Azazello1313 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) this is outstanding reading from one of the best historians out there. The Once and Future Liberalism Beyond Blue Part One: The Crisis of the American Dream Beyond Blue Part Two: Recasting The Dream Beyond Blue Part Three: The Power of Infostructure Beyond Blue Part Four: Better Living in the 21st Century Beyond Blue 5: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs a taste... Writing about the onset of the Great Depression, John Kenneth Galbraith famously said that the end had come but was not yet in sight. The past was crumbling under their feet, but people could not imagine how the future would play out. Their social imagination had hit a wall. The same thing is happening today: The core institutions, ideas and expectations that shaped American life for the sixty years after the New Deal don’t work anymore. The gaps between the social system we inhabit and the one we now need are becoming so wide that we can no longer paper over them. But even as the failures of the old system become more inescapable and more damaging, our national discourse remains stuck in a bygone age. The end is here, but we can’t quite take it in. In the old system, most blue-collar and white-collar workers held stable, lifetime jobs with defined benefit pensions, and a career civil service administered a growing state as living standards for all social classes steadily rose. Gaps between the classes remained fairly consistent in an industrial economy characterized by strong unions in stable, government-brokered arrangements with large corporations—what Galbraith and others referred to as the Iron Triangle. High school graduates were pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment in a job that provided a comfortable lower middle-class lifestyle; college graduates could expect a better paid and equally secure future. An increasing “social dividend”, meanwhile, accrued in various forms: longer vacations, more and cheaper state-supported education, earlier retirement, shorter work weeks, more social and literal mobility, and more diverse forms of affordable entertainment. Call all this, taken together, the blue model. In the heyday of the blue model, economists and social scientists assumed that from generation to generation Americans would live a life of incremental improvements. The details of life would keep getting better even as the broad outlines of society stayed the same. The advanced industrial democracies, of which the United States was the largest, wealthiest and strongest, had reached the apex of social achievement. It had, in other words, defined and was in the process of perfecting political and social “best practice.” America was what “developed” human society looked like and no more radical changes were in the offing. Amid the hubris that such conceptions encouraged, Professor (later Ambassador) Galbraith was moved to state, in 1952, that “most of the cheap and simple inventions have been made.”1 If only the United States and its allies could best the Soviet Union and its counter-model, then indeed—as a later writer would put it—History would end in the philosophical sense that only one set of universally acknowledged best practices would be left standing. Life isn’t this simple anymore. The blue social model is in the process of breaking down, and the chief question in American politics today is what should come next. One large group, mainly “blue state” self-labeled liberals who think the blue model is the only possible, or at least the best feasible, way to organize a modern society, wants to shore it up and defend it. This group sees the gradual breakup of the blue social model as an avoidable historical tragedy caused by specific and reversible policy errors. Supporters of the model point to the rising inequality and financial instability in contemporary American life as signs that we need to defend the blue system and enlarge it. Others, generally called conservatives and often hailing from the “red states”, think the model, whatever its past benefits or general desirability, is no longer sustainable and must give way to an earlier, more austere but also more economically efficient pre-“big government” model. Often, backers of this view see the New Deal state as a great wrong turn. Their goal is to repair the errors of the 1930s and return to the more restrictive constitutional limits on Federal power from an earlier time. But even as the red-blue division grows more entrenched and bitter, it is becoming less relevant. The blue model is breaking down so fast and so far that not even its supporters can ignore the disintegration and disaster it now presages. Liberal Democrats in states like Rhode Island and cities like Chicago are cutting pensions and benefits and laying off workers out of financial necessity rather than ideological zeal. The blue model can no longer pay its bills, and not even its friends can keep it alive. Our real choice, however, is not between blue or pre-blue. We can’t get back to the 1890s or 1920s any more than we can go back to the 1950s and 1960s. We may not yet be able to imagine what a post-blue future looks like, but that is what we will have to build. Until we remove the scales from our eyes and launch our discourse toward the future, our politics will remain sterile, and our economy will fail to provide the growth and higher living standards Americans continue to seek. That neither we nor the world can afford. Edited February 22, 2012 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good stuff. Finished the first article. Interesting take on the shades of liberalism and the need for a liberalism 5.0. Also interesting that there has been a cataclysmic event between each version of liberalism....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good stuff. Finished the first article. Interesting take on the shades of liberalism and the need for a liberalism 5.0. Also interesting that there has been a cataclysmic event between each version of liberalism....... it won't be long now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Thanks for posting. What a great thought-provoking read, especially the first one. However, I do find the differences highlighted between "blue state" and "red state" to be a little on the overly-generalized side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 it won't be long now... Apocalypse Now! Nah, I think we're OK for a while yet. I'm not convinced yet by the hypothesis that it's all over and we need to rethink society entirely. We'll see. You'd do us all a favor by continuing to post these blog articles as they appear. It would be cool to have a few big ideas discussions rather than the usual back and forth for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mead is an excellent writer. I haven't read him in a long while. Thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 This would be an excellent discussion point at the next Republican debate, and additionally, for the POTUS debates this fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 You'd do us all a favor by continuing to post these blog articles as