Spin Cycle
30/8/10 00:06![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
saavedra77.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA party rolls from presidential victory to victory for decades, claiming to represent "the common man" or "ordinary people," and painting their enemies as "elitists." Their leaders are politically self-confident, innovative. They change Washington's political center of gravity, redefine the terms of debate, make what used to be "radical" mainstream.
The party out of power meanwhile sputters along, unsure of itself, as if they almost believe the governing party's rhetoric. If they win the White House once or twice, it's under the banner of some cautious centrist.
Am I talking about 1932 - 1968 or 1968 - 2004?
The party out of power meanwhile sputters along, unsure of itself, as if they almost believe the governing party's rhetoric. If they win the White House once or twice, it's under the banner of some cautious centrist.
Am I talking about 1932 - 1968 or 1968 - 2004?
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 07:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 07:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 08:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 11:57 (UTC)It's also worth noting that during the Cold War Democratic administrations were much more Cold Warrior-esque than Republicans were. And of course that in 1932 FDR was hardly a radical in the sense that say, Huey Long was.
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 17:54 (UTC)During the 1932 - 1968 period, the country had one Republican president, a moderate for his time, who warned that attempting to eliminate social programs would be political suicide. (He in fact expanded Medicare.)
During the 1968 - 2004 period, the country had two Democratic presidents, the more successful of whom, a moderate for his time, promised to "end welfare as we know it."
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 18:03 (UTC)-Dwight David Eisenhower, 1954
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 01:25 (UTC)Rhetoric, Ideology, & *Lasting* Power
Date: 31/8/10 02:28 (UTC)I'm talking about how parties use populist language--championing the "common man" against "the elite"--to win and keep power. I'm not talking about individual politicians' behavior in office.
We've mostly been talking about domestic policy, because populism is rooted there & the rhetoric is tailor-made for it.
But if you're more interested in foreign policy, go for it. How have the parties used that "common man" / "elite" language as a weapon in foreign policy debates?
Re: Rhetoric, Ideology, & *Lasting* Power
Date: 31/8/10 13:38 (UTC)Money Power, Wall Street, silver spoons, liberal elite, big gov't ...
Date: 31/8/10 19:57 (UTC)I'm sorry, but this is absurd. At both ends of the nineteenth century, and throughout the twentieth, anti-elitist rhetoric has been a staple of American politics.
*Anti-elitism was the heart of Jackson's attacks on the "money power" symbolized by the Second Bank of the United States, and the elite political power embodied by the electoral college.
*Obviously, of the agrarian social movement that coalesced around the People's Party gave us the term: poor farmers, small town virtues, cross of gold, etc.
*The progressive movement's calls for initiative, referendum, and recall challenged political elites in the name of the people.
*Huey Long condemned corporate privilege & political bosses in the name of the poor, riding that wave to become an FDR rival.
*During the first phase of the New Deal, FDR condemned the "economic royalists" and "money changers" of Wall Street in the name of the common man, reaching out to build support for the New Deal.
*Joe McCarthy warned that the real America, "with its sleeves rolled up, was threatened by the disloyalty of "the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouth"
*George Wallace attracted white working class vote by decrying elite intellectuals and liberals
*Richard Nixon mobilized a hardworking "silent majority" outraged by an "oppressive" government, imposed busing, high taxes, etc
*During Ronald Reagan's early career, either big corporations (when he was a Democrat) or big government was the enemy of the people. (He later found a more "neighborly" or folksy--& effective--political style & language.)
I could go on & on, but I think I've made my point. American politics is shot through with populist language. The elite targets change, but the language returns--& in consequential ways.
Re: Money Power, Wall Street, silver spoons, liberal elite, big gov't ...
Date: 31/8/10 21:31 (UTC)2) That didn't do very much of anything, now did it?
3) Now this is true, and the Teabaggers want a William McKinley Conservatism so I'll yield that pont.
4) And he was shot dead, too.
5) While following a New Deal designed entirely to preserve capitalism and prevent a Communist or Fascist Putsch.
6) While serving with a Soviet spy on HUAC.
7) And by appealing to preserve a one-party segregation system heavily biased in favor of the rich classes of the time.
