The progressive-liberal movement vs The conservative-neoliberal movement by Michael Lind

[Douglas Carpenter]

This is actually the second half of a truly great article in salon.com called, "The best way to fight the two-party monopoly" by Michael Lind. I would encourage everyone to read this enlightening article that gives some insight to how these two different movements or political tendencies have in different eras dominated both political parties. I post some excerpts below. But please consider reading the whole article:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

The progressive-liberal movement was a broad school of thought that included progressive followers of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal liberals led by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. "Modern Republicans" like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon formed the right wing of the progressive-liberal consensus. While there were many differences among members of this movement, all agreed that the economic management functions of the national government had to expand in order to deal with the challenges of an industrial, urban society.

The conservative-neoliberal movement, which has dominated American politics since the Carter and Reagan years, has been similarly broad and diverse, including both Goldwater-Reagan conservatives and Clinton-Obama New Democrats. All have agreed with the theory that the economy should be organized chiefly on the basis of the "free market" and that government intervention should be viewed with suspicion and is legitimate only in cases of "market failure" and the provision of basic public goods. Obama Democrats and Tea Party Republicans represent the left and right wings, respectively, of the post-Nixon conservative-neoliberal consensus.

snip:

In the last 30 years, under Republicans and Democrats alike, the conservative-neoliberal approach has been tried. It didn’t work. The result of trade liberalization was not a boom in American manufactured exports, but perpetual trade deficits, the offshoring of production by American companies to low-wage, repressive sweatshop countries, and the targeted destruction of one American industry after another by mercantilist foreign regimes like Japan and China. The result of the decline of unions has been a combination of lower wages and fewer benefits for most American workers. The result of airline deregulation has been chronic bankruptcy, awful service, predatory monopoly and the worst airline system outside of the Third World. Deregulation of electricity produced blackouts in California and the crimes of Enron.

The failure of the conservative-neoliberal theory of how the world works is manifest, even if Tea Party Republicans and Obama Democrats persist in revivals of the old time religion, each according to their own denomination. Unfortunately, there is no well-developed alternative waiting in the wings to make an entrance when the failed actors are booed off the stage.


again I hope everyone reads the entire article:


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation and is the author of "The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution."

[Armstead]

1. Great Anaysis -- And we see it played out every day on DU

But I couldn't find Part One

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. sorry, I should have said second half - rather than second part

I made an edit above to change that. The first half was more a discussion about proportional representations versus first past the post voting. I thought the most relevant part of the article was in the second half when the discussion turns to the progressive-liberal movement versus the conservative neo-liberal movement.

I thought this was one of the more interesting comments from his article:

It does not follow, however, that the next great reform movement in the United States will necessarily be considered liberal or progressive, rather than conservative or populist. Since the 1960s, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have become increasingly detached from their older, economic meaning, and have become associated with views on sex and reproduction, censorship, environmentalism, multiculturalism and secularism with an exiguous relationship at best to the questions of political economy that define major political movements. In most other democracies, the right is not defined by free market fundamentalism, any more than were the Eisenhower-Nixon Republicans or the pre-Thatcher Conservatives in Britain.


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

[Armstead]

5. Oh...nevermind

[Hart2008]

6. Exactly, as shocking as it sounds to modern readers, Nixon was more liberal than Obama.

I never thought we would be nostalgic for Tricky Dick's domestic economic policy with a Democrat in the White House.

[ProSense]

9. Actually,

it's shocking that anyone would consider an anti-Semitic, anti-choice, despicable and manipulative bastard more liberal than Obama.

I know, but the EPA....!!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. as this article points out

Since the 1960s, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have become increasingly detached from their older, economic meaning, and have become associated with views on sex and reproduction, censorship, environmentalism, multiculturalism and secularism with an exiguous relationship at best to the questions of political economy that define major political movements. In most other democracies, the right is not defined by free market fundamentalism, any more than were the Eisenhower-Nixon Republicans or the pre-Thatcher Conservatives in Britain.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

Nixon as this article stresses represented the right-wing of the progressive-liberal consensus that dominated both political parties at least since the New Deal. Just as Obama and Clinton represent the left-wing of conservative neo-liberal consensus that dominates both political parties today. Obviously Nixon was no more a pure progressive-liberal than Clinton and Obama are pure conservative neo-liberals.

[ProSense]

13. What

"Nixon as this article stresses represented the right-wing of the progressive-liberal consensus that dominated both political parties at least since the New Deal. Just as Obama and Clinton represent the left-wing of conservative neo-liberal consensus that dominates both political parties today. Obviously Nixon was no more a pure progressive-liberal than Clinton and Obama are pure conservative neo-liberals."

...utter nonsense, especially in light of the facts.

Nixon was an anti-Semitic, anti-choice, despicable and manipulative bastard. There is no way to spin that as "right-wing of the progressive-liberal consensus."

