We need a new national progressive movement
Chapter 9. A new "Common Sense."
"The cause of America is, in a
great measure, the cause of all
mankind...
"We have it in
our power to begin the world over again."
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
This brief review of American
economic and political history shows that throughout our history there has been
constant tension between two competing theories of government: the Jeffersonian
vision of an agrarian democracy of semi-autonomous states with the federal
government limited primarily to providing national defense; and the Hamiltonian
view of a vibrant industrial nation unified by a powerful central government.
By and large, the Hamiltonian view won out, but now our ability to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century is threatened by a resurgence of support for
something approximating the Jeffersonian view.
Abraham Lincoln's statement that
government should do for the people what they need done but cannot do for
themselves is particularly relevant to the mass, urban, society of 320 million
people of 21st Century America. But now we are embroiled in the
argument over the proper role of the national government that is blocking
virtually all progress toward solving contemporary problems. Indeed, we have a
major faction of one of our two major political parties seriously wanting to
significantly weaken the federal government by limiting its scope and reducing
its functions, leaving much to private enterprise, or to the states already so
financially stressed many have reduced vital services. If this right-wing
faction prevailed, what would be the outcome?
Economist Mark Thoma provides a
succinct answer:
“(T)he private sector will not, on its own, provide the correct
amounts of infrastructure, retirement security, health care spending,
protection against monopoly and corruption, unemployment insurance, national
defense, environmental regulation, education, food and drug safety, bank
regulation, innovation, anti-trust action, safe working conditions, support of
basic research, stabilization policy...”[1]
Are these not necessary to a modern
civilization? Are these what the people need to have done, but “can not
do...for themselves?” If the private sector will not do them, or cannot do
them, and the states cannot afford to do them, who can? The answer should be
obvious, but to many it is not.
The arguments today over the proper
role of the federal government in some ways seem no different from those
between Jefferson and Hamilton, but there is a big difference between the
opponents today. Even though Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed over the means by
which it best could be achieved, those two shared with the other founders - the
other authors of the American Dream - a vision of a nation that provided
equality of opportunity and equality under the laws to all citizens, with no
special privileges because of birth or wealth, and a nation that also protected
the people from governmental violations of their basic rights, and personal
freedom.
The opponents in today’s struggle
over the control and direction of the national government no longer share that
vision. The Party that ended slavery no longer believes in the Constitution's
concept of equality of citizenship, or even in the social contract, the
fundamental basis of democracy. As a result, the “American Dream,” a notion of
equality of citizenship, opportunity and basic freedoms for all, is in great
danger.
Republicans argue for a less activist
federal government because they do not believe
government should be a vehicle for improving the general welfare. They
oppose all efforts to help the poor, or to restore the economic security of the
middle class. But they are perfectly
content with the fact that most of the great fortunes made in the United States
now held by their most important benefactors largely are due to government
largesse, and/or the corruption of American governments. They continue to press
for greater government benefits for rich and powerful established interests:
More mining or drilling on federal lands, or offshore; permits for pipelines;
lower taxes on the rich and on corporations; government subsidies through tax
loopholes and benefits; suppression of unions; restrictions on voting; and
reduction of financial and environmental regulation. They even seek to make the
fundamental bedrock of democracy, free public education, another source of
profit for private interests.
Republicans
supposedly stand for conservative ideals of greater
personal freedom, expanded
economic opportunities, and free
markets, but they are skillful in hiding the fact that they really don't. They
have made millions believe the falsehood that they are the party of smaller
government, lower taxes, and a stronger economy. Using the “Big Lie” technique
of repeating untruths over and over until they are believed, they have been
very successful in stirring up the suspicion of government that is in the DNA
of Americans. They employ various techniques of “dog whistle” politics to
ignite some of the nascent racism, nativism and misogynism in their base,
unifying them into a major force of opposition to virtually all progressive
programs, even though many of the poorer members of their base are, or would
be, major beneficiaries of such programs.
Republicans
repeatedly describe the Democrats as the “tax and spend” party when they have
been responsible for more of both for many years. When they have controlled the national government they have
increased the National Debt more than the Democrats have when they have been in
power. Republican tax cuts generally have only benefited the rich. During
President Reagan's terms, taxes increased on the middle class. Nearly all the
benefits of his tax programs, as well as those of George W. Bush, went to the
rich.
Every
one of the financial crises since 1900 that caused economic chaos in the nation
occurred when Republicans held the Presidency. Rather than stimulating economic
growth in the U.S., Republican economic policies of the past 30 years
contributed significantly to the losses of millions of jobs. On average, since
the end of World War II, the nation's economy has grown almost twice as fast
when Democrats have held the White House than it has when there were Republican
presidents.
