GUEST COLUMN: Last three decades have undone the most successful programs of the 20th century

I finished Tony Judt’s “Ill Fares The Land.” It was an excellent read and I agree with his premise that we need to develop a new language that builds on the success of social democracy programs (in the U.S. those would be New Deal and Great Society programs) combined with putting forward a new vision for an economy that works for more than the top 0 .5%.  Indeed, social democracy is probably the closest to my political ideology when it comes to economics.  When we were developing Prosperity Agenda that is exactly what we wanted to build on and expand.

I really liked his broad review of the trends of history:  How lassez-faire economic philosophy lost out in the middle of the last century and social democratic programs were put in place that created a more equitable distribution of wealth, a growing middle class and a consistently growing economy.

Then the last thirty years, from the Reagan Revolution and through to President Obama (with President Clinton creating the neo-liberal version of Reaganism), has been undoing the most successful programs of the last Century. (Obama is poised to do some real damage to Social Security and Medicare — that is the next big battle coming.)  Judt is correct when he writes “To abandon the labors of a century is to betray those who came before us as well as the generations yet to come.” I see the work I’m doing on the economy as exactly that kind of big picture approach — trying (with many others) to re-ignite the sense of community that is essential to keeping the fibers of community woven together rather than unraveling as they are now.

We are at a critical crossroads in history when many tens of millions see the corruption and unfairness of the current economy but do not know what to do about it and do not see an alternative economy. There is a real opportunity for change because of the ongoing economic crisis.  It is a great time for activists to create the parade which a wise politician will get in front of. …

Judt asks and answers the critical question: “Why, for the past three decades, has it been so easy for those in power . . .?” “Because there has been no coherent alternative to offer.” His answer is partly correct.  I know that alternatives have been offered, they are just not heard because concentrated corporate ownership of the media shuts out those views and we do not have the resources to breakthrough that barrier…

I like Judt’s point that “To convince others that something is right or wrong we need a language of ends, not means.  We don’t have to believe that our objectives are poised to succeed.  But we do need to be able to believe in them.” No doubt the ends we describe are not poised for immediate success but they do present an “end” that, as Judt says can “re-open a different sort of conversation.”

So, what is the starting point?  My view has been that we need to build a movement, i.e., get to a tipping point where enough Americans see the problem,  understand there are solutions and are willing to push for the solutions.  We’ve been doing that by taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves, e.g. the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill, financial reform, energy bill.  These are the biggest economic reforms that have been discussed and when they are in the news people are ready to hear more about them and to take action on them.  So, we look for targets of opportunity when people are paying attention to an issue and put them into a context of broader reforms.

Judt points to two starting points — both of which make a lot of sense to me:

1. “The first task is to remind ourselves of the achievements of the 20th century, along with the likely consequences of a heedless rush to dismantle them.”  We need to show that government does important, indeed critical work that cannot be done by individuals for themselves.  We have been making this point all along as opportunities have presented themselves. For example, when the stimulus was being debated we pointed to the incredible effectiveness of the New Deal which resulted in the fastest growth of employment in American history.  When health care was the issue we pointed to the incredible success of Medicare — it equalized health care once people turned 65 (there is excellent research showing the unequal impact of treating various illness when people are under 65 and the better treatment people get across class and ethnic lines for those same illnesses once they are Medicare eligible) and the great success the U.S. has in treating cancer (the only healthcare positive the U.S. leads the world in) in large part because of Medicare treating the elderly when cancer is most common.  And, when financial reform was being discussed we again focused on the successful reforms that were put in place during the Depression and the devastating impact of removing those reforms in the 80s and 90s. ..

2. “Unequal access to resources of every sort — from rights to water — is the starting point of any truly progressive critique of the world.”  “Those who do well in unequal societies would be happier if the gap separating them from the majority of their fellow citizens were significantly reduced.” There is no question that focusing on the wealth divide is the critical first point of reform.  This is consistent with Barry Lynn’s argument’s in “Cornered” regarding concentrated capital creating monopolies.  We focused on this when each of the legislative issues came up as well, e.g. health insurance’s near monopolistic control of markets, the bailout funds leading to record Wall Street bonuses as well as the problem of too big to fail banks (the term “banks” now includes the Wall Street firms like Goldman), the energy proposals leading to corporate welfare for carbon and nuclear industries where the taxpayers take the risk and the profits go to the top .5% who own those industries. Again, a louder mouthpiece would make a big difference.

I really like Judt’s other points about the unequal wealth which I quote at the beginning of the above paragraph — that those with wealth are uncomfortable with the inequality.  That is something very important to keep in mind in our messaging as we want to win over the wealthy to see that a more equal economy will improve their lives as well.

While there is probably truth in Judt’s statement “If social democracy has a future, it will be as a social democracy of fear,” I’m disappointed by it.  I hate to push progress based on fear.  Sadly, I think he might be right.  As more people fear losing their homes, jobs, bankruptcy that fear needs to be responded to with the potential for change that shows them another world is possible where they can have economic security.  Fear needs to be turned into positive action.

The theme of Judt’s book seems to be: “If we do not talk differently, we shall not think differently.” That supports your contention that education is the key.  Getting out the word to people about the unfair impact of the current economy and that there are alternatives to it.  And, it supports my view that new language is needed.  I still like democratization of the economy as a phrase that covers all of our issues. Perhaps the message is that democratization of the economy leads to economic security. While education is certainly necessary, I continue to doubt that it is sufficient, but that is an issue that will become clearer as we move forward.