He was pushed to do a lot of things by a Democratic Congress and a mass social movement, but he spent his time trying to undermine progress.

Also, Clinton's policies were not the same as Obama's.

[Armstead]

14. Oh this is getting tiresome -- Once again you are deflecting

The article makes something perfectly clear.

The basic two positions in the OP are all about ECONOMICS and their relationship to political policy.

The "liberal" and "conservative" labels of today, and their party affiliations, are often based on social issues, not economic ones. The GOP very smartly and effectively created the concept of "wedge issues" over the years, and the Democrats went along with it....The social wedge issues have made it possible for the GOP to CONvince people to overlook their own actual economic interests, in favor of social issues.

The cartoonish -- but real -- result are all of those people like the Religious Right who believe you have to be a Republican Conservative. "My pastor told me I have to be a Republican to Love Jesus because He believes in unregulated conservative free market economics."

For example, Abortion Rights is important, but it has very little to do with real fundamental economic issues. So, if you support Choice, you support Democrats. If you want to ban abortion, you become a Republican.

Meanwhile, as we all squabble over those social issues in partisan terms, the Oligarchs and Pirates who are backers of Conservative-Neoliberal movement have been using politicians from both parties to dismantle the social-safety net, regulations, worker and consumer rights, freedom of expression, etc. and gutting the middle class with "free trade" and other movements behind the scenes.

We get distracted by the "team sport" aspect of partisan politics, and ignore or support those of our own "team" as they collude with the same oligarchs that are ruining our economy and dismantling the middle class.

That's the point. Obama is a nice man, and I support what he says sometimes. But his actions on issues of Wealth and Corporate Power are more in line with the Conservative-Neoliberal agenda than it is with real progressive populism and traditional liberalism.

[ProSense]

16. Speaking

The "liberal" and "conservative" labels of today, and their party affiliations, are often based on social issues, not economic ones. The GOP very smartly and effectively created the concept of "wedge issues" over the years, and the Democrats went along with it....The social wedge issues have made it possible for the GOP to CONvince people to overlook their own actual economic interests, in favor of social issues.

The cartoonish -- but real -- result are all of those people like the Religious Right who believe you have to be a Republican Conservative. "My pastor told me I have to be a Republican to Love Jesus because He believes in unregulated conservative free market economics."

For example, Abortion Rights is important, but it has very little to do with real fundamental economic issues. So, if you support Choice, you support Democrats. If you want to ban abortion, you become a Republican.

...of "tiresome," none of that means Nixon was a liberal.

"That's the point. Obama is a nice man, and I support what he says sometimes. But his actions on issues of Wealth and Corporate Power are more in line with the Conservative-Neoliberal agenda than it is with real progressive populism and traditional liberalism. "

Are you saying....

"nice man" = not liberal

despicable, manipulative bastard = liberal

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I think you are missing the point

Of course Nixon was a horrible awful man and Obama is most probably a really nice person. In fact if one looked at the way Nixon extended the war into Cambodia and Laos we see truly monstrous levels of pure unadulterated evil. But that has nothing to do with the reality that Nixon subscribed to the bipartisan consensus that leaned toward (albeit not totally) Keynesian economics that believed in activist state intervention on a level that Obama or Clinton or any other prominent figure of either party would dream of proposing today.

It is not that Clinton or Obama or Reagan or whoever all support the same exact policies. It is that they all supported to varying degrees the so-called "Free Market" or neo-liberal economic theory as their underlining assumptions about how economy works producing varying policies but guided by the same underlining bipartisan consensus.

It's not that the earlier period when liberal-progressive economic thinking was the consensus of both parties was all good and no bad. Even the Democratic Party's liberal New Deal coalition included southern segregationist dreaming of slavery's return.

But in terms of understanding the underlining economic assumptions that once dominated both parties and comparing them with the underling economic assumptions that dominate both parties today - we can see that the bipartisan consensus of economic assumptions of today simply does not work except for periodically promoting periods when unregulated and unsustainable speculation promotes brief periods of boom followed by inevitable bust and resulting in the long term decline in living standards for the vast majority.

[ProSense]

20. I think

"Of course Nixon was a horrible awful man and Obama is most probably a really nice person. In fact if one looked at the way Nixon extended the war into Cambodia and Laos we see truly monstrous levels of pure unadulterated evil. But that has nothing to do with the reality that Nixon subscribed to the bipartisan consensus that leaned toward (albeit not totally) Keynesian economics that believed in activist state intervention on a level that Obama or Clinton or any other prominent figure of either party would dream of proposing today.

It is not that Clinton or Obama or Reagan or whoever all support the same exact policies. It is that they all supported to varying degrees the so-called "Free Market" or neo-liberal economic theory as their underlining assumptions about how economy works producing varying policies but guided by the same underlining bipartisan consensus."

... the point is spin. Nixon was a free-market conservative who manipulated events to for political gain.

Nixon HMOs

And again, Clinton's policies were not the same as Obama's.

