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: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:28PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:28PM (#422075) Journal

    That's it. They had a 4-month window of opportunity, and did basically nothing with it. What they could have done, and would have done had they really wanted to pass their stated agenda, is have dozens of laws waiting in the wings to do the things they said they wanted to do, and as soon as Kirk was seated just start passing things and signing things as quickly as possible (dragging Robert Byrd in if necessary). Had they done so, those few months might have become legendary in the way FDR's first 100 days did.

    It's worth noting that they might even been able to break the Republican Party's unity with this. The occasional bribed Republicans would both serve to stir conflict in the other side and pad the numbers so that Democrat holdouts would have less bargaining power.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:33PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:33PM (#422109) Journal

    That's a good point. It does rather indicate that neither party has much interest in doing what they actually campaign on.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.