9
Comments

Share

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.“
-Barack Obama

The 1960s and 1970s: A NEW GENERATION OF AMERICANS

Starting in the late 1950’s, the American people began to shift from the conservative era of virulent anti-communism and post WWII complacency towards a new paradigm.  Starting with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s epic final speech warning of the military industrial complex taking over the Washington DC beltway, a new era began with the stunningly close election of John F. Kennedy over the establishments choice of Richard Nixon.  A new generation of Americans began to think along different lines, one in which new experimental policies tempered by foresight and compassion, creativity and engagement began.  The 60s were born.  

Despite conservative railings about the doom and gloom of such a new path, things turned out pretty well overall in the 1960s and 1970s.  The gulf between rich and poor was lessened, minorities of all persuasions began to feel like a party of society instead of outcasts from it, and the music scene reached new heights, and  people began to feel as if their government actually belonged to them once again.  Monumental landmarks of legislation and justice came to be a reality, such as the highly controversial Civil Rights Act, which turned the South Republican for the next generation.  There were numerous key bills that came from this era, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, legislation that we take for granted today, but were hard fought back then.  

Not that everything was paradise.  The dominant liberal philosophies had some real, tangible faults as well.  Unemployment and inflation increased despite heavy social spending during the Great Society and later days, some foreign powers were eager to test the resolve of a government that favored diplomacy over brute force, and crimes were increasing to levels high enough to make the Dirty Harry movies popular.  

With every dominant philosophical paradigm, it has intrinsic strengths and weaknesses.  The ingrained fractures in its applications to everyday reality eventually cause support for it to decay, and for a new paradigm to take over in its place.  This even takes place within many hard sciences as demonstrated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

CONSERVATISM REBORN

Eventually the cleavage planes of the 60s and 70s liberal philosophy gave way to a new theme during the Reagan landslide or ‘conservative revolution‘.  A whole new dominant political philosophy was ushered in, one in which the promise of free enterprise, entrepeneurialship, lower taxes, less government, and a strong military policy came to be.  This phenomena is known as a ‘realigning election‘, and was as impactful as that of the victory of Kennedy in 1960.  

It was initially a disaster.  These new policies (called ‘Voodoo Economics‘ by the former spy chief, then VP George Herbert Walker Bush) brought about a severe economic downturn in 1982.  Crime continued to increase, exports dropped, and the political compass of the nation was spinning.  Eventually, some of the strengths of this new paradim began to take root and have a positive effect for the time.  The new economy began to grow, inflation fell, consumer and investor confidence soared, and America seemed to command a new found respect from the foreign community.

Of course, the conserservative paradigm had it’s fault lines as well, which began to take root.  Taxes were slashed, programs lost funding or were cut leading to an explosion in homelessness, dire poverty, and social problems.  Education funding was cut, talent was not attracted, and our system has fallen behind every other Western nation.  Instead of reform or rehabilitation, the justice system focused on increasingly strict penalties, especially in the realm of the drug war, leading to a boom in the prison-industrial complex, the corresponding skyrocketing of those in jails, and today 1 in 33 Americans either behind bars or on probation (by far the highest rate in the world).

According to Wikipedia: “In accordance with Reagan’s less-government intervention views, Reagan cut the budgets of non-military programs including Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs and the EPA. He protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, however, his administration attempted to purge many allegedly disabled people from Social Security disability rolls.”

The size and strength of the military increased with heavy spending until today we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on it. Our more assertive attitude translated into sticking our armed forces in dangerous places all over the world.  Don’t get me wrong, there are times when bold action and good lives need to be lost for the good of the nation and world, but foreign militarism increased exponentially, and soon became a beast of its own.

Economics was always touted as the conservative strong point.  To force a shrinking of government, policies known as ‘starve the beast‘ were implemented, which caused deficits to soar. Tax cuts were implemented which were supposed to cause a ‘trickle down‘ effect, but only caused the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  Where executives once earned less than 50 times what an average worker in their company made, it shot up to over 400x today. 

Instead of 1 income covering a families expenses, it now took 2 workers to get less.  Jobs were outsourced.  Living wages declined.  The inherant inequity built into conservative economic philosophy began to show itself more and more every year.

INTERLUDE

There was a brief lapse in conservatism with the election of Bill Clinton (a center-right southern Democrat) in 1992.  It appeared that a new era was going to be once again ushered in, and many who fought for change were relieved.  However, their relief turned into complacency and disengagement from the political process.  This coupled with a rise in right wing anger fueled by conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute led to an ingenious plan by the conservatives.  

They first sidestepped the failings of their mostly Republican predecessors by claiming that they were never really ‘true conservatives’.  Then the partisan rhetoric began to get jacked up with an increasingly negative tone.  When the American electorate was tired of bitter partisan squabbles, the calls for term limits began to be shouted from the rooftops.  The master stroke to this whole plan was the ‘Contract on America‘, a GOP promise to enact sweeping reforms if they were elected to strong majorities in Congress.  As it turns out, these supposed reforms were only an intensification of pre-existing conservative policies under Reagan and Bush, and their implementation is widely regarded as a failure.

