

I want de-flation. The name of the game is, survival.

My interest-income is almost zero, and my water bill each month from the CRD in Greater Victoria, BC Canada is $109, in a rain-forest........ That money comes from my food-budget.

I have talked to the CRD, and they are intent on spending money on water-studies, consultants, up-grades, "meeting the legal requirements of the Province", habitat-issues, etc. When I mention the word survival to them, they don't get it. They don't understand.

Government is becoming the problem.

[flintlock]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Be careful what you wish for Steve. Lower cost is great but at what cost. No jobs? We were promised lower cost goods from China and Mexico would make up for all those jobs lost. That doesn't sound so good if you are one of those who lost your job or you own a business that used to rely on those people to buy your product or service. Stuff is very cheap yes, but is it the stuff we really need or just silly stuff to entertain us like TVs, cell phones, and other gadgets? All I know is my taxes, my utilities, my health costs. None of those went down due to globalism.
There are two sides to the equation. Income and expenses. And lower costs with an equal drop in income gets us nowhere.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

I would gladly accept (and enjoy) a lower cost-of-living, if jobs were out-sourced due to global free-trade. I don't need to "get anywhere", meaning I don't expect an improvement in my standard-of-living. All that I want to do is survive a de-flation due to free-trade. And if that is accomplished, I would be happy.

From my vantage-point, it appears that government is not cutting the cost of delivering its services. In fact, it appears to me that taxes and utility rates are increasing, as if the government does not care about how people survive. It appears to me that government employees are the new elite and the new ruling-class.

When I was at the CRD water-meeting held recently in East Sooke, BC, it appeared to me that the CRD had an anti-people agenda. Thus, our water-rates are going-up, regardless of how people come-up with the money. In other words, "Let them eat cake."

But then, I was on medication, so maybe my judgement was impaired?

I always thought that liberalism and socialism were about helping people to survive. The New Deal of the FDR Administration in America was about helping people to survive. The NDP in Canada was about helping people to survive. The NDP was about establishing a commonwealth of co-operatives for the people, all across Canada..... But somehow, the leftwing got off-track, both in Canada and in America. The message of the progressives has been diluted by their new green agenda.

Do I care about "sustainability" issues? Do I care about having the best water to drink in North America? Do I care about salmon-habitat or bird-habitat?

From my point-of-view, we could have $12 per month water to drink, and I could put the chlorine in the water. The government could show me how to do it. We could have a water co-operative and be done with the CRD. The only function of the government would be to insure the co-operative against liability in case of law-suits........... Done!

[llanlad2]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Starving Steve

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism
All that I want is a LOWER cost-of-living, and I don't really care what kind of "-ism" or dogma delivers the solution. It's irrelevant. Who cares?

It's relevant to this thread as the article cited was about government and capitalism.

flintlock

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

I don't think most people want NO government but rather a more efficient, focused government that prioritizes the big issues and spends less effort on things like groping its citizens in airports. I wish they were as intense in searching for real criminals like the ones responsible for this fiasco of an economy. And many people, me included, think this government out of control business is a bigger issue at the local level than at the federal one. If we accept this kind of micro management of our lives now, what will things be like in 20 years? History shows us that this type of behavior by government never slows on its own. There has to be some sort of push back by people or the natural tendency is for a completly centralized government, one which the founding fathers never intended and even warned about.

I agree that government is out of control but I think it's more of a top-down problem. If the rotten, corrupted head isn't lanced then there will be no chance for capitalism and wealth creation to flourish no matter if local government spending is significantly reduced.
If a large business has been badly run by management using the same model to the point of bankruptcy for 30 years, keeping the same management and sacking the employees won't result in a better run business. It just delays the day you file for bankruptcy and allows management to carry on paying itself fat salaries.

[lektrode]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

I agree that government is out of control but I think it's more of a top-down problem. If the rotten, corrupted head isn't lanced then there will be no chance for capitalism and wealth creation to flourish no matter if local government spending is significantly reduced.

and the chance of that happening is inversely proportional to the clout of the public sector unions, thats to say: a snowballs chance in hell.

the unionization of the public sector workforce is directly responsible for out of control gov spending; the .gov at all levels has gone completely out of control, it has become unaccountable to anyone, cept the unions, who vote enmasse for anyone who promises to continue _their_ gravy train... and one only has to be a resident in any of the bluestate (public) workers paradises to know what i'm talking about: HI, CA, NY, NJ, MI, IL, MA etc etc = utterly rudderless and headed straight for the brickwall over the next year, out of control pensions, welfare class, crumbling infrastructure and all we hear about is how taxes need to be raised?

bullshit - and its the same at the fed level: there's plenty of money, it just gets siphoned off by the protected class (including the corporate-welfare class) before most of it can reach the ground where the rest of us survive, while they _thrive_

why we need TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS, ***NOW***

[don]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

we need TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS, ***NOW***

You have my sympathy on life-long politicians but keep in mind here in California we have term limits. Hasn't fixed any of the problems it was cited to.

