Shifting Ideas, Shifting Narrative: Is the Tide Turning Against the Right Wing Attack on Government?
Finally, after 30 years of the right-wing assault on government and public purpose, the outlines of a real debate on the role of government is emerging in this year's Presidential campaign.Candidate John McCain, despite occasional past breaks from conservative orthodoxy, remains predictably and defiantly stuck in failed free market, anti-government, supply side dogma.
Both Obama and Clinton, though, are speaking openly for the first time in many years about the need for public - that is, government - solutions to address the needs of the American people and the failures of the market to do so. That's what could make the current election, in historical terms, transformational. This year's campaign issues - health care, global warming, a declining middle class - are windows into a larger debate about the proper role of government in promoting shared prosperity - or responsible capitalism.
The debate about government's role in the economy goes back to the Founding Fathers. Since then, there have been key moments when popular movements embraced the notion that government should protect Americans from the swings of the business cycle and from the greed of big business. FDR's New Deal was, in many ways, a backlash against President Herbert Hoover's conservative ideological belief that market forces would eventually solve the nation's economic woes. The New Deal philosophy dominated American culture through the early 1970s. The 1960's brought us Medicare, Medicaid and civil rights laws. The 70s brought us landmark laws to protect consumers, workers (OSHA), and the environment (Clean Air Act).
But after Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964, the right-wing regrouped and systematically built the infrastructure to push back on popular support for government programs and regulations. Buoyed by ideological guru, economist Milton Friedman's intellectual assault on government management of the economy, the right challenged the very idea that government should be the nation's umpire, setting the ground rules for business to act responsibly and as the nation's investor in the common good and provider of social insurance. Along with corporate-sponsored foundations and think tanks, American corporations shed their earlier commitment to the post-war social contract and launched an all-sided effort to limit government regulation, lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, weaken unions and dismantle public social insurance and safety net programs.
The right-wing then used their dominance over campaign contributions and conservative media institutions elected a generation of anti-government elected officials. With legislative power put them in position to seal the deal: ensuring public sector failure by defunding ('starving the beast') public services and institutions, deregulating and privatizing essential roles of government and putting agents of industry in control of regulatory agencies. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Unfortunately, their success in shifting the political idea environment helped to silence a generation of progressive leaders, thinkers and organizers too afraid to articulate a clear vision of public purpose and the common good or talk about the new third rails of government, taxes and regulation of the free market.
The broad trajectory and success of the assault are illustrated most clearly by the bookends of two now-famous presidential quotes. As the assault on government was taking shape, Reagan launched the opening public salvo declaring the scariest words in the English language to be, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
At the other end, Bill Clinton's declaration that the "era of big government is over" was the surrender speech of a lost war. The conservative narrative had won - throughout America, government solutions were off limits, badly needed revenues for education, health and infrastructure were out of reach and regulatory effectiveness weakened.
President Clinton did believe in public service and government as instrument of good. He expanded EITC, created AmeriCorps and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and increased taxes on the wealthy. But his fealty to unregulated free trade and deregulation of financial markets marked a genuine ideological embrace of free market dominance and denial of government's essential countervailing role in the economy.
The 2008 presidential race is clear evidence that the cone of silence is lifting and the narrative shifting. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking openly about the need for more active government.
In a recent NY Times interview Sen. Clinton spoke openly about the need for active government role in the economy to balance the excesses of the market. "If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market" Clinton said. "And we have systematically diminished the role and responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced."
She proclaimed: "I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and market."
Clinton's remarks signal a return to the ideas of the great economic minds of the 20th century - the British economist John Maynard Keynes and his disciple, the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith - whose thinking shaped the New Deal and Great Society policy agenda. They recognized the need for countervailing power in market based economies. Now 30 some odd years after the right-wingers declared war on these ideas, the mainstream of the Democratic Party is speaking again of the limits of markets left alone.
Barack Obama too has articulated an agenda that make clear that the philosophical framework and place he comes from is all about the common good and reinvigorating a sense of national purpose. His calls for regulating the subprime industry, fair trade deals and investments in social and physical infrastructure represent a clear understanding of government's role vis a vis the market.
Senators Clinton and Obama are not alone. The American public never fully bought into the right-wing agenda, but, thanks to the excesses of the Bush years, Americans have been even more supportive of the need for government. One Republican pollster spoke recently of the difficulties for GOP presidential candidates in the midst of "a sea change in public attitudes towards government and what government should do for people." From the height of the Gingrich revolution in 1995 to today, attitudes flipped from a majority favoring limited government involvement to a majority favoring more government involvement in solving problems and meeting the needs of the people. A recent Pew Center poll found that Americans see a wider divide between the rich and everybody else and want government to help.
