Rightwingers have failed three times now -- how many more can we endure???
- From: "Joe S." <no_one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:47:12 -0400
QUOTE
THREE TIMES in my political adulthood, we have seen the exhaustion of a
conservative ideology and presidency. Under Presidents Nixon and Bush II,
the ingredients were corruption, corporate excess, and overreach of
presidential power. During the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, the hallmark
was the failure of conservative economics.
Voters ousted Republicans only to get centrist Democrats, who ran more
competent administrations but did little to redress the structure of
financial inequality in America.
Now, the third era of conservative Republican rule is collapsing -- with the
most spectacular mélange of overreach, incompetence, economic distress, and
sheer corruption of all. But who, and what, will succeed Bush? The forces of
privilege and inequality are now so deeply entrenched in America that it
will take a Democratic successor at least as bold as FDR or LBJ to change
course.
When Nixon went down in 1974, Watergate was most remembered for its assaults
on the Constitution, but it also involved corrupt favors for business
allies, lubricated by satchels of $100 bills. Despite an abortive effort to
rein in the influence of concentrated wealth in politics, the Supreme Court
soon opened loopholes that allowed big money to dominate politics once
again.
Nixon was succeeded by Jimmy Carter, the most conservative Democrat since
Grover Cleveland. He was personally frugal, but his policies of deregulation
helped widen inequality and insecurity in America. During the Carter era,
business's counterattack on unions was already in high gear. Though he had a
large working majority in Congress, Carter did not lift a finger to enact
labor law reform, which failed by two votes in the Senate for lack of
presidential interest. As a progressive who cared about inequality, Carter
was far more admirable as ex-president than as president.
Clinton, who succeeded another exhausted 12-year run of conservatism,
deserves credit for such programs as the earned income tax credit and an
increased minimum wage, which raised earnings at the bottom. But Clinton
only accelerated financial deregulation and promoted trade policies like
NAFTA, which helped the very top pull away. Clinton also entrenched the
notion of budget balance as economic virtue.
This week, I heard Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, former chair of Clinton's
Council of Economic Advisers, demolish the idea that budget balance was the
source of the 1990s boom. Rather, it was increased productivity and
declining interest rates, and a brief financial bubble. Stiglitz argues that
America, then and now, needs a more progressive tax code, with new revenues
spent not on budget balance but on neglected social needs that pay dividends
in higher growth -- quality pre school, research and development, universal
health care.
But Stiglitz is not running for president. Of those who are, it remains to
be seen which, if any, would tackle the deeper sources of inequality and
insecurity.
To change course, America would need to change the terms of global trade and
to re-regulate Wall Street, so that deals would no longer be done mainly to
enrich financial insiders and squeeze ordinary workers. We would restore
taxation based on ability to pay and use the proceeds to create a more
secure America of broad opportunity. Labor law would be reformed so that the
more than 50 percent of American workers who'd like to join unions could do
so without fear of being fired.
Of the first-tier candidates, Hillary Clinton is most like her husband. She
would appoint competent people, and run a reliable foreign policy. But she
is closely associated with advisers who think budget balance is a higher
priority than social spending, and she's raising distressingly large sums
from Wall Street.
No liberal can fail to be stirred by Barack Obama. Given the immense damage
done by Bush and company, nobody would be better able to redeem the promise
of America, both at home and globally. But though he is not yet the
front-runner, Obama already has a touch of front-runner disease -- being
distressingly vague about what he'd actually do. He is trying to be both a
progressive and someone beyond conventional categories. Alas, there's no
such thing.
Of the three, John Edwards would seem the most likely to govern as a true
economic progressive. But his wife's medical troubles will likely make it
very hard for him to devote full attention to a campaign over the next 18
months.
How many times does conservatism have to fail before we get a successor who
reclaims American liberalism?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/14/conservatisms_third_failure/?p1=email_to_a_friend
END QUOTE
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rightwingers have failed three times now -- how many more can we endure???
- From: Neolibertarian
- Re: Rightwingers have failed three times now -- how many more can we endure???
- Prev by Date: Fred Thompson's WSJ op-ed reveals that he's running, also reveals that he's dumb as a dried-up cow pie
- Next by Date: Re: Wal-Mart Starting In-Store Med Clinics
- Previous by thread: Fred Thompson's WSJ op-ed reveals that he's running, also reveals that he's dumb as a dried-up cow pie
- Next by thread: Re: Rightwingers have failed three times now -- how many more can we endure???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