[Chomsky]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

You have my sympathy on life-long politicians but keep in mind here in California we have term limits. Hasn't fixed any of the problems it was cited to.

Money just moves on to the next suite of candidates once the incumbent times out - duh.

[lektrode]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Money just moves on to the next suite of candidates once the incumbent times out - duh.

so.. what are we supposed to do? just accept the status quo, while trusting them to do the right thing? HAHAHAHAHA!
that quite painfully/obviously _hasnt_ worked out too well - they just keep slicing up the pork, horsetrading amongst themselves, selling their committee chairmanships to the highest bidder/lobby, while they sell our future properity to the chinese and call it "stimulous" - meanwhile the bernank sets up his pals in NYC with trillions of obamabux to "save the system" ?
save it? for whom?

surely theres a better way and as long as we maintain the status quo, NOTHING will change - so it seems to me we've got to change the players in the game to affect a different outcome.

i simply must believe that if the 535 members of congress knew for certain that their time in office was limited, that they wouldnt be so eager to sell the rest of us down the river for more campaign donations - and for that matter, to FOCUS ON THE PUBLICS BUSINESS not their own re-election, which seems to begin the year after they get elected - i mean we're already seeing how osama.. oops, i mean obama is already 'triangulating' his MO, as clinton did in the 90's, to "move to the center" in an effort to what? BS the easily distracted part of the electorate that didnt vote for him the 1st time - or after the past 2 years of disaster, would vote for anybody _but_ him in 2012???

come on now - surely you dont believe that allowing the same crooked bunch of clowns to keep their thrones in DC is a better idea than having a new batch every once in a while?

another idea would be to limit the number of lawyers, in an effort to achieve the PC holy grail of DIVERSITY (of diff backgrounds) in congress, so we get different perspectives for a _real_ change in washington?

and still another idea: end the occupation of "career' politician - that would go a looooong way to fixing the mess they've created, wouldnt you agree?

[Starving Steve]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

Money just moves on to the next suite of candidates once the incumbent times out - duh.

Campaigns should be funded by the government, and the media should be required to provide access to all candidates. All view-points should be expressed in the media. Any candidate taking money from private sources should be charged with influence-pedalling. Anybody contributing money to the election of a candidate should be charged with influence-pedalling.

I like simple solutions. Corruption is corruption, and corruption should be a crime. The state should fund the election campaigns. All points-of-view should be expressed in the media. Equal-time should be given to all candidates.

[Chomsky]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

so.. what are we supposed to do? just accept the status quo, while trusting them to do the right thing? HAHAHAHAHA!
that quite painfully/obviously _hasnt_ worked out too well - they just keep slicing up the pork, horsetrading amongst themselves, selling their committee chairmanships to the highest bidder/lobby, while they sell our future properity to the chinese and call it "stimulous" - meanwhile the bernank sets up his pals in NYC with trillions of obamabux to "save the system" ?
save it? for whom?

surely theres a better way and as long as we maintain the status quo, NOTHING will change - so it seems to me we've got to change the players in the game to affect a different outcome.

i simply must believe that if the 535 members of congress knew for certain that their time in office was limited, that they wouldnt be so eager to sell the rest of us down the river for more campaign donations - and for that matter, to FOCUS ON THE PUBLICS BUSINESS not their own re-election, which seems to begin the year after they get elected - i mean we're already seeing how osama.. oops, i mean obama is already 'triangulating' his MO, as clinton did in the 90's, to "move to the center" in an effort to what? BS the easily distracted part of the electorate that didnt vote for him the 1st time - or after the past 2 years of disaster, would vote for anybody _but_ him in 2012???

come on now - surely you dont believe that allowing the same crooked bunch of clowns to keep their thrones in DC is a better idea than having a new batch every once in a while?

another idea would be to limit the number of lawyers, in an effort to achieve the PC holy grail of DIVERSITY (of diff backgrounds) in congress, so we get different perspectives for a _real_ change in washington?

and still another idea: end the occupation of "career' politician - that would go a looooong way to fixing the mess they've created, wouldnt you agree?

The California counterexample proves you are wrong to place such faith in term limits. There's always another crook to take the present one's place. (The greater crook theory?)

That money is equated with free speech -- especially as broadly reinterpreted by the Supreme Court under Citizens United -- is the biggest problem of all, not term limits. It essentially guarantees plutocracy.

