Nixon was reacting to the '60s with the Bismarck Strategy: Combine generous social legislation with a beefing up of repression.
Carrol On 8/4/2011 2:54 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > On 8/4/2011 3:43 PM, Doug Henwood wrote: >> Lincoln and FDR were produced by a society that was rising in wealth and >> power. Obama is the product of a society that's rotting. >> > > I think Corey Robin made a good point about seeing "left" and > "right-leaning" presidents in context: > > http://coreyrobin.com/2011/08/01/572/ > > "It doesn’t make sense to say Nixon was to the left of Obama > without some reference to the political circumstances. Nixon was > constrained by a still vibrant New Deal regime; Reagan came into > destroy it, and did so somewhat successfully, but he was still > encumbered by it. Obama operates in a different political world. > As for taking him at his word, he’s said a lot of words. Sometimes > he’s quite explicitly signaled a desire to break with the > Reaganite consensus; not just in the campaign but early on in his > presidency. So the words are murky." > > > I say this as someone who has said repeatedly that Nixon was to > the left of Obama. But Doug's point is essential. The attack on > the New Deal gains that date back to Carter and continue and even > deepen under Obama are not to be understood by looking at the > mindset of a politician. Nixon did what he did because the USA was > still a rising power and he could toss some crumbs from the table. > Today's Counterpunch article that I forwarded here is excellent > because it looks at Obama's rightwing policies in a global > context. I dare say that if FDR was elected in 2008, he'd be doing > the same thing. > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/pace08042011.html > > At the close of World War Two the United States controlled 60% of > global wealth. It was an artifact of war - the productive > capacities of Europe and much of East Asia had been destroyed. > Led by Europe and Japan, the destroyed infrastructure would be > rebuilt, economies would rise again, global wealth would be > redistributed and the United States would once again face fierce > competition. > > The architects of post-war US government policy recognized that > the US could not control 60% of global wealth forever. The US > would help Europe and East Asia rebuild their economies because > global capital demanded stability and needed places to invest. > And that would inevitably lead to a redistribution of global > wealth. Under those circumstances - and as expressed by George > Kenan, one of its chief architects - the raison d’etre of American > foreign and economic policy during the second half of the 20th > century would be to maintain the wealth gap – to delay as long as > possible the inevitable redistribution of global wealth. > > We are now in the 21st century. The US no longer controls 60% of > global wealth and capital has abandoned its national character. As > a consequence of trade agreements, capital is free to move over > most of the globe in search of higher profits. But while capital > has become international, the United States military continues to > function as capital’s chief global cop. > _______________________________________________ > 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