8) While his career was made in HUAC and in being a nasty little toad of a red-baiter.
9) Voodoo Economics, nuff said.
Rhetoric is not enough, there must be fire with the smoke, not SFX.
Re: Money Power, Wall Street, silver spoons, liberal elite, big gov't ...
Date: 1/9/10 00:19 (UTC)*You can hardly be surprised that politicians are hypocrites. But Jackson succeeded in dismantling the Second Bank of the United States, built a new version of the Democratic party, one that would dominate national politics until the 1950s (over 20 years).
*Populist ideas like the direct election of senators, farm aid & public works didn't die; they were picked up by others & enacted. The direct election of senators was their probably their most enduring legacy--a constitutional amendment.
*Progressives institutionalized initiative & referendum in roughly 1/2 of the states, with serious policy results (whatever you think of any specific one).
*Long arguably pushed the national debate significantly to the left during the '30s. FDR had to take this rival into account. Much more concretely, he rebuilt Louisiana's infrastructure, & the Long family & Long machine kept running the state for decades. He remade that state.
*The New Deal identified the national Democratic party with liberal ideas, a reputation that's deepened with time, shaping the national debate for decades. FDR's Democratic party wasn't the party of Al Smith--not remotely (he hated the New Deal--thought is was socialism). Democrats have effectively forgotten the party before FDR; he remade it.
*McCarthy's incompetence posed no long-term obstacle for red-baiting, although Nixon would do it a lot better. Thankfully, this would be a spent force by the early sixties. I guess I'll give you this one.
*Wallace was a contemptible moron with a dangerous gift for mobilizing bigots &, for a time, wielded real power in the Democratic South. Jimmy Carter appealed to Southern Democrats as a calm, moderate alternative to Wallace. That was consequential.
*Nixon was a very successful nasty, red-baiting toad, showing Republicans how to win the South & suburbia. That would pay dividends, in the long term. Plus the winning, transforming foreign policy, etc.
*And Reagan was a very successful Voodoo salesman, pulling the national debate well to the right--economically & otherwise. Many would say that we're still living in Reagan's America.
Definitely fire.
Re: Money Power, Wall Street, silver spoons, liberal elite, big gov't ...
Date: 1/9/10 14:16 (UTC)1) The 1950s is rather longer than 20 years, friend. Jackson did do all of this, but he also expelled Indians from the Southeast in direct violation of the Supreme Court's order against it and launched several wars of aggression.
2) I'll concede direct election of Senators, but their farm gains were erased by the changes caused by WWII, while their public works were last a factor back in the 1960s and not matched even by the more liberal Democrats of the time.
3) *looks at Propositions 8 and 13 in California.* That's a supposed to endear me to them, is it?
4) I live in Louisiana and my great-grandfather wrote one of the great Long biographies, so kindly refrain from telling me what I already know. Second, it was less Long who did that and more that Keynesianism worked so well in Germany under the corporal from Austria.
5) I should say not, given that service on HUAC with a Soviet spy is pretty much setting him up to be a punchline.
6) In the Deep South, absolutely. In the Upper South and the country as a whole? No.
7) *looks at Watergate.* If that's a success.........
8) They would be right to say that, and also right to note that damned near every vile trend in today's USA dates to his Administration, especially the stagnation of real wages.
A few notes
Date: 7/9/10 21:01 (UTC)First, yes, excuse the typo: the Jacksonian era lasted through the 1850s. Thanks for pointing that out to readers.
Second (speaking to several of your points): I'm surprised that I have to even say it, but none of the above had to do with what "endears." In case the words "moron" and "toad" didn't get it across, I'm not arguing populism's virtues. The contemptible, racist, and/or extra-constitutional behavior of a Jackson or a Wallace has little to do with whether or not they used populist rhetoric or whether that rhetoric was effective and, thereby, historically consequential. We don't have to like it to see it.