The genius of this plan was that by electing a congress hostile to the more moderate policies favored by Clinton, it effectively hamstrung him from implementing these.  The corporate stranglehold over the system intensified, leading to further deregulation and a continuation of the policies of the previous 3 presidential terms.

The NEW CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

When another center right southerner and the former VP Al Gore became the Democratic candidate for president in 2000, all that was required was another conservative-appeaser as the new VP candidate to thoroughly de-energize the liberal base and ensure victory to whomever the Republicans nominated.  Well, the Democrats shot themselves in the foot once again (a recurring pattern since the 70s) and found Joe Lieberman to seal the deal.

The neoconservatives (many of whom had historical roots to those who were most vocal about the failings of the liberal philosophies of the 60s and 70s) found the son of a Bush to be a master fundraiser, able to speak from a moderate sounding tone, and with all the strings of the eastern aristocracy that the beltway establishment craved.  He surrounded himself with mostly former war hawks and military-industrial gateways like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, and Donald Rumsfeld, and although they barely came away with an electoral victory due to dubious circumstances, they controlled congress and had many years of conservative judges posted to high courts.  The stage was set for an unprecedented amount of governmental control by a tiny minority.

There was only one thing missing to their goals of intensified implementation of conservative philosophy: a massive rallying point.  Afterall, the fractures in their paradigm were already present.  Despite years of the drug war and the war on crime, levels had not dropped until Clinton, trickle down was ineffective in stimulating either job growth or alleviating crippling poverty, etc.  Then that thing happened: 911.

Suddenly the unity that brought our nation and the world together in universal condemnation of this horrendous terrorist attack could be molded to implement an intensification of conservative polices.  ‘You’re either with us or against us‘ was taken well beyond steps to avenge the attack.  Scare tactics brought about the inversely titled ‘Patriot’ Act, which brought widespread domestic espionage against many American citizens.  A torture facility was opened at the Guant’anamo Bay military base in Cuba.  Secret CIA prisons and rendition became an everyday reality.  Perhaps the most appalling misuse of power was the ramming through of further conservative social and economic policies during their unprecedented control of the 3 branches of government, coupled with the effective silencing of the 4th branch, the media. 

To compound things, Bush unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. This was *the* cornerstone of nuclear weapons peace accords which limited Anti Missile Defense systems with the former Soviet Union, thereby averting a runaway nuclear arms race.

Instead of waking up to the inherant failings of conservative philosophy, the Bush regime doubled down on them.  This made the fall all the more epic when it finally came.

THE PENDULUM SWINGS BACK TO THE NEW LEFT: PROGRESSIVISM

Many who had previously became apathetic and complacent following the election of Clinton in 1992 also assumed that *somebody* in the US would work to make sure that the colossal failure of the Bush Republicans could not possibly be re-elected in 2004.  They did nothing to fight for change, and despite the tide turning, the Karl Rove machine of political division and exploitation once again managed to prevail.  The conservative think tanks somehow managed to convince a plurality of Americans that a war hero was a coward, and a draft dodger was a hero.  John F. Kerry was ‘Swift Boated‘, and the country was stuck with ‘4 More Years‘ of Bush, which would prove to be more disastrous than the last Republican to use that phrase.

In 2006, liberal political philosophy suddenly began to get some teeth.  Those previously silent and unengaged realized with no room for error that *they* needed to speak up, they needed to volunteer, they needed to get involved.  Further, there was a collective awakening of Americans to the colossal failings of conservative philosophy.  Independents, non-partisans, and third party advocates united in seeking a new path that could put the country on a new heading.

The unlikely candidate with a mixed ethnic background and a funny sounding name seemed like a longshot to usher in this new paradigm, but in the end turns out to be the perfect person for the job.  The change in course of the country has a competent man at the wheel in the name of Barack Obama, and this is the most ground shaking shift in the dominant political philosophy since the election of JFK in 1960.  Just as back then and during the election of Clinton, there is a rise in negativity coming from those supporting the former paradigm and leaders of this country.

This is all part of their same playbook that they used in 1993-94 to derail the modest reforms of Bill Clinton, and the danger of violence and assasination is more prevalent than ever.  If everyone who stood up for change collectively decides to sit back down and relax, the conservatives would prevail in hamstringing Obama, derailing the movement for change and reform, and turning back the clock once again to the failed conservative paradigm of Reagan and George W Bush.  

However, this is not going to happen.  Things on the ground have changed for real.  The reality to the situation is that the country has undergone yet another paradigm shift, and although this requires everyone to stay involved in important issues, times have changed.  How long this philosophical realignment will prevail is yet to be determined and will likely be based on how successful important reforms are implemented, but if history is a guide, progressivism should be dominant for the better part of a generation.