One indicator of shifting tides of American ideas is a walk through the popular book titles of the day. The 80's and early 90's saw re-releases of anti-government classics by Frederick Hayak and Milton Friedman. Today, there's a new crop of intellectually rigorous books by Robert Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Naomi Klein, Jonathon Chait, Robert Reich and others that are boldly exposing the 'con job' that was supply side economics, the recklessness of unregulated capitalism, and the limits of the market in addressing the basic needs of the American people. And they are articulating an economic philosophy of the public good and shared prosperity, managed responsible capitalism. These are sophisticated and smart voices speaking about government's essential role in more than the hushed whispers of the 1980's and 1990's anti-government political environment.
A growing number of editorial writers have recently awoken from the nightmare of right-wing dogma. They, too, regularly comment on the need for strengthened and uncorrupted public institutions to address today's failures of unfettered markets and weakened regulatory apparatus to protect our food supply, the safety of consumer goods and a declining middle class. As do enlightened business leaders like Warren Buffet and George Soros speaking out for higher taxes to fund large scale public investment.
The current shift in public opinion and public conversation didn't come out of nowhere. Candidates are breaking from the conservative story line because of the political space opened up by movements and actions at the grassroots and in the workplaces. Activists for labor, housing, environmental, school, and other policies have won many victories, particularly at the local level, during the past two decades. These local successes didn't add up to a strong, coherent movement for change that could shape the national agenda around the role of government. But it appears that these ideas have now "trickled up," as more and more Americans experience the consequences of unregulated capitalism - for example, losing their jobs, their homes, their health insurance and facing the unprecedented challenges of global warming
Real momentum is building in a constellation of new organizations and new coalitions in regions across the country. They are beginning to shape and push for a new social contract anchored by active government acting on behalf of the public good. And a newly energized, and growing, labor movement has made clear the need for labor market bargaining power to close the economic gap and rebuild the middle class.
Despite the effectiveness of the right wing message machine, it turns out the truth survives in even the most hostile environments - the truth that the conservative mission to dismantle government and relieve big business of all responsibility for the damage and unmet needs they leave behind is actually harming people, leaving us less secure, less healthy and less certain about the survival of the planet.
The spate of disasters in 2007 alone has opened the door for new conversations and the beginning of a real tide pushing back on the phony argument and rapacious self-interest of the free marketeers. These are just some of the now widely accepted views of the impacts of right wing assault:
Bridge collapses and firestorms have exposed massive and dangerous lack of public investment in our infrastructure.
Poisoned food, lead in our children's toys and the subprime credit fiasco have resulted from the dismantling and industry capture of our regulatory apparatus.
Stagnant economic fortunes for the vast majority in the midst of obscene wealth for the few have shown the upward wealth distribution of supply-side tax policy, weakened unions and reduced labor market regulations like the minimum wage.
And now, finally, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported a scientific reality that even Bush and Exxon can't ignore.
Simply electing a new president will not undo thirty years of damage by the right wing free market con artists. The new president will be faced with a slightly weakened but still capable message machine ready to attack efforts to reestablish the balance between public purpose and private gain. It's one thing to call for universal health insurance that could limit the health insurance industry's dominance. It's another to withstand their millions spent on fear-mongering TV commercials and lobbying.
And they will be faced with the realities of continued distrust of government, painful choices to clean up Bush's folly in Iraq and a federal deficit that will seriously constrict our ability to invest in American security and prosperity.
It's not yet clear how a Clinton or Obama president will govern and just how far they will push back to rebalance the roles of the public institutions and private capital. That will depend entirely on the clarity and power of popular movements demanding government become an aggressive and effective force for public good. A new president driven by public values, then, has the political space to articulate a vision of balanced capitalism, of the public good and need for rules and public institutions to balance the private market.
Donald Cohen is the co-founder and president of the Center on Policy Initiatives, a San Diego-based research, and policy center. Cohen has over 25 years of experience in campaigns and organizations dedicated to economic justice, healthcare reform, education reform, environmental protection, and international human rights. He is the former Political Director of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He is a founding board member of the Partnership for Working Families, a national federation of metropolitan-based research, policy and action centers. He also has served on the Workforce Investment Board, the Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force and other local boards and task forces. Currently, he is a member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Board in San Diego.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show AllThe title of this article is a non sequitur. Left/right no longer ahave any useful meaning. So far as I've been able to determine, basically all governments since the dawn of so-called civilization and sedentary agriculture are synonymous -- more or less -- with their landed elite.
Left/right, today, is just the difference between one set of corporations at the helm vs. another, with a fair amount of overlap.
