From: Jim Devine a preliminary: apologies accepted!
(ellipsis: there was nothing here but spinning wheels.) As I've said before, I don't think that the period should be named after anyone. A reverse cult of personality makes no sense at all. But if you want to call the era by _any name_, including "eggplantism," be my guest. It's a free country, after all. ^^^^^ CB: As a matter of fact before I saw your reference to a reverse cult of the personality, I was going to use that term. A cult of the personality is exactly what was a the center of Reaganism. That's _why_ it makes sense to name _this_ ( not "that" period; cause we are still in it). I certainly don't want to call it _any name_ . Why would I want to do that ? ^^^^ No-one says that all analyses have to be deep. ^^^^^ CB: Uhh my analysis on this _is_ deep. Apology accepted (smile) ^^^^^^ History isn't made by the "masses" alone, so that propaganda from the elite doesn't have to play a major role. ^^^^^ CB: I don't know about all history, but in this case , the historical shift which I call Reaganism was not made by masses of Americans in the elections. ^^^^^ The fact is that in the era after the Bretton Woods fixed exchange-rate system, the Federal Reserve had much more power over the U.S. economy than under BW. That meant that a push by organized finance capital to oust William Miller and to replace him with Paul Volcker meant not only a change in the official ideology of the Fed but also policy changes which profoundly changed the US economy (_without_ mobilizing the "masses"). Crucially, the high interest rate/high dollar exchange rate policies of the Fed during the early 1980s destroyed the market for US exporters and import-competing businesses, something that they never completely recovered from. Much of US manufacturing bit the dust, the Industrial Heartland became the Rust Belt, and a major chunk of US organized labor went perflooey. ^^^^^^^ CB: Yeah, but the historical shift that I call Reaganism involved more than the the fed action; and things like the drop in union membership had be going on since 1950 or so, and cannot at all be entirely attributed to the fed action. Taft-Hartley in 1948 played a big role in it. Reuther's redbaiting from 1950 played a big role in it. The assent of George Meany to AFL-CIO leader played a huge role in it. That was all before Volcker. Then Reagan busted PATCO. That was big/ Industrial manufacturing plants started to be runaway from the US. But that the decision of the Big Three execs, not caused by Volcker's interest rate hike. ^^^^^^^^ Ideology played a role here, though not a big one: Volcker publicly embraced MF's "Monetarism" (though many economists deny that he did so in practice). This helped people in financial markets believe that he "meant business" in his war against inflation and thus may have strengthened his effort. ^^^^^^^ CB: I'm not talking about ideology influencing in Volcker's action, although I'm not so sure that ideology or ruling class consciousness didn't play a big role in Volcker's actions. I'm saying most of Reaganism ( as I've described it on this thread) was not caused by Volcker's action. And that Reagan's propaganda was directed especially at the working class. ^^^^^^ Of course, the "masses" did play a role, helping to passively legitimate the Volcker-led policy. A lot of people thought that the stagflation of the late 1970s was a bad thing, so that any action to end it was okay with them (at least at first). Organized labor was, as usual, compromised and suffering from a long-term decline. Union leaders did not like the increased militancy of the rank and file during the 1970s and (as usual) were willing to strike a deal with management. To a large extent, the vast majority of people (including union leaders) did not understand what a monetary policy-driven austerity program was and what its impact would be. Besides, it was out of their control. ^^^^^ CB: Yes. The vast majority, I mean 99.9 % of the working class did not have much of an idea what Volcker did. Most weren't nearly as concerned about inflation as the Volcker etc. pretended to be. ^^^^^^^ BTW, I think that the extent to which the ideology of "Reaganism" gripped the "masses" has been much exaggerated by the official media. ^^^^^ CB: I don't. And it's not passed tense. The Tea Party libertarianism is another eruption of Reaganite ideology. It's really not that complicated. Under the personal responsibility rubric,they are especially against government spending for the poor, and especially Black people. They are against affirmative action and crypto-racism. They aren't for cutting military spending. The Gingrich eruption in 1994 was another upsurge of Reaganism. Bush's administration was Reaganite. ^^^^^^^ The process of "gripping" took a long time. To a large extent, (mostly white male) working people turned to Reagan-type nostrums (Limbaugher cheese, etc.) only after their unions were undermined or atomized. Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" has some good info on this. ^^^^^ CB: Yeah, but early on during Reagan's terms, we had "Reagan Democrats" ( ideal type in Macomb County Michigan) who were in the UAW which was not undermined. CB: > I couldn't have thought of a better metaphor myself. Metaphors are my game. However, I should have written "the DP acts pretty passively, being perfectly willing to _turn_ tricks while backward and wearing high heels." To compare the DP to Ginger Rogers is an insult to her. ^^^^^ CB: I certainly feel offended if the Republican Party is being compared to Fred Astaire. The dance would have to be ugly. ^^^^ > Clinton got > shoved to the right by the vote that created the Gingrich takeover. > Then you had the rightwing Judge Starr tailing Clinton. Clinton wasn't a leftist to begin with. Look at NAFTA. He was more of a policy wonk, a wheeler-dealer, allied from the start with various Arkansas business interests, and primed to be pushed even further to the right. ^^^^^ CB; Well, he was kind of centrist, but the whole spectrum was shifted right by Reaganism becoming hegemonic. Clinton won in part because Perot split the right, knowing that the whole US was screwed to the right, so that certainly put him on alert to be responsive to right shifts. But he did propose health care. Wasn't NAFTA in the second term, after the Gingrich gang came in ? ^^^^^^^ With the the countervailing power of the labor movement and most other left-leaning movements so weak and/or passive, Clinton almost immediately rushed to kiss up to the bond market. Of course, he would never please the capitalists and other right-wing forces _enough_, so even more pressure was put on him. And then he gave in more -- and his own personal failings created openings for attacks. ^^^^^ CB: Pretty much The main thing is we were deep into Reaganism, with the whole political arena shifted to the right. It's been horrible. We still aren't out of it. ^^^^^ DP leaders don't seem to understand that if you "cave" to the right-wing pressures, the right wingnuts just want more caving. ^^^^^^^^ CB: I don't think you are taking enough account as to where the masses are in this era. Also, you are attributing to the Dems more independence of the capitalists than they have. It's not the right , but the capitalists and the confused masses they are looking to. ^^^^ me: > Crucially, the "left wing" is not the same as the DP, which is > basically a capitalist political party, but representing different > fractions of the capitalist class than does the GOP.[*] CB: > Exactly, the left-wing of the Democratic Party resists. There's > only one ?non-Democratic Party left-winger in Congress. The only way > to resist effectively is in Congress or the left of a President's > administration. Are you referring to the fund-raising machines sometimes called "Senators" and "Representatives"? ^^^^ CB: I'm saying we can't get anything changed outside of getting Congress to do things. ^^^^ > The DP , contradictorily , represents sections of capital and labor as > well. The Democratic Party is characterized by being contradictory or > two-faced. It's definitely two-faced. It doesn't represent organized labor except to the extent that the latter keeps its independence and pushes the politicians toward pro-labor positions. If the union leaders just support the politicians and don't criticize them or act independently from them on the political level, they become passive adjuncts to the DP. They are then taken for granted: the politicians say "if these labor people are going to support us no matter what, why cater to them?" ^^^^^ CB: Right the DP is two-faced or contradictory compared to the Republican Party, which is more consistent, has one face - pro-corporate and anti-labor. Agreeing with your assessment of the labor leaders, they are substantially opportunist and class collaborationist since Reuther purged the left from the AFL-CIO in the early 50's, both as junior class partners with the corporations and in not being "independent" from the DP. Their lack of independence from the DP follows from their opportunist trade union ideology. They are two-faced , too. ^^^^^ Alas, most of US organized labor's leadership surrendered its independence long ago, by supporting the Cold War so wholeheartedly and by kicking commies of various stripes (who were typically more militant than the leadership) out. ^^^^^ CB: Agree. See above. In this analysis, this basically shifts responsibility off of Democrats and onto union leaders. ^^^^^ > CB: Conyers and Kucinich , for example, are leftwing tendencies of the > DP that come from inside the DP itself. ?There are leftwingers in the > DP. these folks are clearly a minority within the DP and hardly justify blanket support for the DP. We could just as well justify support for the Socialist party by pointing to