Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the when-times-are-forced-to-change dept.

When trying to understand the two bad choices we have now, it can help to look into the past at where they came from. In this article, Matt Stoller at The Atlantic provides a deep dive into a transformation the Democratic party underwent in the late 1960s onward. In it we see how the Democrats morphed the anti-big-business politics that had powered it for over a century into the big-government politics that define the political conversation today.

Modern liberals tend to confuse a broad social-welfare state and redistribution of resources in the form of tax-and-spend policies with the New Deal. In fact, the central tenet of New Deal competition policy was not big or small government; it was distrust of concentrations of power and conflicts of interest in the economy. The New Deal divided power, pitting faction against other faction, a classic Jefferson-Madison approach to controlling power (think Federalist Paper No. 10). Competition policy meant preserving democracy within the commercial sphere, by keeping markets open. Again, for New Deal populists like Brandeis and Patman [ed: links mine], it was democracy or concentrated wealth—but not both.

[...] The story of why the Watergate Babies spurned populism is its own intellectual journey. It started with a generation of politicians who cut their teeth on college-campus politics. In their youth, they saw, up close, not the perils of robber barons, but the failure of the New Deal state, most profoundly through the war in Vietnam. "We were the '60s generation that didn't drop out," Bob Edgar, a U.S. representative from the class of 1975, told me. The war in Vietnam shaped their generation in two profound ways. First, it disillusioned them toward the New Deal. It was, after all, many New Dealers, including union insiders, who nominated Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and who supported a war that killed millions, including 50,000 Americans their age. And second, higher education—the province of the affluent—exempted one from military service, which was an explicit distinction among classes.

[...] By quietly cutting back the influence of unions, [Democratic strategist Fred] Dutton sought to eject the white working class from the Democratic Party, which he saw as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." The future, he argued, lay in a coalition of African Americans, feminists, and affluent, young, college-educated whites.

[...] By 2008, the ideas that took hold in the 1970s had been Democratic orthodoxy for two generations. "Left-wing" meant opposing war, supporting social tolerance, advocating environmentalism, and accepting corporatism and big finance while also seeking redistribution via taxes.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:29PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:29PM (#422044) Journal

    There is wisdom in what you say. However it is a depressing thought that when throwing off the shackles of the status quo and bucking the rigged system, that best alternative the people can come up with is a repugnant, ignorant, dishonest, bigoted, corrupt demagogue like Donald Trump. We see the same thing here in the UK: People are fed up with not being heard, not being represented and what do they do? Fall in line behind Rupert Fucking Murdoch to vote for Brexit, which will hugely impoverish them and irreparably harm the country.

    Terrifyingly, it's almost as if our autocratic puppetmasters really do know what's best for us. Or maybe fostering that belief is the conspiracy within the conspiracy, who knows?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:58PM (#422088)

    What's more, if his history is any guide, Trump's brush with populism will prove superficial and he will hand over the reins to the usual advisers and technocrats.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:34AM (#422315)

      Pence == Cheney II

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:26PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:26PM (#422102) Journal

    However it is a depressing thought that when throwing off the shackles of the status quo and bucking the rigged system, that best alternative the people can come up with is a repugnant, ignorant, dishonest, bigoted, corrupt demagogue like Donald Trump.

    Yes, that feeling is shared. It is what it is, though. We can see how well the Establishment screened out other possibilities. Trump got through because he had enough money and access to not be scared of the Establishment, and because he had enough experience via his RealityTV career to understand where people are emotionally and tap into that. A portion of his supporters are credulous and are really, really looking forward to that wall on the southern border. A greater portion understand him for what he is, a chance to strike back at the elites who have been waging war on them for at least two generations.

    It's interesting that you see Brexit as a plot by the elites, when the view from this side of the pond has been rather that Brexit was born of the same trends that are carrying Trump.

    Me, I don't think that Trump will fix a darn thing. He doesn't know how. But a victory for him would knock the Establishment off balance and give something else a chance to develop.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:15PM

    by purple_cobra (1435) on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:15PM (#422171)

    Absolutely and while I'm sure I've written here previously that I'd like to see Murdoch swing for treason, it was also the Daily Fail and, to a lesser extent, the Torygraph which were also responsible for parroting the utter bullshit the Leave campaign came out with and adding some fresh bullshit of their own. It's a shame that bloody bus didn't slip its handbrake and squash Farage flat, along with that buffoon Johnson and Michael "tired of hearing from experts" Gove.

    Whether today's High Court ruling on Article 50 does any good or not is anyone's guess but it's thrown an already flummoxed government into further disarray. As has been stated by other people, the original Tory plan (for a referendum, amongst other stupid ideas) was predicated on them being on-top in a coalition, but as they won a slim majority they then had to follow-through on their stupid ideas because "they were in the manifesto" and of course, no party can just up and say "actually, now we look at it with fresh eyes, it's a stupid idea and we're not going to do it" because we've been continually fed the idea that changing your mind on anything, especially for government, is weakness and must be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence for doing so. With that in mind, I don't foresee any kind of meaningful recovery for this country inside of at least 20 years as we're completely enmeshed in what I've heard called post-truth politics. The echo chambers of social media have only helped people become more partisan and less willing/able to apply critical thinking to the words and pictures in front of their eyes.

    A recent personal tragedy has left me with a some serious questions to answer, including whether I want to stay in the UK or not. Given the above, the answer may be more obvious than I thought.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:13PM (#422200)

      We need decentralized social media, like NOW!

  • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Friday November 04 2016, @12:35AM

    by chewbacon (1032) on Friday November 04 2016, @12:35AM (#422316)

    When you look at the origin of regulation of just about anything that is regulated, you will find that there is a reason it is there. Businesses were taking advantage of the little people or little people screwing other little people. People need government. So, yes, it does seem like maybe greedy assholes and people who can't afford health care but drive a nice car and buy every new iSomething that hits the shelves do need the government to play mommy and daddy and do what is best for them.