[Armstead]

21. If you subtract Nixon's evil cynicism, how is that conversation different than curent HCR?

"Well the insurance companies will never accept single payer universal coverage, so we can't even put that on the table. They also find a public option unacceptable because they could not profitably compete with a public insurance plan at lower rates..... They don't want any direct price controls either because they have to sell insurance at market rates.They'd agree to some fudging on that though, so it will look better..... They DID say that they'd agree to accept people with pre-existing conditions, but only if everyone in the country has to be mandated to buy insurance, in order to protect their profit margins."

"Okay let's do it."

"Today I am announcing a plan that will ensure that everyone has insurance coverage."

[ProSense]

24. Hmmmm?

"Well the insurance companies will never accept single payer universal coverage, so we can't even put that on the table. They also find a public option unacceptable because they could not profitably compete with a public insurance plan at lower rates..... They don't want any direct price controls either because they have to sell insurance at market rates.They'd agree to some fudging on that though, so it will look better..... They DID say that they'd agree to accept people with pre-existing conditions, but only if everyone in the country has to be mandated to buy insurance, in order to protect their profit margins."

First, that's a make-believe conversation, as is most of the BS criticism of the President. The public option was on the table.

Secondly, Nixon gave us HMOs. President Obama's health plan not only included catastrophic care coverage (picked up for Kerry's 2004 plan), but it also extend free preventive health care to seniors, established a funded path to get to single payer and changed the MLR. List of provisions.

[Armstead]

26. Frittering around the edges

Yes there are some improvements around the edges. But some of it is counterproductive. "Reduced medicare reimbursements for hospital re admissions?" One of those "market based reforms" that sounds good in theory but will further strap hospitals and also reduce the coverage that people will get for relapses.

More importantly, it has made true single coverage -- or even a public option alternative much more difficult. Plus, it is okay for states to set up reforms (something Bernie Sanders pressed for in exchange for his vote) but it would leads to a patchwork in which the ability to receive coverage -- and the quality of that coverage -- will depend on which state you live in.


And please notice the last name of the Foundation you cited, and view the Nixon video once again. Might want to double check your sources sometimes.

[ProSense]

27. Hmmm?

"And please notice the last name of the Foundation you cited, and view the Nixon video once again. Might want to double check your sources sometimes."

You mean I linked to teh Kaiser?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. no Nixon was no "free market conservative" in the sense that we mean it today.

He supported extensive price controls and even proposed a guaranteed annual income and as we know his administration created the EPA. His Administration supported numerous levels of state intervention into the economy that would be anathema to even most leading Democratic Party politicians of today. The current bipartisan consensus in support of free market economics was still on the fringe of popular discussions at the time of the Nixon presidency - even within the Republican Party.

Although relative to the time he was probably economically conservative just as today the current Democratic Party is relatively liberal on economic issues compared to the Republican Party.

No one with even a cursory understanding of political and economic trends would disagree with the fundamental premise of this article even if they don't agree with the author's liberal/left agenda or his view that conservative neo-liberalism doesn't work.

[xchrom]

2. Very good. Nt

[alsame]

3. Excellent article. Thank you. nt

[ProSense]

7. "the conservative-neoliberal approach has been tried

...Deregulation of electricity produced blackouts in California and the crimes of Enron."

Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Enron loophole, and then along came President Obama.

He also revitalized the NLRB, resulting in major victories, and paved the way for the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

[Armstead]

10. Forests and trees again

Okay it's good that after years of inactivity that in a bit of housekeeping it has at least been made somewhat functional again. But there is still no full throated defense and aggressive support to the concept of labor rights and unions.

As for financial Wall St. reforms? A good little step, but window dressing. hardly anything like restoring Glass Steagall or anything like it. The Too Big To Fail bank Monopolies and other Wall St. crooks are still sitting pretty and being rewarded and ;placated at the expense of everyone else.

Forests and trees.

[OHdem10]

8. I have to throw out this question. Obama Democrats--Dies ge

mean DLC Blue Dogs who rule the party??? If so what does
he mean. These are the NEO-Liberals, Conservative Democrats
who more often than not vote with the Republicans (Tea Party
included). Just a nicer version of same ideology. I have
not seen that much push back from them.

How about the real Liberals more in the Pelosi model??? They
do not count??? Ignored. Look who passes the debt ceiling'
with Republicans getting their way. Blue Dogs DLC Obama and
Republicans.

[alsame]

12. I think the neoliberals include Blue Dogs, DLC, New Democrats and

Third Way Democrats. Also the "No Labels" groups are mostly neolibs from both parties.

[Armstead]

15. and President Obama

[alsame]

17. Yep. nt

[JoePhilly]

23. Interesting list of sterotypes you just endorsed ...

:rofl:

[Armstead]

25. Because it's true

In terms of ideology, President Obama and the rest of them fit squarely into the definitions of the OP

[polichick]

22. Excellent piece - thanks! k&r