Zombie Reaganism -- and the truly sad thing is

[abumbyanyothername]

That Reaganism is alive and kicking and being supported like mad here on DU.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1

The debate over the “public option” in health care has been dismaying in many ways. Perhaps the most depressing aspect for progressives, however, has been the extent to which opponents of greater choice in health care have gained traction — in Congress, if not with the broader public — simply by repeating, over and over again, that the public option would be, horrors, a government program.

<snip>

Moreover, most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years. President George W. Bush, who had the distinction of being the first Reaganite president to also have a fully Republican Congress, also had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains.

<snip>

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937. “We know now that it is bad economics.” And last year we learned that lesson all over again.

Or did we? The astonishing thing about the current political scene is the extent to which nothing has changed.

<snip>

more at link

And then you have teary-eyed DUers calling free market capitalism the most moral institution ever created by mankind. Kind of like when a watery-eyed Reagan called murders Freedom Fighters.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Yeah, and we've still got DUers whining about

"welfare queens" too.

So much for change we can believe in. . . . .



TG

[Maru Kitteh]

4. It was a powerful myth. A stroke of genius really. Create a boogyman and make it as "other" as

possible. Reagan (or his PR firm) was operating at a time not far at all removed from the time when there was actual public debate about whether or not a woman could be trusted with birth control without the permission of her husband or her parents.

If you wanted to create the most horrible demon imaginable - just make it a female, make it unmarried, make it sexually active, make it a thief, and make it black.

[omega minimo]

6. and give it a Cadillac

[depakid]

20. Now, imagine if the hapless Dems had the good sense to apply the truth to the tactic

Seems to me that the health insurers making billions off denying care would have made very impressive boogeymen. Better even, than Wallstreet fat cats and abusive credit card companies.

Too bad they missed that boat yet again.

[guitar man]

24. but there ARE welfare queens

People that are so irresponsible they can't manage money and need the government to help them out....right here:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/

[HowHasItComeToThis]

11. RAYGUN WAS THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA

[andym]

2. Even your post has vestiges of the Reagan influence

After Reagan, "liberal" was tagged with a whole set of negative connotations.
Since then, the word "progressive," a leftover from the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Robert La Follette of Wisconson, has been used to substitute for "liberal" by many on the left.


"Liberal" needs to be rehabilitated.

[abumbyanyothername]

3. The use of progressive

is a quote from Krugman.

FWIW.

[andym]

10. Just shows how deep the problem is. n/t

[Autonomy]

5. I'm not sure who on DU is against the public option

though I support a free market in the sense of freedom to buy and sell. What I do know is that these reaganites will never see nor admit any flaws, even the most minor, in their worldview. It is their religion, a religion of materialism, the cult of Mammon.

[abumbyanyothername]

8. Freedom to sell what?

The subprime home-equity loan backed securities that I used to help create?

Underage sex slaves?

Pot?

[Autonomy]

9. What one can legally own

[abumbyanyothername]

12. Well that's not freedom at all.

Legally own is per se a circumscription on the right to sell (and own).

I am all for it by the way. But it's not freedom.

[Autonomy]

22. Legally selling what you own is a freedom

if only for the reason that it can be restricted. Given said freedom, the interesting question becomes, what can/does one legally own? If the model 'a free market' is based on a tautology of positive property rights, then freedom of ownership would be based on, but not limited to, 'owning what one creates'. Sale of 'what one creates' transfers that inherent right of ownership to the buyer.

The above is a simplificaton, and not an exhaustive definition. For example, if you are a paid employee, 'what you create' while on the clock would be analogous to 'what one sells' in 'a free market', and the paycheck is analogous to the buying, completing the mutual aspect of transaction. The 'sale' is an implicit condition of the concept of employment.

Please state your own (pun intended) position if you want (us) to continue.

[omega minimo]

7. A lot of folks went along with Reaganism and voted for Reagan or R-Lite DINO's and their policies.

to this day.

[abumbyanyothername]

13. A photo

[troubledamerican]

14. FDR? Ancient history. Totally different. Nothing to see, let's move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

Reverse Gramm-Leach-Bliley? But CLINTON signed it. Repeal it? Whoah. Wait a minute. That's RADICAL.

[paulsby]

15. i see no inconsistency

ill state it straight out. im for the public option. and i am a fierce proponent of capitalism. it's the best economic system ever invented. doesn't therefore follow that a safety net is not a good thing, such as universal healthcare.

[abumbyanyothername]

16. To a fierce proponent of capitalism?

Are you in favor of environmental regulation of companies?

Are you in favor of Employee Free Choice Act (card check)?

Are you in favor of higher taxes on higher income brackets? Going back at least to where they were during Reagan, perhaps even further.

Are you in favor of a safety net that makes private sector work entirely optional?

Are you in favor of Medicare? Social security?

Because a yes to any of these would imply that perhaps government can manage some things better than the private market.

[paulsby]

17. answers

yes

no opinion either way

i prefer flat national sales tax, not income tax, with exceptions for staples like unprepared food, etc. but given an income tax, yes i support graduating rates. i do not support high capital gains tax like they used to be, though. my state is a liberal state and it also does not have an income tax, fwiw. it has a high sales tax.

not sure what you mean by this

medicare? yes. social security ? yes.

it isn't a matter of what govt. can manage better or not. it's a matter of having a safety net. in general, and i say this AS a govt. employee imo and ime govt manages less efficiently than private sector. it does not therefore follow that some things are naturally the purview of govt.

but capitalism is the best economic system ever invented. is there a better system? if there is , i am not aware of it.

and none of your examples (well at least the ones i grok the meaning of) are inconsistent with capitalism.

[abumbyanyothername]

18. Capitalism has ridden the back of cheap energy

and has resulted in bloated, drastically unsustainable, and in many cases (food, medicine, transportation, among others) positively harmful social choices. In a not for profit food system we would be better nourished, in a not for profit health care system we would be better treated, in a not for profit transportation sector, we would go further, faster, with less traffic and using less energy.

King Gillette is a classic example of capitalism. He set out to make a product that people would have to buy over and over again. He had to hire the best metallurgists to make a blade that would wear out quickly, but not too quickly. In fact, a competitor made a blade that would last at least three years, but went out of business, due to lack of sales. Because of the need for profit, above all, a better (less resource consuming) solution (to the problem of whiskers) was eliminated and the more resource consuming solution became the market.

Such distortions are rampant in our market economy and we could definitely have the same or a better standard of living across the board on probably less than 60% of the inputs in an economy that did not run on individual greed aimed at accumulating the most individual wealth possible.

[paulsby]

19. rubbish

"In a not for profit food system we would be better nourished"

this is the kind of unsupported rubbish that makes my eyes glaze over and realize you are just an ideologue.

do you have ANY idea how much more efficient our agricultural technology is NOW vs. 100 years ago? our distribution costs, etc. we spend less man hours, use less acreage, etc. per unit of food produced than before. why? because capitalism incentivized efficiency and helped spur INVENTIONS that make industry more efficient.

a not for profit system has little incentive for innovation, because... wait for it... there is no profit incentive. do you really want to compare our efficiency at food production vs. countries where the means of production were state owned, back in the cold war era? really?

with today;s innovations, it is entirely possible (if you are not a moron) to be phenomenally well nourished, with cheap, healthy, safe, diverse food choices, at a lower %age of disposable income than at any time in history. it is also entirely possible to spend your money on overprocessed crap. capitalism is about choice.

is capitalism perfect? of course not. but the incentives in the capitalist system ensure, that, in the long run, efficiencies increase, innovation is inspired, choice is expanded, etc.

do you really want to compare consumer food choices NOW in the US vs. 100 yrs ago? even 30 yrs ago? i have access locally to MUCH more diverse food choices than my parents ever had, farmers markets, big box stores (costco etc. with phenomenal prices), specialty immigrant markets, etc.

you couldn't barely FIND stuff like kefir, star anise, pork belly, etc. back then. and for beers, we had a few crappy brands, etc.

when there is demand, capitalism is better capable than any other system to respond. that's because it's bottom up, NOT top down, and one innovator, whether he be a bill gates or whatnot can jump in.

[mistertrickster]

23. I agree . . . there's no contradiction that capitalism is a good system

(what's better overall?), but not essentially good in all its various practices, which is why we need gov't oversight.

Private roads are not a good idea. Private cars have worked pretty well though . . .

[Autonomy]

21. self delete

dupe