Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Louis Proyect wrote: I thought it was fairly shrewd of him [David Brooks] to make the case that the next Democratic president will run the country like Bill Clinton, whether it is his wife or that change guy. It's not shrewdness. It's wishful thinking. Of course, in politics, anything can happen -- as Babe Ruth would say of baseball. Even Brooks' fantasies might be realized. But the fact is that the fundamental political conditions of the country have changed in the last 7 years. Bush happened. 9/11 happened. The war on Afghanistan and Iraq happened. Katrina happened. The need for universal health care is more widespread and intense now than it's ever been. The level of political participation, whichever way we measure it, has increased significantly. The ideological center of gravity of the country has shifted. Just so that the obvious is transparent enough: That doesn't mean that I'm predicting a proletarian revolution in the U.S. I just think that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama -- or even McCain -- will not be likely to run the country the way Bill Clinton did. There are hardened public expectations and political forces non-existent back then that will constrain their actions. There will be struggle and the outcome is to be decided.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Julio Huato wrote: Louis Proyect wrote: I thought it was fairly shrewd of him [David Brooks] to make the case that the next Democratic president will run the country like Bill Clinton, whether it is his wife or that change guy. It's not shrewdness. It's wishful thinking. By almost any orthodox economic measure, the U.S. is due for an austerity program. The consumption share of GDP is over 70%, up from 67% a decade ago, and 62% at the end of the 1970s. There was an unprecedented housing boom and massive mortgage borrowing. Household savings are 0 and the current account is a wreck. The currency is sagging. What is any president who takes office on 1/20/09 likely to do? A Dem - female or black - is the perfect instrument for a homegrown structural adjustment program. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Greetings Economists, On Feb 13, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: is the perfect instrument for a homegrown structural adjustment program. Doyle; A structural adjustment is coming whoever wins the presidency. Michael speaks to that; MP writes, Isn't this a common pattern, that the left falls (not really wins) into office once the right model becomes exhausted, leaving the purported left to harm the masses in ways that the right is reluctant to do. Doyle; The public is moving 'leftward' but there is no 'left' in an organized sense. Rather I suspect especially Obama is founding a left base in the public for doing something about the structural problems the right has created. The base may find a way to organize the questions into action. I would think the pattern holds that a democrat will promise reforms and a more human face. I think what breaks the pattern is the evident decline in U.S. power which undermines neo-liberal nostrums. Hence left assertions about rebuilding the U.S. would resonate much more than any time since WWII. Doyle
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Michael Perelman wrote: Isn't this a common pattern, that the left falls (not really wins) into office once the right model becomes exhausted, leaving the purported left to harm the masses in ways that the right is reluctant to do. I would look at it a different way. Since the late 1970s, American capitalism has had a need to attack wages, working conditions, the social safety net, etc. in order to maintain its dominance in the world market. Every single president, either Democrat or Republican, has been on board for this agenda. This will remain true. The only way to defend wages, working conditions and the social safety net is the same way as during the 1930s: militant mass action. The sole purpose of the Democratic Party is to preempt such action by promising pie in the sky.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 12:17:42 Doug Henwood wrote: By almost any orthodox economic measure, the U.S. is due for an austerity program... A Dem - female or black - is the perfect instrument for a homegrown structural adjustment program. A Hunger Chancellor, in other words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Br%C3%BCning
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Isn't this a common pattern, that the left falls (not really wins) into office once the right model becomes exhausted, leaving the purported left to harm the masses in ways that the right is reluctant to do. On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:32:42PM -0500, Michael Smith wrote: A Hunger Chancellor, in other words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Br%C3%BCning -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Louis Proyect writes: Michael Perelman wrote: Isn't this a common pattern, that the left falls (not really wins) into office once the right model becomes exhausted, leaving the purported left to harm the masses in ways that the right is reluctant to do. I would look at it a different way. Since the late 1970s, American capitalism has had a need to attack wages, working conditions, the social safety net, etc. in order to maintain its dominance in the world