Why It Seems The Difference Between Dems and Repubs Grows Smaller By The Day (My 2nd DU Rant)

[ihavenobias]

The fact is, the economic difference between Democrats and Republicans has shrunk quite a bit over the last 30 years, rhetoric aside.

I think this is largely due to the foundation laid down by the Reagan Administration/Grover Norquist types in the 80's. Consider that before Reagan took office, there were less than 50 registered lobbyists. Today we have over 35,000! Special interests started to corrupt *both parties* at previously unseen levels. Don't get me wrong, there was always SOME level of corruption, but it's dramatically increased IMO largely because it's legal. I mean much of this lobbyist activity is largely legalized bribery.

Not to mention the fact that there is enormous incentive for those in Congress to promote policies that benefit Big Business (to the detriment of most Americans), because they can then retire to huge paychecks in the private sector, or to think tanks funded by corporate, monied interests.

The "Reagan Revolution" created a population of tax-averse, government-averse people who don't realize that less taxes and government does not automatically translate into better conditions for the middle class. In fact quite the opposite.

Of course conservatives continue to point to taxes and regulation as scapegoats for why most people aren't doing very well (or they *pretend* that most people ARE doing well despite all evidence to the contrary). Pointing out that there are now X number of people making millions and billions shouldn't be any comfort to anyone.

Yes, there is a *theoretical* argument that giving more money to the rich ultimately helps the middle class, but it's become increasingly clear that theory has largely been disproved. At what point will conservatives stop arguing their points using these (disproved) economic *theories* and start looking at the *practical* impact to most Americans?

PS---The democrats of today know that talking about tax increases and more regulation tends to be political suicide. This is largely because of the tax-averse groundwork I mentioned earlier and partly because Dems just do an awful job framing these issues. So in the end most Dems these days are basically just socially liberal, fiscal centrists (at best).

We need someone with some guts who can actually frame the arguments properly and point to the prosperity of the 50's-mid 70's (where levels of regulation and taxation were MUCH higher than today). And someone who will put strong conflict of interest laws in place for Congress so that the laws they pass won't lead to huge paydays when a term ends. And someone who points out that high GDP's and levels of productivity have meant NOTHING to most Americans, so we need to stop looking at those things (along with how well the stock market has done) as our only measures of success.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2697193&mesg_id=2697193

[DJ13]

1. You're right about Reagan/Norquist

But Clinton didnt help move the country away from those policies when he was President, in fact he furthered their agenda by his support of increasing corporate power.

Hillary wont "change" that, which is what Edwards and Obama have been trying to get across to voters.

[ihavenobias]

2. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of the socially liberal, watered down fiscal centrist

I was referring to. And now that you mention him, why wasn't there an amazing alternative energy plan put into place at some point over those 8 years, especially with Gore there?!

[madrchsod]

3. just spent the last hour googling the 70`s and liberalism....

the 70`s sucked ass at least for me and a lot of other steel workers. the place i worked at went from full 24 hour 5 days a week running 10 forging hammers in 73 to massive lay off in late 79-80. the company never recovered. the steel industry in this country was destroyed in the 70`s and will never come back. there`s more examples of the failure of liberalism in the 70`s that i won`t go into.

what people fail to understand or refuse to listen is that the 70`s suckiness gave rise to reagan..it`s the same thing today..the suckiness of george bush`s mashup of neo-liberal and neo conservative thinking has screwed this country as bad or even worse than reagan....

[ihavenobias]

4. It's not quite accurate to say the issues in the late 70's

were a result of a "failure of liberalism". After all, the tax rates and level of unionization were much higher in the 50-60's too! Republican president Eisenhower didn't seem to mind a 91% top marginal tax rate (today's Republicans don't resemble those Republicans very closely, do they?).

Was the oil crisis a liberal issue? Which reminds me, Carter put an energy plan in place with the goal of having the US derive 20% of its energy from solar power by the year 2000, a plan Reagan quickly dismantled.

With that in in mind, consider that gas was $1.25 on average when Bush took office and oil was around $30 a barrel. Not to mention to the climate crisis and the fact that we fund and are more vulnerable to terrorists because of our dependence on foreign oil. Reagan also borrowed more money than all presidents before him, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, COMBINED.

Another thing that few point out is that we borrowed VERY heavily to fund Vietnam, and the countries we borrowed from came to collect on those treasuries *primarily during Carter's term* going a long way toward sparking a recession, the same recession that spilled over into Reagan's term.

The American people (overall) tend not to appreciate that level of nuance, so they just figured they'd vote "for the other guys". And of course Reagan was considered to be charming and charismatic. He was one hell of salesman.

PS---The middle class is no better off than they were in 1973. In fact, they are often *worse off*: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19herbert.html?em&ex=1200891600&en=e84c9fb476b7ff29&ei=5087%0A

[ihavenobias]

5. I forgot to include this (edit period expired)

My favorite line in there is from the Wall Street Journal Reporter:

"We in America are heading towards 'developing nation' levels of inequality. We would become like Brazil. What does that say about us? What does that say about America?"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2131974,00.html