they appear. oh I will. his blog is the best daily reading on the internets IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 oh I will. his blog is the best daily reading on the internets IMO. I do like his writing. He's thorough but very readable. I'm really interested to read his prescriptions or his thoughts on where we ought to be paying the most attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 part two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 part two Wanna try that again? No linky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wanna try that again? No linky. here you go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 here you go OK. Interesting. As are the comments under the post itself, or at least some of them. Mead's disclaimer that he doesn't have a blueprint but is merely opening a discussion is very convenient for him considering most of what he's said so far is straight out of the Tea Party manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 OK. Interesting. As are the comments under the post itself, or at least some of them. Mead's disclaimer that he doesn't have a blueprint but is merely opening a discussion is very convenient for him considering most of what he's said so far is straight out of the Tea Party manual. wait, I thought the tea party manual was racism, obama's a mooslim born in africa, and so on. but now you tell me the tea party manual is all this sensible stuff? hmm. to respond to part of one of the comments left: Your federalist comments are nice in theory but horrible in practice, as far as I can tell. Most states are backwaters of patronage, corruption, and incompetence that would put Walpole’s England to shame. This speaks to, among other things, the enduring presence of a ancient regime of sub-political tribalism that resists all effort of change and reform. No doubt people want to change this. But how will they try to do so and will they be able to succeed? that is true to some extent, but it is becoming less true in the information age. and if more true power were focused there, citizens would pay that much more attention. the states that run themselves well will prosper and the ones that run themselves badly will founder -- that gives a strong incentive at all levels to clean chit up; an incentive that largely is not there in this era of bailouts and federal funding. and in my mind, the best thing about devolving power to the states is you get a much better idea about what works and what doesn't. one state could implement a very blue health care model, another state could try more market-based reforms, and you could compare outcomes. other states could see what's good and bad about each model in light of that state's own ideological makeup and come up with its own policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 wait, I thought the tea party manual was racism, obama's a mooslim born in africa, and so on. but now you tell me the tea party manual is all this sensible stuff? hmm. to respond to part of one of the comments left: that is true to some extent, but it is becoming less true in the information age. and if more true power were focused there, citizens would pay that much more attention. the states that run themselves well will prosper and the ones that run themselves badly will founder -- that gives a strong incentive at all levels to clean chit up; an incentive that largely is not there in this era of bailouts and federal funding. and in my mind, the best thing about devolving power to the states is you get a much better idea about what works and what doesn't. one state could implement a very blue health care model, another state could try more market-based reforms, and you could compare outcomes. other states could see what's good and bad about each model in light of that state's own ideological makeup and come up with its own policy. Wouldn't a transfer of power from Federal to State merely precipitate the transfer of corruption too? It would be inconvenient for the bribers to have to bribe up to 50 bodies instead of one but still, it would be the net same effect. We already know that government at all levels is increasingly bought and paid for so I'm not sure whether this vision of purity at a more local level will be borne out in reality. I mean, look at Boss Daley's Chicago - that was very local and hardly a shining example of squeaky cleanliness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wouldn't a transfer of power from Federal to State merely precipitate the transfer of corruption too? It would be inconvenient for the bribers to have to bribe up to 50 bodies instead of one but still, it would be the net same effect. We already know that government at all levels is increasingly bought and paid for so I'm not sure whether this vision of purity at a more local level will be borne out in reality. I mean, look at Boss Daley's Chicago - that was very local and hardly a shining example of squeaky cleanliness. yah dont look at the corruption that has been going on in sconny..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wouldn't a transfer of power from Federal to State merely precipitate the transfer of corruption too? It would be inconvenient for the bribers to have to bribe up to 50 bodies instead of one but still, it would be the net same effect. We already know that government at all levels is increasingly bought and paid for so I'm not sure whether this vision of purity at a more local level will be borne out in reality. I mean, look at Boss Daley's Chicago - that was very local and hardly a shining example of squeaky cleanliness. IF state governments were given more responsibility and less of a federal backstop, again, that would provide a strong incentive for voters and leaders in each state to seek better government. good governance and bad governance would reveal themselves more clearly. that already happens to some extent at the state level, and you can trace it by observing how people have been "voting with their feet" in recent years. more federalism would strengthen that incentive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wouldn't a transfer of power from Federal to State merely precipitate the transfer of corruption too? It would be inconvenient for the bribers to have to bribe up to 50 bodies instead of one but still, it would be the net same effect. We already know that government at all levels is increasingly bought and paid for so I'm not sure whether this vision of purity at a more local level will be borne out in reality. I mean, look at Boss Daley's Chicago - that was very local and hardly a shining example of squeaky cleanliness. Yes, but the more local things are, the more accountable are the politicians to their constituents. As it stands right now, there's over 500 interests all over the country deciding what's best for my state. At the federal level, there is far less accountability, and thus the opportunity for corruption to run rampant. Of course more needs to be done than just localization to eliminate government corruption, but that's a different discussion alltogether.... An analogy I like to use about the success of small-government