Bernie Sanders. ^^^^^ CB: I said they are small. I'm not sure how blanket support for the DP enters in here. I was pointing out that there are some leftwingers in the DP. Of course, this discussion shows the left is small outside the DP , too, 'cause the unions aren't that left. ^^^^^ > LBJ is a good example of the special contraditoriness of the > Democratic Party. He prosecuted the war , yet won the Civil Rights > Act, Great Society and War on Poverty programs. He was right and left > at the same time. the left part comes from pressure by the Civil Rights movement, without which LBJ would have been simply a dishonest and paternalistic bastard. ^^^^^^ CB: When I say he is left and right at the same time, I am not saying that the cause was a personal decision on his part ( though I don't know really that it wasn't either) . I'm just addressing his objective actions as powerful political actor regardless of motive or character. Lincoln's motives , though not of no interest, are not as important as his actions. I think it was a pretty amazing shift for LBJ to go from segregationist Senator to using his tremendous power for Civil Rights. me: > Part of the "left wing" is in the DP base (and some not). It's not the > leadership, who are pretty busy studying the results of focus groups > and polls, sucking up to the moneyed to get campaign contributions, > wheeling and dealing to find compromises that might look good in > public but represent deals among business groups (and raise more > funds). Alas, the part of the "left wing" that's in the DP weakens its > case by catering to that leadership, losing its independence of > thought and action, and apologizing for the DP. CB: > ... Weakens its case to whom ? ?There's not much choice but to _follow_ > the leadership. The DP ( and RP) has democratic centralism. to those who don't like the way things are going in this country. ^^^^ CB: But Democratic leftists' bases are largely people who don't like the way things are going in this country. Conyers, Kucinch and Kaptsur haven't weaken their "cases" to their supporters by being Democrats. ^^^^^^^ The DP does _not_ have "democratic centralism" (which, for the uninitiated, means control of the organization by a small central committee with public dissent by the rank and file being against the rules, which is hardly democratic). The DP has nothing like the democratic centralism of the GOP, sects like the CP, and corporations. DP politicians are an unruly bunch, even in public, often disagreeing with each other and their leaderships. A DP politician recently told Obama to "shove it." ^^^^^ CB: That's not democratic centralism. That's centralism. The aspect of democratic centralism I'm talking about is that there is debate, and once debate is over , there's a vote and the rule is the minority supports the candidate ( or position) of the majority. That operates in the Democratic Party today. Democratic centralism doesn't provide that you can't call a leader names. The Democrats are not more unruly relative to the Reps especially with their Tea Party faction. All the people they've gotten elected over the years, is the best evidence that they are sufficiently "ruly" to take effective action. Lots of CP's are mass parties. China has millions of members. Cuba has thousands. me: > I heard a part of an interesting piece about how the DP lacks a > backbone on NPR's "This American Life," ?about how it is totally > unwilling or constitutionally unable to talk back to business. For > example, why didn't Obama respond to the "right-wing" attack on his > health insurance reform as involving "death panels" by pointing to the > _real_ death panels of private insurance companies? As far as I heard, > the story didn't have an answer. My answer: Obama was deliberately > allied with the insurance industry at that point. In general, the DP > doesn't talk back to business because it represents part of the > business community. > CB: > If you are saying the O admin tried to sabotage its own > healthcare` legislation , naww. I have an email somewhere with O admin > responses to the death panel lies. I didn't say anything about sabotage. He _started_ with the idea that any health care change would have to involve support from the insurance industry and similar interest groups. ^^^^^ CB: Yeah , but that doesn't mean he didn't reply to the "death panel" nuttiness. ^^^^ > At any rate, the DP talks out of both sides of its mouth for business > and for labor. and that's why you support them? -- ^^^^^ CB; Correct, because of the labor half. The Republicans _only_ speak in support of business; and the Dems and Reps are the only locus of real world political activity in the US national system. So, if one wants to participate in the real political world , it is best to support the one that at least speaks half in favor of labor. Who do you support ? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
