. . . take their act on the (rail)road. Great conversation about the tragedy of the 1970s in the U.S. A few excerpts:
RP: Before Reagan is even elected. And then when Reagan does run for president in 1980, the secret weapon in his quiver ideologically is supply-side economics which basically breaks the back of one of the most powerful appeals that the Democrats have traditionally had, which is taxing the rich and spending the money on the middle class. Which terrified Republicans because, they said, no one shoots Santa Claus. Right? But supply-side economics says: we can inject prosperity into the economy by cutting taxes and…
TF: The Republicans become Santa Claus.
RP:They become Santa Claus. And it’s absolutely brilliant. Just as Democrats themselves are abandoning Keynesianism because, of course, Jimmy Carter’s first act as president is canceling all these Keynesian water projects all over the country.
TF: Is that right? I didn’t know that.
Yeah. Because he had this deep distrust of a politics of economic populism. He thought it was kind of embarrassing. And they used to say in the Carter White House, “The best way to get Carter to do something was to say it wasn’t going to be popular,” which is very much like Obama.
I’m not sure I understand this. So if something was popular Carter didn’t want to do it?
Yes, because it would show that he was stern and Baptist and wasn’t a demagogue.
Really?
Yeah. I’m sure it’s the same way in Obama’s White House.
It's simplistic, but I could see it as a factor. People may say I'm weak and feckless, think Carter and Obama, but I know in my heart of hearts that I am not. I had the strength and integrity not to pander to the masses. That everybody else sees this as pandering to moneyed interests never really occurs to them because they are truly convinced they are making the hard choices that are best for the country. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons–the tragic flaw at the heart of a moralistic idealism that afflicts so many liberal democrats.
Is it possible that Obama is now willing to do the popular thing now because now that he's a lame duck, no one can accuse him of pandering for votes? I hope he does, but I'm not optimistic that he'll be effective. It's too late in the game–it's garbage time, and any points he scores are garbage points.
The conversation ends with this summary of the '70s by Perlstein:
TF: Is anyone nostalgic for the ’70s?
RP: I am. And for the following reason: If you read my preface, I explain that Americans at the level of popular culture, at the level of grassroots politics, were thinking very hard about what it would mean to have a country they didn’t believe was God’s chosen nation. What would it mean to not be the world’s policeman? What would it mean to conserve our resources? What would it mean to not treat our presidents as if they were kings? That was happening! And the tragedy of Ronald Reagan most profoundly wasn’t policy — although that was tragic enough — but it was robbing America of that conversation. Every time a politician stands before a microphone and utters this useless, pathetic cliche that America is the greatest country ever to exist, he’s basically wiping away the possibility that we can really think critically about our problems and our prospects. And to me, that’s tragic.
Maybe. Carter's famous anti-consumerist 'malaise speech' was in its way politically courageous and an honest attempt to speak the hard truth to Americans who didn't want to hear it. So, sure, better stern Calvinist sobriety than Reagan's voodoo and nostaligic delusion. But the more important changes were structural and behind the scenes. Reagan was simply an appealing front man for them, more appealing than Carter, at least, who was bending to the same forces, whether he was aware of his doing so or not. I cannot think of any one person on the scene who had he been elected could have effectively resisted. Certainly not Ted Kennedy.
Leave a Reply