market. Every single president, either Democrat or Republican, has been on board for this agenda. This will remain true. The only way to defend wages, working conditions and the social safety net is the same way as during the 1930s: militant mass action. The sole purpose of the Democratic Party is to preempt such action by promising pie in the sky. Their campaign promises fall well short of pie in the sky. Large parts of the DP base are often frustrated with the excessive caution shown by their leaders, who know that at day's end they will have to appeal to a broader electoral constituency and that, if they are successful, they will have to answer to the corporations and the markets. So, if anything, the DLC-schooled leaders try to dampen rather than raise expectations. It is only in a close race like the present one that this discipline breaks down and the candidates try to outbid each other as messengers of change. I think the left may underestimate how many working people have learned to be skeptical of campaign promises. Working people are not gullible. What brings the most politically conscious workers over to the Democrats and social democratic parties elsewhere is that their unions and the other representative groups they belong to (of women, blacks, Hispanics, environmentalists, etc.) are able to persuade them that the Republicans would be more damaging to their interests. It is not difficult to persuade them since it conforms to their own experience. Even on those occasions when their leaders tell them concessions are necessary, most working people will go along for the same reason: they look to a liberal or social democratic government to cut a deal with the capitalists, who themselves will often accept half a loaf when they perceive themselves unable to secure the concessions through more costly confrontations. Changes to Social Security, for example, will have a better chance of getting through under a Democratic administration, but will be less sweeping than those proposed by the Republicans which failed to get off the ground. If the conditions for mass action as in the 30s reappear, then there will be mass action. If there is no mass action today, it is because the conditions are not the same. While the Democratic leaders generally (but not always) discourage mass action, it is a real misunderstanding to think they can switch the process on and off like a tap. Responsibility for their behaviour in good times and bad belongs to the people themselves, and corresponds to what they are prepared to do and think is necessary in the circumstances.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Actually, I was thinking in more global terms, including Britain, France, ... On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:56:01PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: I would look at it a different way. Since the late 1970s, American capitalism has had a need to attack wages, working conditions, the social safety net, etc. in order to maintain its dominance in the world market. Every single president, either Democrat or Republican, has been on board for this agenda. This will remain true. The only way to defend wages, working conditions and the social safety net is the same way as during the 1930s: militant mass action. The sole purpose of the Democratic Party is to preempt such action by promising pie in the sky. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Doug wrote: By almost any orthodox economic measure, the U.S. is due for an austerity program. The consumption share of GDP is over 70%, up from 67% a decade ago, and 62% at the end of the 1970s. There was an unprecedented housing boom and massive mortgage borrowing. Household savings are 0 and the current account is a wreck. The currency is sagging. What is any president who takes office on 1/20/09 likely to do? No doubt the next president will inherit an economy in deceleration and with some inflation. The USD will continue its decline. But I don't see why *non-orthodox* policies would be impossible -- or less likely -- to implement in the late 2000s than, say, in the early 1990s. In fact, in the early 1990s, economic orthodoxy was the only game in town. History ended back then, remember? Except that it didn't. And now it's the age of turbulence! Back then, the neo-classicals were the leading force in academia. Nowadays, the neo-Keynesians rule. Even in the public perception old free-market economics has fallen in some disrepute. Back then, Paul Volcker's move had become an enduring legend on Wall Street. Notice how rapidly the ratings of Alan Greenspan declined as of late. So the chances that a new president would go global-Keynesian are much better now than at any point after the early 1970s. With a new president, the foreign policy of the U.S. is likely to change. A mere stylistic makeover -- even if it falls far short of a full progressive reform -- could help change economic expectations, domestically and globally. A few moves could help. Getting out of Iraq. Toning down the conflict with Iran. Re-launching the WTO and the World Bank for serious. Having a truce with Latin America. I don't see the opposition to the occupation of Iraq disappearing if the troops are not pulled out. A new president could get serious about reforming the international monetary system. After the subprime mess and the credit crunch, the financial sector is in a much weaker position to dictate