Remember Reagan repeating: "the failed economic policies of the past?" Those favoring progressive policies should use the phrase in their narrative, instead. Reagan was referring to New Deal inspired taxation, financial regulation and activist government in favor of the less well off, those who needed help.
Progressives need to use the phrase now: the Bush economy was a disaster. Part of the reason was the laissez-faire economic policy initiated by Reagan, and a good part is also due to bias in favor of wealthy taxpayers, which has continued and even increased in the ensuing administrations (including Clinton's).
|
The near economic collapse did not come about because Obama wanted to take over the economy, but that seems to be the conservatives' mantra. Government is the problem, said Reagan, ushering in larger government when it came to defense, but cutting, stigmatizing and eliminating programs for those disadvantaged by the free-for-all of the market. Reagan also continued Carter's "deregulation" of business, claiming that he was countering activist government, but, since power does not exist in a vacuum, the formerly regulated gained greater power and began on their path to cutting jobs, setting up foreign plants, automating, and taking control of the economy. This led to the outsized growth of the financial sector, wild speculation and ultimately the 2007-2008 collapse.
Too little government did it, not too much: that should be part of the progressive story. Too little government unleashed the powers of greed and bravado: the gamblers on Wall Street; we all paid the price--except for the gamblers, who paid themselves even higher bonuses this year, paid for by "free" money created by the Treasury and the Fed. It's not just too little government, of course. Our economic crash was also promoted by allowing the speculative class to keep too much of their profits, by leaving too much money in too few pockets; this excess cash induced them to speculate more.
The Obama administration has not failed at healing the failed Bush-economy; it just wasn't able to do enough, because of the timidity of the Democratic majority in Congress. A good part of the blame involves favoring the wealthy, who lobbied hard to keep the stimulus small. A progressive policy would tax the wealthy at higher levels than the non-wealthy, and the money should go to job-creating programs, including direct government jobs programs if necessary (like Roosevelt's WPA). When private firms don't step up, we have enough unmet public needs (eroding infrastructure, understaffed schools, health clinics, etc. as well as new green technologies) to put all the unemployed to work rebuilding the economy--and making it richer. Government can be the solution.
The same
progressive
story is true of climate change. Too little government exacerbated the problem. The costs of CO2 emissions are borne by the world; they should be borne by the polluters. That includes everyone who drives a car. Oil, gas and coal are all much cheaper than they would be if the true costs of pollution were included in the price. Oil also gains a hidden subsidy in US costs protecting oil production and transport all over the world: estimated at $75 billion a year. Since the market does not factor in these costs, they should be borne either as regulation, or as taxes. If the security costs and global warming effects were taxed (my preference), oil, coal and even natural gas would become uncompetitive with geo-thermal, wind, solar, and low impact biofuel. Further, a carbon tax--yes, I know, it's political anathema right now--could help pay for government programs, especially ones that would promote environmentally benign development, while discouraging what must be discouraged: burning fossil fuels.
What has happened in Greece has been a Capital strike, but there the real culprits were the successive governments, which bowed not only to public sector workers, but also even more to the private wealthy. Public programs were financed with debt; they should have been financed by ensuring that the better off paid taxes. Now, Capital demands Greece pay back the debt not by taxing the wealthy but by punishing the workers! Conservative doctrine blames them, but the real culprits are the wealthy, and the corrupt politicians.
Conservatives and Tea Partiers tout small government, but in the realm of social policy they call for bigger government: more government intrusion into everyone's private lives; more barriers to abortion and access to birth control, more public funding for Christian causes, more intervention in the hospital room and more barriers to full citizenship for gays, other minorities and immigrants. Also, conservatives call for more government intervention in enforcing security, including giving governments more power to lock up anyone who might be judged a security/crime risk--judged by courts, or, even, by police: giving them increasingly arbitrary power for security. They only want smaller government when it comes to regulating business.
The non-political majority is diverted by "social issues," while giving its oppressors increasing power to oppress. In Nazi Germany, the NSDAP railed against the Jews as the reason for all Germans' ills, ills like defeat, inflation and the Depression. Nazism maintained control by instilling fear; it also was in bed with Capital--and the military.
That's the conservative story: fear enhances their power. There is too much government, except when it comes to social, or security issues; then, it seems, there is never enough government, because, like the Nazis, they scare people and themselves about all the enemies lurking out "there," whether it's the gay couple next door, or al Qaeda/Taliban halfway around the world. Everything different is threatening.
One of the great strengths of progressives is their celebration of diversity. It doesn't matter the color of your skin, your ethnicity or religion, your sexuality, your class. But Progressives are also put at a disadvantage by embracing diversity: unity or coherence is much harder to come by. Progressives are divided by a myriad of "special interests" from labor unions to environmentalists, from transgender activists to peace groups.
Progressives need a coherent story that inspires us, and draws these disparate parts together.
I will offer my own attempt here.
Government can be, and must be made to be, the most responsive institution of a democratic society. It alone is answerable to the people. It can and should provide protection, not just from foreign threats, but from the most powerful in society, like employers, corporate leaders, the wealthy. To dismantle government services is to deprive most people of services they depend upon--even if the wealthy do not. I may not need a public park; I have private land, but most people don't.
Government should be active, promoting the welfare of all the people, especially those who, for whatever reason, need more help. Parenthetically, promoting someone's welfare means enabling him to be independent, not keeping her dependent: 'welfare' should be a broad avenue to an independent life, not a way of life, but it should be available to whoever needs it. No one should "fall through the cracks:" a humane society demands that, and our society would be enriched by it, not impoverished.
Promoting the welfare of all the people would not be outside our means, if those with the most, who are advantaged the most by a stable, well-governed society, paid more into the maintenance of the social good. Those so advantaged are not self-made, even if they began as orphans or refugees with "only the clothes on their backs, and one nickel in their pockets." People with wealth gained that wealth because there is an orderly society, because society creates the conditions enabling them to accumulate wealth. Some can take advantage of those conditions, because of their talents and personality, their connections, their inheritance or their luck. But they could not become millionaires or billionaires if everyone were hunters and gatherers or subsistence farmers, if there were no orderly markets, if governments didn't create money.
Note: all of the conditions necessary to create concentrations of wealth presuppose governments at least maintaining order, and a modern economy.
Ergo, government is not "the problem," even though it may not always be "the solution." It is certainly a means to many solutions and progressives need to incorporate that into their story: responsive governments are a means to solve, or ameliorate social problems. If they are unresponsive, they cause problems.
Progressives need to counter the "government takeover" myth. When the health insurance reform bill passed, that phrase was headlined all over the nation. This despite the fact that the reform had no public option, relies only on private insurance companies and the existing Medicare and Medicaid government programs, and in fact creates a windfall for private insurers, by providing subsidies to those unable to pay for health insurance, thereby creating a new market of about 16 million people.
Progressives need to point out instead: unfettered corporations do not act in the public interest: they are mandated to put profits first, regardless of social good. Even enlightened CEO's, those who want to contribute to the social good, must produce profits, yet they are in competition with other companies constrained only by what the market will bear--unless they are regulated. That's why many responsible CEO's welcome regulation: it creates a stable, predictable playing field, and enables them to contribute to the social good.
Only the government is mandated to look after the public's good. It may not always do so; it may be corrupt (as are some corporations), or controlled by a narrow, self-interested elite, but the public can only hold the government accountable, not private corporations. Government needs to be held to that mandate: to argue that government regulation is always bad, and unregulated corporations act in the public's interest is absurd. Yet, that's what "conservatives" claim. Corporations, by definition, represent specific private interests.
Only government can represent everyone. Progressives must ensure that it does.