Third, regarding Watergate, the South, Carter: Watergate interrupted a long-term drift of the solid Democratic South to an increasingly solid Republican one. The forces driving the South out of the Democratic column were large-scale social changes--the Civil Rights movement, a Democratic party split that had been growing since 1948, large-scale North-South population movements (African Americans' 2nd Great Migration to the North, the movement of Northern white conservatives toward the Sun Belt). It was not simply driven by a discrete event. The Watergate scandal was. Had the Watergate break-in gone undiscovered, the weeks of hearings and resignation never happened, the political forces pushing the South away from the Democrats and toward the GOP could have gone unabated, even accelerated. Instead of dissolving in the middle '70s, the Nixon coalition could have merged seamlessly into the Reagan coalition, perhaps earlier than 1980. The absence of a Watergate scandal would have deprived Jimmy Carter and other Democrats of their mid-seventies reformist message.
As things happened, Democrats capitalized on that message, and I'm not surprised that the national party turned to a Southerner as message-bearer. A Southern native son might woo back Southern states that had gone for Nixon in '68 and '72. Primary fights against the more famous segregationist Wallace probably increased Carter's appeal to the national party. And as hoped, Carter delivered almost every Southern state, sweeping even Wallace territory. Carter couldn't have won without doing so. But he was bucking long-term trends, benefiting from the anti-Watergate backlash and his native-son status. Carter would have to have been a remarkable leader to build anything lasting out of that and forestall the creation of the Reagan coalition.
And, no, I'm not a Republican.
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 18:09 (UTC)Bill Clinton, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 02:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 13:40 (UTC)Ignore the broader world context and Reagan's election makes much less sense.
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 01:23 (UTC)By 1968 it was less that the Right bounced back than that the FDR coalition splintered in terms of its effectiveness and Buckley managed to sew the Right together enough that it avoided the same fate.
1932 v 1968
Date: 31/8/10 08:08 (UTC)I have no arguments with your accounts of the origins of the New Deal coalition or its collapse:
1) The Depression catapulted FDR & the New Deal coalition (& liberal ideas) into power. Check.
2) World War II cemented that coalition's hold on power. Check.
3) These events "combined to kill the political Right for a good long time." Check.
4) Years later, creative conservative thinkers like Buckley helped to sew the Right back together. Check.
5) The New Deal coalition fell apart--was torn apart, really--in 1968. Check.
Most historians agree that desegregation largely killed that coalition. LBJ signed away the South & knew it; Nixon seized the opportunity.
But the opportunity that Nixon seized was broader than that: a backlash against a whole decade of escalating turmoil, a generalized social breakdown. Nixon promised stability. Humphrey became the Democrats' Hoover, representing the party that got us into this mess. Full circle.
Almost. The big difference between 1932 & 1968, as I see it, is that FDR's Democrats embraced liberal ideas early, in a state of emergency. By contrast, Republicans embraced conservative ideas gradually, over the course of a decade: Nixon let them in the door; Reagan was one of them.
Re: 1932 v 1968
Date: 31/8/10 13:44 (UTC)I should note as well that Nixon happened to get several strands of luck: he sold the GOP to the segregationists, he also had the advantage of a weak Democratic candidate due to RFK being shot dead, and he had the advantage of being an old political veteran used to very ugly and ruthless politics.
I would also disagree that the FDR coalition embraced Keynesianism immediately, their actions were more ad hoc and geared to saving capitalism. FDR was rather more conservative himself, it was mainly Eleanor who helped secure the gains of the New Deal before WWII and during it the New Deal began to be rolled back very, very fast.
Re: 1932 v 1968
Date: 31/8/10 20:46 (UTC)To your second point, definitely: RFK's survival is one of the most interesting political what-ifs of the last half-century. The Democratic party was in tatters in '68. I doubt that they'd win back any part of the South. But if anyone could put together some kind of winning coalition--even temporarily--it would have been the Kennedy heir apparent. I would love to have seen an RFK v Nixon race.
You're right, too, about the New Deal's experimental character. I overstated by suggesting that it was just a Keynesian enterprise. The New Deal could have gone in a variety of different directions. But liberal ideas won out, and became part of the national party's identity, over the long term. They've been taking up the left side of the economic debate (wherever the center was) pretty much ever since.