Most of
the federal government programs that have had the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of people in the United States since 1900 were initiated during
three brief periods: the Progressive period prior to World War I; during
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, prior to World War II; and in the very brief
time before Lyndon Johnson's presidency was destroyed by the Vietnam War in the
1960s. Most of the programs of those periods are enormously successful and popular. Most Americans today view food
and drug regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, and many
more as essential government services.
Each
progressive period began as the result of a calamity. However, in each case,
the conditions were ripe for change. Two of the three progressive periods were
set off by Presidential assassinations, of William McKinley in 1901 and of John
F. Kennedy in 1963.. The election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 was the result
the Great Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression.
Each
calamity brought in a dynamic leader with his political party in complete
control of Congress, and each was in a position to have his legislation
supported and passed. Theodore Roosevelt had the most difficult time because of
the powerful conservative forces within his Republican Party. But, he was one
of the most politically adept Presidents we ever have had, and he had the
advantage over later Presidents of being the first to do so much of what he
did.
While
wars played a significant role in cutting short the progressive periods, each
period also was too dependent on one personality. The high water mark of the
first progressive period was the election of 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran
on the Progressive Party ticket, and he, Eugene Debs and Woodrow Wilson
accounted for 75 per cent of the vote. But Roosevelt did not stay with the
Progressive Party, and it only nominated two more candidates for President,
Robert LaFollette, in 1924, when he was at the end of his life, and Henry
Wallace in 1948.
There
was no progressive successor to Franklin Roosevelt because he died in office
and was succeeded by Harry Truman. While Truman's performance today is regarded
by historians rather favorably, he was not a progressive, and Democrats did not
control Congress during most of his Presidency.
There
was no general economic crisis when Lyndon Johnson became President in 1963,
but there was a social crisis, the rapidly escalating civil rights crisis in
the South, and despite a booming economy, there was a potential economic crisis
because nearly 20 per cent of people were in poverty. Much of what he did with
his Great Society programs addressed those two crises.
Progressives
seem to have not fared well in national politics in times of general
prosperity. World War I and World War II both were followed by periods of
economic growth and prosperity, particularly World War II. Those periods were
mostly overseen by Republican Presidents, Harding and Coolidge in the 1920s and
Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961.
In 1980,
however, a Republican conservative was elected President, and it was not
because things were going well. The Nixon, Ford and Carter presidencies,
between 1969 and 1981, were full of crises, scandals and economic disruption
that included high oil prices, near-record inflation, and high unemployment.
Government seemed incapable of coping competently with the nation's problems,
and someone came along who said the New Deal and liberal ideas no longer
worked, that there was another way, and, by a small margin, the people bought
that argument.
As it
turned out, the radically conservative economic policies of Ronald Reagan,
basically a return to the Social Darwinist “laissez-faire” policies of the Gilded
Age, did not solve our problems. They made them far worse, but the extent of
the damage is just beginning to be fully realized. As with other periods of
laissez-faire government, there was significant economic growth, but as with
those other periods, the benefits of that growth went mostly to the rich and to
the big corporations. While taxes on the rich were lowered dramatically, they
actually increased on the middle class. The average hourly wage declined during
Reagan's Presidency, and the huge movement of jobs out of the country began.
None of
Reagan's successors significantly altered the nation's economic policies, and
now we know that 30 years of these policies have hollowed out the middle class,
increased poverty, created the greatest economic disparity in modern history,
and weakened the economy of the nation, and, as a result, our security.
I do not
have as pessimistic a view of the possibility of changing the present course of
events as does Thomas Piketty, although I don't underestimate the difficulty.
Barack Obama's slogan of "Change We Can Believe In," struck a
powerful chord with millions of Americans. He did not bring the change he
promised, and that has been disillusioning to many of his supporters, and has
weakened the Democratic Party's appeal. But the fact that the people so clearly
wanted change shows that we have reached another of those times in our history
when the situation is ripe for change, and when change is necessary to our
survival as a democratic capitalistic society.
The opportunity exists once again, as it did in
1776, "to begin the world over again." The choice this time is better
than it was in 1776. We do not have to have a violent revolution. Peaceful
change can occur, but it will take more than a political slogan, or one leader.
It will take a new national progressive movement. How that can happen is the
subject of Part II.
[1] Thoma, Mark.
“For Obama, State of the Union Means State of the People.” The Fiscal Times,
February, 12, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Civil commentary is welcome, including criticism, disagreement, or, hopefully, agreement and support!