The great majority of the electorate are easily bamboozled with the equivocations associated with the terms "private" and "public." Most individuals, considering themselves persons with a right to privacy believe that "private" refers to themselves and "public" refers to recalcitrant bureaucracies. They do not seem to grasp that they are the "public," and that "private" interests subvert their interests. When "private" companies offer personal information to other "private" concerns and to "public" government agencies, a whirlpool of political debate opens up that needs reference to other information to clarify principles.
Free deregulated markets are the epitome of greed, andrew.herman March 3rd, 2008 11:44 am is right on the mark. Corporations are nothing more than pirates, and will use any tool (i.e. our government) at their disposal to achieve their wealth. They'll have nothing of the common good on their agenda and are machines themselves to provide cover for the people who run them. If a corporation publicly states concern for a civic matter, be looking for just the opposite in their actions. WE can rattle them. Stop spending money! Boycott! If everyone stopped driving for just a few days (especially at the same time) you would see the oil corps. scramble and the markets go crazy. Learn how to control our spending even longer and we could retake control of our destiny.
regulation means rules
deregulation means no rules (just right- kidding)
So the mantra of the conservatives about the rule of law is just poppycock. The truth is that they are anarchists or pirates when it comes to the acquisition of wealth.
According to the Bible, the root of all evil is the love of money, so why is it so difficult for these right wing Christians to understand that economic systems need rules as much or more than any other system on earth?
" Jaded Prole March 2nd, 2008 1:26 pm
The failure of the market and the reality of a severe "recession" will move Americans to demand even more than Keynesian economics. As Fidel Castro rightly points out, "The 'Free Market' and its blind laws are miring the human species in an unsustainable economic crisis and bringing about changes to the natural conditions of life that could prove irreversible."
..."
AH, YES, excellent leader he's evidently been, only having needed to lighten up in treatment or punishment of some criminals; like, f.e., the few Cubans who temporarily or momentarily hijacked a tourist boat a few years ago, when they apparently wanted to use the boat to go to Florida, so to leave Cuba. They didn't harm anyone, just went for a "joy ride", even if I don't agree with leaving Cuba to go to the USA, the worst damn hellbent rogue govt in the world today. He could have ruled or punished more gently, sometimes anyway.
And that's only based on an impression that I formed from very few articles I've read about punishment in Cuba. I'm not expert, not by a long shot, on this aspect of Cuban govt, and maybe those articles were not quite telling the whole truth.
Anyway, I've only read good about Castro's leadership; well, besides for the bs lies and extreme distortions in US corp. msm news media, anyway.
Cindy Sheehan has provided a brief but excellent and inspirational article based on what she learned first-hand, and experienced, during her trip to Cuba last year; and given that I haven't noticed the article being posted here at CD, a link is the following.
"Cuba: Open-Armed Policy", by Cindy Sheehan, March 1 2008, originally Feb. 21 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8192
If only I could afford to relocate to Cuba, and of course while being accepted by the govt there as an immigrant! It's a FAR saner society, and evidently is even considerably better and much more HONEST than the Canadian govt, where I have dualised citizenship and presently reside. It's a far more [humane] sort of society and govt, IMO; Cuba is, that is. And it's also the sole or one of the very few communist govts that's true to being this. Russia and China aren't, f.e., for they're only or mostly communist in "name", not [reality]; unless Mike Whitney's been right about what he says Putin has provided for economic improvements of very significant order.
I don't know if they've also and all been posted here at CD, but GR has a number of articles by Castro, and these can surely be found via the 'C' author index for him. His way is one I consider to be very holistically oriented; maybe not 100%, but still very.
Welcome to the new middle ages where being a peasant is much better than being a slave. Be the first one on your block to become one. Simplify, simplify . . . .
The right wing oligarchic collective, whose objective was to control our politics and economy has failed.
I am under no illusion. This collective is still extremely strong and powerful and will not easily submit to the public good.
But, I am encouraged, as Cohen has pointed out, that the people now recognize that the right-wing's narrative is false and filled with ulterior motives. And simply having this discussion is the first step in restoring the American virtues: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
I simply want to reduce each and every corporation to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
(Hillary Clinton) proclaimed: "I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and market."
And the author picks up and dances with this myth of "balance of power". A quick check of the "Goddamn piece of paper" formerly known as the U.S. Constitution would show all power derives from the people. Including the right to charter and regulate corporations. Just because the goons handed the keys over to the robber barons doesn't mean these corporate persons (speaking of oxymoron alerts) get to negotiate which of their supposed "powers" they get to retain.
Corporations are not the same as people as it has been said by some (including in the Supreme Court). Corporations are machines. You use them until they're no longer useful then throw them away... just like their CEO's. Of course the difference is what you use then for. All corp. money out of politics! We don't need "business" minded people running government, we need civic minded people in there. They're out there.