policies than it was under Rubin/Fisher/Clinton. There's a lot of global money, sovereign funds, reserves, etc. out there. I don't see what can keep the biggest economy in the world from setting up conditions to induce the recycling of all that global liquidity into projects that are even marginally better for the global economy. The president could reverse the taxcuts for the rich and even tax them some more. Even Buffett and Gates are asking for that. Some reform to the health care system could also contribute to change economic expectations. People with some insurance are more willing to take economic chances and switch resources to areas of the economy offering a bigger bang for the buck. Even longer term projects, like tackling the crisis of basic and high school education, rebuilding the transportation infrastructure, dealing with global change, etc. could re-set expectations. All those problems are now more urgent than in the early 1990s. And, again, the main requisite to induce change (pressure from below) is more serious now than it was in the early 1990s. I just don't get the counter-posing of mass mobilization with electoral politics (see Louis Proyect's posting). That's a false disjunctive. It's ideological garbage. You can have both mass activity and electoral politics complementing each other. I think the left needs to become a more serious electoral force. Look, if you have the ability to mount a credible challenge to the DP, by all means, go ahead! If you don't, then build up the forces. But, for now, why do you feel you need to surrender the meager political weapons that are currently within your reach? Question: Did people get as excited and involved in the early 1990s with the presidential election as they are now? I doubt it.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Julio Huato wrote: But I don't see why *non-orthodox* policies would be impossible Nothing's ever impossible, but why would a new president pursue them? There's no political pressure to do so, and he (it's looking less likely that it'll be a she) has little reason to do so on his own. Your man Obama's support comes largely from a bunch of credulous enthusiasts who aren't likely to pressure him to do anything, at least not for the first year or two, until they finally realize that he's been getting his economic advice from the DLC's chief dismal scientist, Austan Goolsbee. The pressures of big foreign debts, a disastrous current account, and households who are in way over their heads are extremely real prods to orthodoxy. I wish the next president would appoint Julio Huato chair of the CEA, but I don't think that's likely to happen. If a million victims of foreclosure and layoff were to descend upon Washington for inauguration day, then I'd revise my outlook. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Doug wrote: Nothing's ever impossible, but why would a new president pursue them [non-orthodox policies]? Because they need to buy more time, more political wiggle room for capitalism. I wish the next president would appoint Julio Huato chair of the CEA, but I don't think that's likely to happen. Hey, no need to jinx me.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
I was both surprised disappointed that Goolsbee hooked up with the DLC. The papers of his that I have read have been interesting, but non-political. An a Bonesman to boot! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
DAVID BROOKS writes: Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous. there's a way for the DP to square the circle: redefine the deficit. The federal deficit (net borrowing) for the 4th quarter of 2007 is currently estimated to be $440.1 Billion. But (following the late economist Robert Eisner) the Clinama or Oton could advocate splitting the budget into the capital budget and the current budget, just as corporations do. In 2007/IV, the federal government's gross investment was estimated to be $474.4 billion. So they could say that since the gov't is investing more than it's borrowing, it is currently running a surplus on the current budget. (After all, don't households run deficits to buy houses and cars?) Of course, a lot of that investment is in military capital. So I guess Brooks' point remains: his pal Dubya has fucked up the world so bad that a DP president won't be able to do anything good. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
Since when has David Brooks become someone worth reading? And how long before William Kristol has become someone worth reposting? Shane Mage I thought it was fairly shrewd of him to make the case that the next Democratic president will run the country like Bill Clinton, whether it is his wife or that change guy.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 23:21:46 Louis Proyect wrote: Since when has David Brooks become someone worth reading? I thought it was fairly shrewd of him to make the case that the next Democratic president will run the country like Bill Clinton Accurate, no doubt. But shrewd? Didn't take much to see *that* coming.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: NY Times, February 12, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist When Reality Bites By DAVID BROOKS Since when has David Brooks become someone worth reading? And how long before William Kristol has become someone worth reposting? Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus. Herakleitos of Ephesos
