A surprisingly thoughtful, balanced and hopeful analysis, if a bit nostalgic 
for the Democratic boom of the 50s.

Follow the link for page 2.

Three factors that are polarizing the nation
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2011/1130/Three-factors-that-are-polarizing-the-nation

Robert Reich

Three factors that are polarizing the nation

As they have in the past, the nation’s prolonged economic problems will realign 
the major parties, create new coalitions, and yield new solutions

By Robert Reich, Guest blogger / November 30, 2011

Gino Orlando, a student from University of California at Merced, carries an 
American flag as he marches with other students and Occupy San Francisco 
protesters in the financial district as part of a demonstration. Reich argues 
that America’s economic woes are creating new gulfs between the nation’s 
citizens.

Jeff Chiu/AP/File

Enlarge
Most political analysis of America’s awful economy focuses on whether it will 
doom President Obama’s reelection or cause Congress to turn toward one party or 
the other. These are important questions, but we should really be looking at 
the deeper problems with which whoever wins in 2012 will have to deal.

Skip to next paragraph
Robert Reich
Robert is chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of 
California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most 
recently as secretary of labor under President Clinton. He has written 13 
books, including ‘The Work of Nations,’ ‘Locked in the Cabinet,’ and his most 
recent book, ‘Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.’ His 
‘Marketplace’ commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

 
In Pictures: Before Occupy Wall Street: American protests

Recent posts

Topics
Not to depress you, but our economic troubles are likely to continue for many 
years — a decade or more. At the current rate of job growth (averaging 90,000 
new jobs per month over the last six months), 14 million Americans will remain 
permanently unemployed. The consensus estimate is that at least 90,000 new jobs 
are needed just to keep up with the growth of the labor force. Even if we get 
back to a normal rate of 200,000 new jobs per month, unemployment will stay 
high for at least ten years. Years of high unemployment will likely result in a 
vicious cycle, as relatively lower spending by the middle-class further slows 
job growth.

This, in turn, could make political compromise even more elusive than it is 
now, as remarkable as that may seem. In past years, politics has been greased 
by the expectation of better times to come – not only more personal consumption 
but also upward mobility through good schools, access to college, better jobs, 
improved infrastructure. It’s been a virtuous cycle: When the economy grows, 
the wealthy more easily accept a smaller share of the gains because they still 
came out ahead of where they were before. And everyone more willingly pays 
taxes to finance public provision because they share in the overall economic 
gains.

Now the grease is gone. Fully two-thirds of Americans recently polled by the 
Wall Street Journal say they aren’t confident life for their children’s 
generation will be better than it’s been for them. The last time our hopes for 
a better life were dashed so profoundly was during the Great Depression.

But here’s what might be considered the good news. Rather than ushering in an 
era of political paralysis, the Great Depression of the 1930s changed American 
politics altogether — realigning the major parties, creating new coalitions, 
and yielding new solutions. Prolonged economic distress of a decade or more 
could have the same effect this time around.

What might the new politics look like? The nation is polarizing in three 
distinct ways, and any or all of could generate new political alignments.

Anti-establishment

A vast gulf separates Tea Party Republicans from the inchoate Wall Street 
Occupiers. The former disdain government; the latter hate Wall Street and big 
corporations. The Tea Party is well organized and generously financed; 
Occupiers are relentlessly disorganized and underfunded. And if the events of 
the last two weeks are any guide, Occupiers probably won’t be able to literally 
occupy public areas indefinitely; they’ll have to move from occupying locations 
to organizing around issues.

But the two overlap in an important way that provides a clue to the first 
characteristic of the new politics. Both movements are doggedly 
anti-establishment — distrusting politically powerful and privileged elites and 
the institutions those elites inhabit.

There’s little difference, after all, between the right’s depiction of a 
“chablis-drinking, Brie-eating” establishment and the left’s perception of a 
rich one percent who fly to the Hamptons in private jets.

In political terms, both sides are deeply suspicious of the Federal Reserve and 
want it to be more transparent and accountable. Both are committed to ending 
“corporate welfare” — special tax breaks and subsidies for specific industries 
or companies. And for both, Washington’s original sin was the bailing out of 
Wall Street.

Mere mention the bailout at any Tea Party meet-in or Occupier teach-in elicits 
similar jeers. The first expression of Tea Party power was the Utah Tea Party’s 
rejection of conservative Republican senator Robert Bennett because of his vote 
for the bailout. At the Republican state convention, which ultimately led to 
the election of Senator Mike Lee, the crowd repeatedly shouted “TARP! TARP! 
TARP!” The Occupiers, too, began on Wall Street.

The historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote a famous essay about the recurring 
strain of, as he put it, a “paranoid style in American politics” — an 
underlying readiness among average voters to see conspiracies among powerful 
elites supposedly plotting against them. He noted that the paranoia arises 
during periods of economic stress.

But the web of interconnections linking Washington and Wall Street over the 
last decade or so — involving campaign contributions, revolving doors, and 
secret deals — has been so tight as to suggest that this newer 
anti-establishment activism is based on at least a kernel of truth.

Isolationist

Economic stresses caused Americans to turn inward during the Great Depression, 
and we’re seeing the same drift this time around. Republican fulminations 
against the “cult of multiculturalism” are meeting similar sentiments in 
traditional Democratic precincts — especially when it comes to undocumented 
immigrants. Alabama and Arizona have spearheaded especially vicious laws, yet 
polls show increasing percentages of voters across America objecting to giving 
the children of illegal immigrants access to state-supported services.

(via Instapaper)



Sent from my iPad

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to