Hopefully, the next thing that happens after said tide is a revision of the current myth surrounding Granpa Caligula (Jello Biafra's name for Reagan) as a great president. Instead, he needs to be seen as the regressive figure who began "The Great Lurch Backwards" towards our current redux of the Robber Baron era we are now suffering through. Hopefully this time, Americans actually learn from history.
locust said: "'…a federal deficit…blah blah blah' How about the Democratic-led Congress (warning! oxymoron alert) balance the budget."
We were there when Reagan tripled the national debt, with the approval of a Republican Congress, and when Bush doubled the national debt, with the approval of a Republican Congress. Republicans have ruled the Federal gov't for 6 of the last 7 years. Did they make good on their claims to be the 'party of small government'? If you think so, then those are some powerful blinders ya got on there. Pulling out that old saw of Dems as the party of 'big government' is beginning to look a little sour, right about now. I'll take a party that pays its way over one that charges its re-election campaigns to the unborn ANYDAY. The only president to even ATTEMPT to balance the budget in the last 30 YEARS was Clinton: read it and weep.
Quit charging your lifestyle to your children, locust. Man up and admit Repubs did it just to get reelected. Cutting taxes is always popular. Cutting spending.... not so much!
This is a great observation, and I hope it all happens to us soon, as we deserve every good thing that happens to us. The irresopnsible ways of the free markets will come to an end when we teach these Freidmonites, and Randian wannabes, that "freedom is not free, freedom requires responsibility.
Coming soon to the USA -- OBAMA-NATION.
Responsible policies.
Fair trade
Health care
Equality
Compassion
and hopefully, PEACE
Grousefeather March 2nd, 2008 6:37 pm makes a valid point. I guess what worries me is that if Obama or Clinton starts of press the boot to the Corporate neck they will end up in the list of assassinated Presidents.
Corporations function best when there's a great big government boot pressed firmly against their neck!
Money don't have no soul.
Money don't have no soul.
no soul
money don't no which way to roll
for money don't have no soul.
no soul
So why has money's got the biggest role?
Why is the world a giant sweatshop on the dole?
With no relief as leaders say lets roll
And listen to their favorite poll
For Corpos always know their role
And puppets always watch their pole.
A trillion dollar daily toll
Takes flight so plunder can delight
And give a few style and might
While we pander to their market right
For Corpos bottom line is tight.
What is the toll?
Has money grabbed your soul?
rtdrury - Good point, straight out of the opening of David Cay Johnston's "Free Lunch".
My point is that Cohen is taking it easy on the right wing. Naomi Klein, in "The Shock Doctrine", makes it clear that many of the bad effects on the economy caused by right wingers are intentional. The key to understanding "making a profit" with the Hayek/Friedman school of economics is that their strategy is to destroy the free market in order to create sufficient chaos so that outsiders can sweep in and by the remains at garage sale prices.
Right wing economics is not merely wrong because it is bad economics. It is wrong because it is practiced with criminal means to carry out criminal objectives. In short, it is evil.
The right-wing has been attacking government limits on corporate power at least since the Red Scare of 1919, when the bosses were reacting to the bad publicity, labor militancy and regulation of the Progressive Era. It took the Great Depression to unloose their death grip on national policy.
This year's campaign issues - health care, global warming, a declining middle class - are windows into a larger debate about the proper role of government in promoting shared prosperity - or responsible capitalism.
Sorry, but the debate was over in 1776 when Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations" which provided a formal argument backing up common sense which shows any time you care to look that the proper role of government is nothing less than full authority to ensure that the people have the best information available, and the responsibility, to demand and get from the markets what is in the society's better interests. Cage the capitalists at night, and let them out during the day in chains to take orders from the people. Now who is going to put the government to its task? The capitalists? No way.
Without integrity, a Democracy will fail to provide for the needs of people. Our Democracy obviously doesn't have a shred of integrity as evidenced by who finances the elections. And Americans are some of the neediest people in the world.
Hoa binh
The failure of the market and the reality of a severe "recession" will move Americans to demand even more than Keynesian economics. As Fidel Castro rightly points out, "The 'Free Market' and its blind laws are miring the human species in an unsustainable economic crisis and bringing about changes to the natural conditions of life that could prove irreversible."
Rebuilding an economy that works and will work in the new environmental and international conditions will take a massive public works project that involves all of us. The alternative is complete social collapse and barbarism.
Government is and always has been the problem...representative government, that is. For government to work, it has to be by, of and for the people, not politicians and corporations. Direct democracy via the referendum is the way.
"...a federal deficit...blah blah blah"
How about the Democratic-led Congress (warning! oxymoron alert) balance the budget.
Perhaps they could vow to end deficit spending.
Oh wait, they did vow. And they're still bragging about ending deficit spending.
http://www.dccc.org/100hours/
So that means the budget is balanced, right? Otherwise, why would they brag about it?