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.
^^^^^ CB: However, causing one recession is not a major aspect of Reaganomics. Carter did not play nearly as big a role as Reagan in shifting the political landscape which was the basis for the major economic shifts that have dominated the last 30 years. It also indulges the ultra-left error of failing to note the significant differences between Dems and Reps in the Reaganite era. This error is particularly evident at this moment with developments in Wisconsin. ^^^^^ But it's wrong to focus on personalities. ^^^^^ CB: No it is correct in this case because the Reagan personality cult played such a big role in putting over Reaganism. It would be a mistake not to include the Reagan personality factor in analyzing the development of the ruling class political strategies of the last 30 plus years. Reagan's movie star personality cult was converted into a political personality cult. He won 50 states in the second election. It was a political juggernaut built around a personality. Personality gains more significance in the US system wherein elections have a significant "popularity contest" component to them. The sound political basis for criticizing analysis of personality as the predominant factor in a political situation derives from Marx and Engels critique of the "Big Man " theory of history. Classes , large groups of people make history, not Big Men, like kings and generals. However, Marx also said the individuals (personalities) can speed up or slow down historical processes. Reagan had this sort of impact as an individual. He's still popular. I just read something saying he's number one in popularity over Lincoln as number 2. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: That's better termed the Reaganite juggernaut., for the reasons I set forth on this thread. "Neo-liberal" is too academic and historically based to reach Americans. The Reaganite has not been a revival of FDR liberalism, which is the liberalism Americans might have some recall of . It has been the dismantling of liberalism. Also, personification of the period is more likely to penetrate the American mentality. ^^^^^ I guess the term "neoliberalism" is too "European" for a US audience. ^^^^^ CB: Exactly ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: Since American popular conception of history is significantly in terms of Big Men ( contra: Marx and Engels), and even especially names of Presidents, we have to try to speak with people where they are intellectually. The way to label historical periods for Americans is in terms of Big Men , especially Presidents. ^^^^ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
