One reason to drop the term "Reaganomics" is that to do so reminds us
to stop apologizing for Carter (why? because he's a Democrat and
Democrats are good by definition?) After all, not only did he appoint
Volcker (letting the genie out of the bottle, as it were), but the
latter caused a recession in 1980 (in addition to the later and bigger
one of 1982). And Carter wanted that recession in 1980, though he hope
that it would be over soon enough to aid his re-election. Carter also
started the "deregulation" ball rolling.
But it's wrong to focus on personalities. Both Carter and Reagan were
products of their times, as were their policies. The capitalists and
their allies were mobilizing to fight low profit rates (and the
resulting stagflation), at the expense of labor and less powerful
constituencies. This mobilization grew in strength, getting stronger
during the Carter and Reagan years, and then again in the Clinton and
Bush #2 years. Bush #1 and Obama seem periods of consolidation and
rationalization, but not reversals of the neoliberal trend. These
periods help the neoliberal juggernaut grow further in strength.
I guess the term "neoliberalism" is too "European" for a US audience.
We might call it "Calvin Coolidge Capitalism." But again there's too
much emphasis on a single individual's power and influence. Maybe
"Scroogean Capitalism" is better, since the cult of (hated)
personality is then around a fictional character.
me:
> CB quotes the Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge:
>> Reaganomics (a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul
>> Harvey) refers to the economic policies promoted by the U.S.
>> President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. The four pillars of Reagan's
>> economic policy were to:
>>
>> 1. reduce government spending
>> 2. Reduce income, and capital gains marginal tax rates,
>> 3. Reduce government regulation,
>> 4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.
>
> That may be what people _mean_ by "Reaganomics," but its different
> from what that term means in practice (which is what counts).
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I see what u mean. However, in practice I think there was
> reduction of taxes on the rich and reduction of government regulation,
> no ?
>
> ^^^^
>
> Instead,
> it's a statement of the _ideology_ of Reaganomics, which is nothing
> new but a return to "19th century" liberalism or what's now called
> "neoliberalism." Maybe we should call it "Pinochetnomics."
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: I think "neo-liberalism" is not a good term, part of the
> Reaganites' propaganda success has been to stigmatize "Liberals" in
> the American political arena of the last 30 years, so it's confusing
> and misleading to characterize Reaganism as "neo -_liberal_" in the
> American context. Pinochetnomics of course would be very esoteric
> and sectarian in the US mass context.
>
> It should be emphasized, as u imply, in reviewing Reaganism, to make
> clear that its self-description has a lot of demogogy. The lies of
> it are a critical part of it.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> (But of
> course, it's always a mistake to attach too much importance to any
> individual So attaching someone's name to a bunch of different
> policies is really just for communications' sake.)
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Yes, for communications sake and popular historical political
> education. Most Americans can get to "Reaganism" and "Reaganomics"
> better than "neo-liberal. Better for mass communicaton as u say. In
> this case I think it is very important to use the Individual name
> because the personality cult around Reagan was critical in putting
> this mass ideological shift over on the American People. It is
> important to focus people's attention on that historical location, as
> Reagan articulated through words and actions principles such as
> personal, not social, responsibility; anti-welfare, anti-poor
> rhetoric; anti-Communism ;increase the military budget; cut the taxes
> of the rich, "government is not the solution; government is the
> problem"; war on drugs; causing a explosion of the prison population
> which was marked by white supremacy; generally making white
> supremacy acceptable again, as Roselyn Carter put it; and other
> demogogy.
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Consider these tenets in reverse order.
>
> #4 isn't really part of Reaganomics since monetary policy is not under
> the federal government's purview. Instead, it was implemented by the
> Federal Reserve, which at the time was run by Paul Volcker, a Carter
> appointee. It might thus be seen as part of "Carternomics."
>
> ^^^^^
> CB; No Carter did not contribute nearly as much as Reagan to the major
> mass ideological shift. Plus, when Volcker caused the recession in
> 1982, he was under Reagan , not Carter. It would not be a good idea at
> all to try to give Carter equal role in bringing about the Reaganite
> shift. Carter did not play much of role in propagandizing large
> numbers of voters to the right. He still carried the critical tone on
> the country's situation that carried on from the critical
> sensibilities of the "60's". Energy crisis worry etc. Reagan was
> like "don't worry be happy".
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> #3: Obviously, this is reducing government regulation _on business_
> (and reducing it more for the more powerful segments of business).
> When it came to regulation of labor, Reagan upped the ante. For
> example, PATCO was simply punished, rather than being able to make
> decisions in a free way.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Correct. Deregulation of business and especially finance.
> "Deregulation" in common usage means deregulating business, not labor.
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> #2: This describes an important part of "Reaganomics" pretty well,
> though we should note that "low taxes" and "cheap government" have
> been slogans of the petty bourgeoisie and much of the grand
> bourgeoisie for more than a century. Also, Reagan did cut taxes for
> the rich (as suggested by #2), but he also raised taxes when he (or
> rather, his administration) discovered they'd gone too far. Contrary
> to the Teabaggers and other GOPsters, Reagan didn't live up to the
> standards they attach to him ("no new taxes").
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Reagan nationalized the California tax demogogy which played on
> the legitimate working class protest against too much taxing to get a
> tax cut for the rich. Reagan revived the historical bourgeois anti-tax
> themes u mention. I don't think the Teabaggers have lived up to it.
> Teabaggers are prime example of Reaganites today. They have
> substantially Reaganite platform.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> #1 isn't really what Reagan did. In 1980 (BR or "before Reagan"), the
> share of federal government purchases in GDP was 8.74%. It then rose
> to 9.70% in 1983. Part of that rise is due to the recession of
> 1981-82, so that this ratio fell to 9.52% in 1984, when the economy
> started recovering. But then it rose to 9.79% in 1985 and 9.83% in
> 1986. As the economy grew and the government's size grew more slowly,
> the ratio fell to 9.05% in 1988. But in the end (AR or "after Reagan),
> the share of government purchases was slightly above where it started,
> at 8.78%. A lot of this had to do with rising militarism, something
> the Wikipedia's definition misses.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Yes , this should be tagged as one of the deep Reaganite lies.
> Reagan doubled the national debt as accumulated from the time of
> Washington. And as u say increased military spending, hardly reducing
> government spending or reducing the repressive apparatus of the state,
> on the contrary increasing them.
>
> I agree with u that it is important in trying to get people to look
> back at the origin of Reaganism to see that it is composed of much
> Orwellianspeak ;and much anti-working class action.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