Re: 1932 v 1968
Date: 31/8/10 21:34 (UTC)That would have been interesting, yes. Probably would have been even uglier than it actually was, as RFK was as much a Cold Warrior as his older brother was. He also did most of the dirty work for his brother, too.
The problem with calling Keynesianism liberal is that Hitler's regime adopted one of the most effective Keynesian programs in history. Nobody with a lick of sense would ever call the NSDAP liberal.
European v American Political Traditions
Date: 31/8/10 22:07 (UTC)The panoply of political movements & parties fighting over continental Europe in the '30s & '40s belonged to a statist universe, from Marxists to Bismarckian conservatives. I can't think of a major free-market party or movement belonging to that place & time; the differences between left & right don't seem to map onto ours, precisely. The European right of the time seems to have had more to do with nationalism, religion, tradition, hierarchy, etc.
(British politics would be the exception--another political tradition altogether, closer to ours.)
Re: European v American Political Traditions
Date: 1/9/10 14:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 18:21 (UTC)True, and Nixon was much less radical than Goldwater. The transition from one cycle to the next isn't necessarily an earthquake. Neither Long nor Goldwater ever won the presidency, and they were probably too radical to do so when they tried.
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 02:44 (UTC)Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have had remarkable staying power throughout the whole period that we've been talking about. They rooted themselves pretty deeply following the New Deal, and have survived some remarkable demographic shifts--the solidly Democratic South is now the solidly Republican one.
But then there is that power of incumbency, and the politician's gift for drifting as the wind blows. I suspect that those are the best assets that Congressional and Senate Democrats have going for them.
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 13:37 (UTC)I do not see that ignoring the branch most in tune with the masses presents a balanced viewpoint of American politics.
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 17:14 (UTC)That's an interesting assertion. If Congress is the best barometer of public opinion and Democrats have controlled it for most of the past seventy years, what is the matter with the Republican party?
Both parties demonstrate a certain, shall we say, ideological flexibility over the long term--an ability to adapt to their constituents' attitudes. That flexibility can provide staying power. That should allow both parties to get "in tune."
On the other hand, there's the power of incumbency. Democrats anchored themselves very deeply in Congress during the New Deal period, didn't they? That put them in the position to gerrymander and perpetuate their majorities. If Republican majorities were shallower, it may be because they were breaking through a Democratically-drawn map.
(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 12:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 20:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 20:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 20:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 13:46 (UTC)The Tea Party is the first such movement since the 1870s.
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 16:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 20:59 (UTC)Nixonian conservatism had more to do with culture and foreign policy, didn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 30/8/10 22:09 (UTC)Nixon as Transitional Figure?
Date: 31/8/10 01:20 (UTC)But I think that Nixon is interesting in another way, as well:
Nixon wrested the populist language of "the common man" away from Democrats, establishing a vital element of the Republican comeback. FDR condemned Wall Street's financial elite; Nixon condemned academia's liberal elite. The idea of "the liberal elite" remains a conservative staple, now encompassing economic policy.
So Nixon was perhaps a transitional figure, a change in partisan rhetorical strategies that would lay the groundwork for a larger shift?
Re: Nixon as Transitional Figure?
Date: 31/8/10 01:32 (UTC)I agree wholeheartedly: Southern Strategy, "ratfucker" campaigning, hijacking populism, counter-counterculture.
Re: Nixon as Transitional Figure?
Date: 31/8/10 13:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/8/10 13:48 (UTC)Now, he *did* withdraw US forces from Vietnam, but in the process secured the rise of Democratic Kampuchea for his troubles.
(no subject)
Date: 1/9/10 01:06 (UTC)On one side was an enduring Democratic coalition, Keynesian economics, a Democratic party that effectively sold itself as defenders of ordinary Americans;
On the other side was a rightward-trending America, free-market economics, & a Republican party that effectively sold itself as defenders of ordinary Americans.
Nixon bowed to liberal Democratic ideas, saying: "We are all Keynesians now." But he'd flipped the Democrats' "little guy" rhetoric, changing the bad guy from corporations or the wealthy to judges, liberal intellectuals, etc. Hence, a transition.
Well, that's all we have time for tonight. Join us next time for ...
Date: 1/9/10 03:37 (UTC)