On the upside, if you keep pissing on people, eventually they'll get pissed off and do something about it. Eventually.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

and the chance of that happening is inversely proportional to the clout of the public sector unions, thats to say: a snowballs chance in hell.

the unionization of the public sector workforce is directly responsible for out of control gov spending; the .gov at all levels has gone completely out of control, it has become unaccountable to anyone, cept the unions, who vote enmasse for anyone who promises to continue _their_ gravy train... and one only has to be a resident in any of the bluestate (public) workers paradises to know what i'm talking about: HI, CA, NY, NJ, MI, IL, MA etc etc = utterly rudderless and headed straight for the brickwall over the next year, out of control pensions, welfare class, crumbling infrastructure and all we hear about is how taxes need to be raised?

bullshit - and its the same at the fed level: there's plenty of money, it just gets siphoned off by the protected class (including the corporate-welfare class) before most of it can reach the ground where the rest of us survive, while they _thrive_

why we need TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS, ***NOW***

You know, I have seen all of these angry anti-union rants for a while now. I would like someone to put it out by the numbers. Just compare the rising cost of public sector workforce to 1) medicare(fed)/medicaid(state), 2) war costs, and 3) FIRE storm, then scream and rant about it. There are orders of magnitude of $ differences there.

Maybe reducing the pay and benefits of some poor young slob/teacher/bureaucrat making $30k a year who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the pension her boss/coworker has been grandfathered into is the answer in your book. It's bad enough just being hated for being a bureaucrat (which is quite natural) - never mind being hated for being a retired bureaucrat (which just seems something so cruel, only a bureaucrat could think of it).

But I think not. I think all of this hatred is just general hatred toward the .gov that needs to be pointed somewhere tangible. That means it's going towards your neighborhood teacher - firefighter - policeman - bureaucrat -whatever. Hate them if you need to, but it does not make you stronger.

The real problem is debt at every level of society, individual, corporate and government.

The real problem is that wages have not kept pace with inflation.

The real problem is that $1/day labor can make a cheap TV, but one cannot outsource medical care/education/government.

The real problem is that people become too easily distracted from the real problems and turn on their neighbors.

[bpr]

Re: The End of New Deal Liberalism

What a great thread to start the new year on. Awesome posts by all, this is what keeps me coming back to itulip.

I don't think it helps anyone's cause when attacks against "capitalism" are made. It implies that socialism is the answer and capitalism is to blame-which it certainly isn't. Corporate interests have conquered American democracy.

I agree with everything you said, but this comment reminds me of an essay I read... Don't remember where it came from or who the author was, but it left a mark.

The argument was that the greatest casualty of the Cold War was discourse itself, which pitted Capitalism against Socialism and Communism, all of which are merely economic theories, not actual political systems, and quite old. The lament was that there have been no new economic models under which a society could develop and flourish, and since the fall of the Berlin Wall, anything other than "Capitalist," as defined by the current regime, has been labeled "Socialist" or "Communist," and therefore a failure.

The real failure is in our academic institutions in fostering the acceptance and division of existing economic models (think Keynes vs. Friedman), rather than developing new ones. (EDIT: at least one ituliper is making an effort to rectify this, without even knowing it).

The result was a number of political systems that were mistaken for economic theories. All of the political systems resulted in widespread corruption, which has been the real thrust of this thread.

And the corruptions, of course, were mistaken for the economic theories.

I think we need to go about this discussion without using blanket terms like "Capitalist," "Socialist," and "Communist." Until we overcome these terms and their associated biases we will not advance.

EDIT: I want to get back to that quote, though and single out the kernel that is problematic:

I don't think it helps anyone's cause when attacks against "capitalism" are made. It implies that socialism is the answer...

I don't think that an indictment of "capitalism" implies that "socialism" is the answer. If that is the case, then we have reached the end of economic and political theory. We reached that point, in fact, by the late nineteenth century.

I can't provide an alternative, but I don't think that what we call "capitalism" is totally incoherent with what we call "socialism."

/End EDIT

But I think not. I think all of this hatred is just general hatred toward the .gov that needs to be pointed somewhere tangible. That means it's going towards your neighborhood teacher - firefighter - policeman - bureaucrat -whatever. Hate them if you need to, but it does not make you stronger.

The real problem is debt at every level of society, individual, corporate and government.

The real problem is that wages have not kept pace with inflation.

The real problem is that $1/day labor can make a cheap TV, but one cannot outsource medical care/education/government.

The real problem is that people become too easily distracted from the real problems and turn on their neighbors.

Amen, brother. I would only add that we need to start making tangible links between these points.

Stagnating real wages, for example, are directly tied to increased debt.

And happy, healthy and safe 2011 to all.