Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

That's Reagan Republicanism for you: 'a system set up for the little guy to fail',

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 10:56 AM
Original message
That's Reagan Republicanism for you: 'a system set up for the little guy to fail',
as SoCalDem eloquently put it in another thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2875769&mesg_id=2876108 .

I wrote this reply and thought it stood on its own well enough for a re-post:

Largely out of the public eye, US multi-national corporations mastered the art of manipulating political systems in third-world countries, to bring about no-tax and union-free business environments. Then, with the election of Ronald Reagan, IMO they succeeded in bringing their plutocratic version of "democracy" home.

Most of the unfortunate changes in the economy you mention--the virtual end of defined-benefit pensions, wholesale corporate theft of pensions, offshoring (downsizing) of good jobs, wage growth stalled during 25 years of skyrocketing worker productivity, mortgages structured to maximize defaults and foreclosures--have come about since 1980. And you omitted the most ingenious Party-Of-The-Super-Rich triumphs: cutting the highest marginal income tax rates by TWO-THIRDS, and shifting that tax burden onto FICA payroll taxes. All in the name of "saving Social Security" in 1981, while setting up a "Trust Fund" with no real assets. Alan Greenspan feared a real-asset Trust Fund would lead inevitably to "socialism"--ie largescale government pension reinvestment in urban areas that instead were redlined, becoming ungovernable and unable to counteract the Republican vote-canceling machine.

Doubtless many corporations and Republican political coalitions were trying to achieve what GE apparently achieved by making Ronald Reagan their mouthpiece. A recent book by a REPUBLICAN author is a real eye-opener on how the highly successful "revolt of the haves" you describe came about:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/evansexcerpt.html :

"THE EDUCATION OF RONALD REAGAN -- Thomas W. Evans -- CHAPTER ONE

... during his years with General Electric, Reagan developed more than a set of prepared remarks. He eventually became an integral part of the company's elaborate political initiative, probably the most comprehensive in corporate America. The program extended from the executive suites to GE's employees on the plant floor to the voters in the towns and cities where the plants were located. Reagan later described his experience as "an apprenticeship for public life." Toward the end of his years with GE, when transcripts of still-evolving versions of "The Speech" were made available to the public for the first time, Reagan felt he had experienced a conversion. He wrote in An American Life, "I wasn't just making speeches„I was preaching a sermon."

Reagan was a self-confessed Democrat and New Dealer when he arrived at GE. After his eight-year "postgraduate course in political science," conducted largely under the aegis of GE's vice president and labor strategist, Lemuel Boulware, Ronald Reagan came to expound on the need to reduce taxes and limit government. He described international communism, as Boulware and GE president Ralph Cordiner did, as "evil." He observed Boulware, who was regarded by many in corporate America as the most successful labor negotiator of all time, and Reagan himself became a knowledgeable negotiator during this period, equally at ease with corporate executives and blue-collar workers. His education stretched well beyond the bargaining table. ...

Lemuel Boulware believed that it was not enough to win over company employees on narrow labor issues. They must not only accept the offer but pass on GE's essentially conservative message to others, helping the company to win voters at the grass roots who would elect officials and pass legislation establishing a better business climate. In short, they would become "communicators" and "mass communicators," (Boulware's words) as they went through the company's extensive education program. In time, the program would also help to produce a "great communicator." And yet, for all the recent interest in the Reagan presidency, little has been written about how his change from liberal to conservative, from actor to politician, came about. A veil of secrecy has been drawn over this crucial period of Ronald Reagan's education. Part of the reason for this was Cordiner and Boulware's concern that GE's political efforts might come under attack as violating federal and state statutes that made partisan corporate political activity a crime. They also felt that GE's unions might find Boulware's aggressive negotiating posture„dubbed Boulwarism and still referred to as such in labor law texts„the basis for an unfair-labor-practice charge.