was when recently several counties around Atlanta voted to overturn the law that no alcohol could be sold on Sundays except for at places that served 50% food (which basically meant you either had to get a cab or risk a DUI to get a buzz on Sunday if you didn't overbuy on Saturday). Pretty much a BS law under the guise of religious morality, because business-wise it actually made sense that way, with retailers able to reduce operating costs by closing while you even overbuy on Saturday, in addition to the restaurants, cabs, and DUI busts that made more money. But that obviously didn't make it a good liberty-respecting law. But the people around here finally said, look, this is ridiculous, and it's not the place of government to say if I can buy a few beers to drink while I watch NFL at home on Sunday... However, if this had even gone to the State level, then the prevailing Bible-belt attitude that exists in the South might have quashed the vote on religious grounds... But that's fine if the prevailing attitude is different in other areas, we feel differently here in Atlanta, and that's why this issue was best left locally, where it's been able to be changed. Don't take that example too literally though, as it is meant to be an analogy. Point being that the people are best represented when the government is more local, than when it is national, and competing interests (in addition to corruption) force their policies on others who do not feel the same way. When it's localized, you always have a choice to move somewhere that better suits your lifestyle (or work to change the system where you live), but even those on the majority side can suffer when things are left to federal mandates that can rarely ever work as a one-size-fits-all solution like they claim to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Point being that the people are best represented when the government is more local, than when it is national, and competing interests (in addition to corruption) force their policies on others who do not feel the same way. Except that citizens of the United States of America are granted a lot of rights that their neighbors may not approve of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 that is true to some extent, but it is becoming less true in the information age. and if more true power were focused there, citizens would pay that much more attention. the states that run themselves well will prosper and the ones that run themselves badly will founder -- that gives a strong incentive at all levels to clean chit up; an incentive that largely is not there in this era of bailouts and federal funding. and in my mind, the best thing about devolving power to the states is you get a much better idea about what works and what doesn't. one state could implement a very blue health care model, another state could try more market-based reforms, and you could compare outcomes. other states could see what's good and bad about each model in light of that state's own ideological makeup and come up with its own policy. How is this any different than what is already in place? Are states really welfare queens at the mercy of the federal government? Counties? Cities? Sewer districts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't a transfer of power from Federal to State merely precipitate the transfer of corruption too? It would be inconvenient for the bribers to have to bribe up to 50 bodies instead of one but still, it would be the net same effect. We already know that government at all levels is increasingly bought and paid for so I'm not sure whether this vision of purity at a more local level will be borne out in reality. I mean, look at Boss Daley's Chicago - that was very local and hardly a shining example of squeaky cleanliness. No doubt some would argue corruption transfer but several factors seem to be driving change. 1) Problem solving closer to home makes sense on many levels as the populace is inherently more in tune due in some part to the real time information age. 2) States do not print money therefore control changes to a large degree centered on budgets. Today we have issues with both state and federal governments but the centralized system is under fire as debt will be over 20 trillion very soon so limiting this out of control system should gain momentum in coming years. 3) The diversity of the states themselves play a key role weighed against Federal Government influences. A recent example would be the Federal Government's pressure on Boeing. An entity wanted to build a plant in one state, right to work state, instead of a union state and the resulting overreach of the Federal system came into play. While unsuccessful, the control or lack thereof was evident. No doubt corruption is real in societies but my opinion is what we are seeing is not a corruption driven issue as much as a control driven issue. I think the transition goes back a ways and is not completely party specific. We saw Clinton as an example move welfare back to state control for the most part as one example. I also think the last two Administrations have for the most part doubled down on Federal Control even if though their philosophies were/are very different. Ultimately, both political parties will most likely transition towards a smaller Federal footprint because they will have to given the economic conditions surrounding Federal debt spending. Just my opinion, I get others may differ. Edited February 3, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Ultimately, both political parties will most likely transition towards a smaller Federal footprint because they will have to given the economic conditions surrounding Federal debt spending. yup. and not just federal spending. for example, check out this post from mead a couple days ago about dem pols and education reform. In many ways, education reform is on the frontlines of the national rollback of the blue model. While the red vs. blue divide remains on many other hot-button issues, the need for education reforms that the unions don’t like has slowly become part of the bipartisan consensus.... The gradual reshaping of the American educational system looks set to accelerate, with Democrats and Republicans promoting complementary if rival visions. And education is just the first step: the inefficiencies and high costs of the current educational model are found in other parts of state, local and federal bureaucracies as well. Change is coming. we'll really know something is afoot if a dem policitician ever comes forward with a serious plan for reforming entitlement spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 we'll really know something is afoot if a dem policitician ever comes forward with a serious plan for reforming entitlement spending. Don't act like this is a one party problem or in one segment of federal spending choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I wonder if this kind of thing will become more common as the American Dream in it's traditional form recedes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 bump for parts three and four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.