I hate to go all psycho-political on PEN-L, but the mere proposal of a
policy doesn't explain why, a la Thomas Frank, it found such an
enthusiastic reception among key segments of the electorate. In that
light, it seems to me that any list of explanations about the shift to
the right must include an American version of the Frankfurt School, i.e.
the decomposition of the nuclear family and the search for an substitute
authoritarian father-figure. As it happens, this phenomenon dovetails
rather nicely with the pincer from the civil rights and women's movement
(very broadly defined) that squeezed white working class males. Faced
with this assault on "masculinity" as well as a very real loss (both
relative and in some cases absolute) of their economic power, they
turned first to a "kindly" Reagan and then to a sadistic Bush II (the
ressentiment turned into rage) as authority figures who once again would
make it all right.
Joel Blau
Doug Henwood wrote:
On May 14, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Bill Lear wrote:
So, how was Thatcher(ism) populist, except as I've outlined above?
"Getting the government of the backs of the people" and "standing
tall" had actual popular appeal in the U.S. "Union excesses" had
popular appeal in Britain. As did "Britain isn't working."
Tom Ferguson and Joel Rogers *Right Turn* I think support my views, do
they not?
They don't explain why Reagan and Thatcher got elected and re-elected.
They explain movements in ruling class opinion, which needed popular
ratification. If "we" can't figure out the basis of that appeal, then
we'll keep getting beaten. It's not helpful to say it was all chicanery.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