...several recent events bring new light to this study of Ronald Reagan's "education": the discovery of a collection of hitherto unpublished papers and a repository of GE corporate documents last published during the 1950s and 1960s; interviews with GE personnel who had been silent until now; and a reexamination of other publications and oral histories that now have a more meaningful context. Many observers consider the changes in Ronald Reagan during his GE years to be profound. ... To truly understand Ronald Reagan during and after the GE years, it is important to know what he was like when he came to the company. It is also important to know what the company was like„as later chapters will make clear„at the time when Reagan was an employee...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. See the movie The Corporation...globalization via corps etc
and the WalMarting of the US is where we're at today. Same ideology same 'drown govt in a bathtub' routine. Leads to a 'don't care about your brother' attitude and destruction of New Deal social benefits and safeguards. So here we are today, what do we do about it ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Great movie! Not only have I seen it, I burned it to DVD, because I knew it would
be a long time between airings, even on IFC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R_M Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Reagan was also a woman hater too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Have any links? Remember how he kicked off his Southern campaign with
Edited on Mon Jun-11-07 02:38 PM by ProgressiveEconomist
an August 1980 speech favoring "States Rights"? And the location was near the earthen dam in Mississippi where the mutilated bodies of 3 civil rights workers had been hidden years before? He was no friend of minority rights, either. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5158315 for a summary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's Reagan Democratism , as well...
It's a perfect description of the DLC: 'a system set up for the little guy to fail'.

'Nuff said.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I largely disagree. Sure, many corporate Dems will play ball with deep-pocket
corporations in finance, insurance, and pharma. Those corporations offer tremendous "quid" for fairly abstract "quo". But, for naked reverse-Robin-Hood moves like allowing Gordon Gekkos* to steal pensions, even with union membership at historic lows, IMO the corporate low-lifes have to rely mainly on Republicans.

And it's "Reagan Democrats" own fault that they let their hero break PATCO and other unions, and still voted overwhelmingly to re-elect him.

(Remember the movie "Wall Street"? Most of the Michael Douglas character's Bluestar Airlines deal profits would have come from a quick raid on the company's pension plan assets.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. The first step in any decline is to kill off innovation.
And innovation doesn't come from the top-down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I don't understand this comment. Could you elaborate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Civilizations have life-cycles too, and the first step in a civilization's decline is when the
established power structure solidifies it's power. By solidifying their power, ie centralizing the economic power around themselves by controlling it (whether in capitalist monopolies or centrally planned economies or whatever, every society in decline does this first, it actually signifies that this is the declining stage of their life-cycle) they in effect kill off economic power in anything they don't control. Since innovation is an effective source of economic power innovation is one of the first things to get either bought up and sequestered or killed outright. Established power isn't interest in innovation since they don't want to change the balance of the system they have control over.
At least that is what I remember from an anthropology course on civilizations and technology, taken almost 30 years ago.
Once a society is in decline satellite societies around it (where the declining one hasn't established economic control and suppressed innovation) begin to flower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. But this leaves the question what of a stagnant society who's reach is global?
What if there is no longer an external or satellite society that is not under control of the controlling system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I guess we'll find out.
Globalization run by a rigid hierarchy which kills innovation to protect its status quo could be an indicator of a decline in a species' life-cycle. We could look at the life-cycles of isolated civilizations in the past maybe to get an idea of what to expect. I am sure someone has written about it somewhere. My guess: a feudal dark age until an implosion, then either a slow recovery or a slow extinction if the resources (including intellectual) had run out.
Do Over or Game Over, either way it would be much smarter to avoid this path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. In areas where that society called home, I believe the answer is blight.
If the economy falls under the control of a few people and government programs that reinvest in the people at large like public education and health care and other programs are raided or destroyed, an underclass of poor will grow.

Eventually, you end up like a Latin American country where the majority of people are of the poor, and a minority call themselves middle class, and the elites reign over all the misery below. They are perfectly happy allowing money to circulate in the economy...as long as the economy only includes themselves and not the great masses of poor people.

When Rome fell, it fell over several centuries, but we can also note that through those several centuries, poverty and the gap between rich and poor became a bigger problem. Politicians were entering government not to help people and provide opportunities for others but to simply enrich themselves and close personal friends, at the expense of the Republic. It got so bad people left the cities and resorted to subsistence farming to survive. Commerce and progress and innovation ended. The elites shut themselves up in their huge estates, and these estates would evolve into what we know as feudal manors with serfs working the field.

We call ourselves a Republic, too. I believe when an economy becomes so stagnated and ruined, it should only be properly called neo-feudalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Feudalism is indeed the end product and we are there already
CEOs are the new lords and masters of the land. And Corporations control of government is only increasing. Add to this the multinational aspect of their nature and we have a beast we have let loose upon the world with no real way to bring it back under control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Now there's a whole subthread I don't understand, but now I think I know why I don't
My mindset apparently is different from glitch's and az's. For me, the long term is 8 years or so, and there's no use thinking about issues with little pragmatic content. "Kitchen table issues" -- keeping the family clothed, housed and fed, getting kids good educations, and other everyday concerns -- shape my perspective. But please continue to talk way over my head in this subthread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. KICK -- for the WestCoast night shift
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC