For forty years America restrained concentrated wealth and built the largest middle class in history. Then billionaires rewrote the rules, bought political power, and began taking democracy apart…
Thank you, Thom, for a clear encapsulation of how we got into the mess we are in.
I worked for decades in the global trade field. About 30 years ago I remember thinking, and saying, to whomever would listen, that the lesson the PRC was teaching all who had eyes to see was that they were demonstrating you could have capitalism in a market system WITHOUT DEMOCRACY.
I have always felt that 19th & 20th Century big money reluctantly put up with some form of democracy to energize and congeal the societies they needed to make, buy and sell what they were feeding off of.
In the circles I moved in, admittedly on a more or less mid-level, I could see the interest in how China would manage one without the other. I would wager, though I have no proof, that this is what pushed the post-Reagan Democrats (Clintons, Obama, Biden, Carville, etc.) to sell their Republican lite strategy to Wall St and Silicon Valley in hopes of heading off the obvious decline into oligarchy that the "Reagan Revolution" would bring.
Of course, they failed.
Can we save the NEW DEAL model? Or, is it simply a matter that the China model of brahmins and mandarins -- aka limo liberals -- managing capitalism and directing our lives -has fallen flat and that "the market" is -- and will produce a line of -- kings?
East Germany has a long history of Prussian and Soviet strongman rule. I think the modern German government has tried to distance itself from that. In this time of resurgent hatred and a desire for someone to solve the problems of a complex modern society, some people are seeking reassurance in old patterns of governance.
Thom's post was a BINGO! Back when I was a military officer and civil servant, I gave occasional guest lectures at Dresden Technical University and did some consulting to help the Saxon government struggle to transition to democracy back in the early 90s. One thing that Thom did not touch on, but which likely explains the rise of the AfD is the economy.
The Soviets did very little to help support the post-war economy in the Saxon capital of Dresden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden). I recall a huge mansion at the end of (If I recall correctly) the Augustusbrücke across from the royal side of the Elbe. In 1991, there was a mature tree growing right through the bombed-out roof. It is finally gone today, but it was clear evidence that Russia did the minimum to restore what WWII westerners bragged was a mass bombing campaign to flatten the city to end the war. So, when the Wall came down, Saxony was still a postwar mess.
Sadly, Saxony was not getting much recovery help from Germany. While the capital, Dresden, slowly recovered, the rest of the state economically resembled the post-Civil War South in America. The transition from agriculture to manufacturing was slow. Chemnitz especially resented the lack of recovery support. Kruschev had implemented RFKjr-type babushka agricultural policies that destroyed the fertility of fields, such as eliminating all tree lines (windbreaks) which led to erosion so bad that crop yields fell and took decades to restore. The farm ponds were so polluted with fertilizer and insect spray chemicals that the livestock were dying off. The result today is that Saxony shares an economy and political worldview similar to Louisiana.
The current Democratic establishment is a failure. It rejects FDR, undermines candidates who embrace FDR, often parroting Repugnican slurs to the benefit of Repugnican candidates (e.g., Michigan). We are in dire need of a new Democratic, democratic, establishment. Notably, left-leaning candidates running as Independents are doing well in “red” states, having distanced themselves from the understandably toxic “D”.
I've been saying forever. Ism's are not forms of government. Ism s are ideologies. Ideologies are secular and sectarian. Islam, Hindu, Christianity and Judaism are as much ideologies as egalitarianism, capitalism, communism
Forms of government are cracy;s as in autocracy. theocracy or democracy.
Hmmmm. Here I go again living in my alternative universe, but...
Biographers have noted that FDR used racial slurs in private correspondence and personal notes as a young man, reflecting the casual racism common among his social class at the time. Apparently he was quite fond of the word Nigger. As president, FDR largely avoided pushing for civil rights legislation, such as anti-lynching laws, allegedly because he feared losing the votes of powerful Southern segregationist Democrats needed to pass his New Deal programs. Further, his administration authorized Executive Order 9066, leading to the forced relocation and incarceration of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Democracy has to be both political and economic in order to maximize freedom. When capitalists talk of freedom, they mean freedom for themselves alone, not for their workers; freedom from taxation, regulation, responsibility, and consequences. Their only object is profit; all that flag-waving and freedom talk is just a joke they play on us. When we democratize, we socialize, by creating and ensuring the fairest and broadest possible distribution of power.
The Democratic Socialists have the right idea, don't you think? We need to embrace a more militant and conscious approach to dealing with the fascists. But we will have to be more strategic and increase awareness of the root problems and then fight for the change we are demanding. Here is what I wrote in a new article posted on my Substack Saturday:
Neo-liberalism, neo-conservativism, globalized imperialism and hubris, along with oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and a budding theocracy have all disrupted our lives and our democracy. Those should all be resisted with all the strength and determination we can muster. However, behind those forces and interests are fundamental beliefs and ideologies, such as the myth of original sin, male superiority, white supremacy, and superstitions about a god who relieves us of our responsibilities and social obligations. Those things are largely intact. True progress will always be blocked as long as those ideas and convictions are not adequately challenged.
Abstractions and generalities are not adequate to change perceptions and beliefs. I cite Thom's latest book in my article and agree with everything he says about how the American dream was stolen. However, my argument now is that we are required to rethink the American dream, get past merely hoping to revive the middle-class, forget about reforming schools under an anachronistic paradigm, and rediscover education as it was imagined during the Enlightenment.
The title of my article is: Waking Up from the American Dream; or Not, and the subtitle is:
Sales Pitches for Get-Rich-Quick Fantasies Materialized - For a Few. Here is another excerpt:
This is to seriously propose that Americans dispense completely with the concept of an American dream and that we get real, instead. This is not just hyperbole, theory, rhetoric, or rank cynicism. This fantasy of some ideal life that is ostensibly not imaginable elsewhere and which we wish everyone could share, yet which seems to be denied even to millions of Americans, even in the 21st century, is a bit of a farce. Is it not a little presumptuous for Americans to try to specifically identify or quantify what everyone everywhere should dream of and aspire to, as if we are so special?
The "American dream" was never going to include all Americans. It is time to start thinking big and to stop allowing ourselves to be limited by reactionary thinking, superstition, and fear of rocking the boat.
Thom, this has to be the best letter you've done so far. It explains for people like me why we're on the verge of losing our democracy, and in the strongest of terms what we need to do about it. You're a gift that keeps on giving!
Thank you, Thom, for a clear encapsulation of how we got into the mess we are in.
I worked for decades in the global trade field. About 30 years ago I remember thinking, and saying, to whomever would listen, that the lesson the PRC was teaching all who had eyes to see was that they were demonstrating you could have capitalism in a market system WITHOUT DEMOCRACY.
I have always felt that 19th & 20th Century big money reluctantly put up with some form of democracy to energize and congeal the societies they needed to make, buy and sell what they were feeding off of.
In the circles I moved in, admittedly on a more or less mid-level, I could see the interest in how China would manage one without the other. I would wager, though I have no proof, that this is what pushed the post-Reagan Democrats (Clintons, Obama, Biden, Carville, etc.) to sell their Republican lite strategy to Wall St and Silicon Valley in hopes of heading off the obvious decline into oligarchy that the "Reagan Revolution" would bring.
Of course, they failed.
Can we save the NEW DEAL model? Or, is it simply a matter that the China model of brahmins and mandarins -- aka limo liberals -- managing capitalism and directing our lives -has fallen flat and that "the market" is -- and will produce a line of -- kings?
DL
East Germany has a long history of Prussian and Soviet strongman rule. I think the modern German government has tried to distance itself from that. In this time of resurgent hatred and a desire for someone to solve the problems of a complex modern society, some people are seeking reassurance in old patterns of governance.
Thom's post was a BINGO! Back when I was a military officer and civil servant, I gave occasional guest lectures at Dresden Technical University and did some consulting to help the Saxon government struggle to transition to democracy back in the early 90s. One thing that Thom did not touch on, but which likely explains the rise of the AfD is the economy.
The Soviets did very little to help support the post-war economy in the Saxon capital of Dresden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden). I recall a huge mansion at the end of (If I recall correctly) the Augustusbrücke across from the royal side of the Elbe. In 1991, there was a mature tree growing right through the bombed-out roof. It is finally gone today, but it was clear evidence that Russia did the minimum to restore what WWII westerners bragged was a mass bombing campaign to flatten the city to end the war. So, when the Wall came down, Saxony was still a postwar mess.
Sadly, Saxony was not getting much recovery help from Germany. While the capital, Dresden, slowly recovered, the rest of the state economically resembled the post-Civil War South in America. The transition from agriculture to manufacturing was slow. Chemnitz especially resented the lack of recovery support. Kruschev had implemented RFKjr-type babushka agricultural policies that destroyed the fertility of fields, such as eliminating all tree lines (windbreaks) which led to erosion so bad that crop yields fell and took decades to restore. The farm ponds were so polluted with fertilizer and insect spray chemicals that the livestock were dying off. The result today is that Saxony shares an economy and political worldview similar to Louisiana.
The current Democratic establishment is a failure. It rejects FDR, undermines candidates who embrace FDR, often parroting Repugnican slurs to the benefit of Repugnican candidates (e.g., Michigan). We are in dire need of a new Democratic, democratic, establishment. Notably, left-leaning candidates running as Independents are doing well in “red” states, having distanced themselves from the understandably toxic “D”.
I've been saying forever. Ism's are not forms of government. Ism s are ideologies. Ideologies are secular and sectarian. Islam, Hindu, Christianity and Judaism are as much ideologies as egalitarianism, capitalism, communism
Forms of government are cracy;s as in autocracy. theocracy or democracy.
Hmmmm. Here I go again living in my alternative universe, but...
Biographers have noted that FDR used racial slurs in private correspondence and personal notes as a young man, reflecting the casual racism common among his social class at the time. Apparently he was quite fond of the word Nigger. As president, FDR largely avoided pushing for civil rights legislation, such as anti-lynching laws, allegedly because he feared losing the votes of powerful Southern segregationist Democrats needed to pass his New Deal programs. Further, his administration authorized Executive Order 9066, leading to the forced relocation and incarceration of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
But...what do I know?
Democracy has to be both political and economic in order to maximize freedom. When capitalists talk of freedom, they mean freedom for themselves alone, not for their workers; freedom from taxation, regulation, responsibility, and consequences. Their only object is profit; all that flag-waving and freedom talk is just a joke they play on us. When we democratize, we socialize, by creating and ensuring the fairest and broadest possible distribution of power.
The Democratic Socialists have the right idea, don't you think? We need to embrace a more militant and conscious approach to dealing with the fascists. But we will have to be more strategic and increase awareness of the root problems and then fight for the change we are demanding. Here is what I wrote in a new article posted on my Substack Saturday:
Neo-liberalism, neo-conservativism, globalized imperialism and hubris, along with oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and a budding theocracy have all disrupted our lives and our democracy. Those should all be resisted with all the strength and determination we can muster. However, behind those forces and interests are fundamental beliefs and ideologies, such as the myth of original sin, male superiority, white supremacy, and superstitions about a god who relieves us of our responsibilities and social obligations. Those things are largely intact. True progress will always be blocked as long as those ideas and convictions are not adequately challenged.
Abstractions and generalities are not adequate to change perceptions and beliefs. I cite Thom's latest book in my article and agree with everything he says about how the American dream was stolen. However, my argument now is that we are required to rethink the American dream, get past merely hoping to revive the middle-class, forget about reforming schools under an anachronistic paradigm, and rediscover education as it was imagined during the Enlightenment.
The title of my article is: Waking Up from the American Dream; or Not, and the subtitle is:
Sales Pitches for Get-Rich-Quick Fantasies Materialized - For a Few. Here is another excerpt:
This is to seriously propose that Americans dispense completely with the concept of an American dream and that we get real, instead. This is not just hyperbole, theory, rhetoric, or rank cynicism. This fantasy of some ideal life that is ostensibly not imaginable elsewhere and which we wish everyone could share, yet which seems to be denied even to millions of Americans, even in the 21st century, is a bit of a farce. Is it not a little presumptuous for Americans to try to specifically identify or quantify what everyone everywhere should dream of and aspire to, as if we are so special?
The "American dream" was never going to include all Americans. It is time to start thinking big and to stop allowing ourselves to be limited by reactionary thinking, superstition, and fear of rocking the boat.
Thom, this has to be the best letter you've done so far. It explains for people like me why we're on the verge of losing our democracy, and in the strongest of terms what we need to do about it. You're a gift that keeps on giving!