The End of Reagan-Thatcherism in Economics, Culture and Politics?

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
I don’t believe the 1979 UK Labour Party or Jimmy Carter would be electable today. Thatcher probably wouldn’t but Reagan would win.
Reagan would never make it as Governor of California today, so he would have to move to Texas. And Texas is slowly turning Blue .... the circumstances of 1980 are not there today, but maybe a Reagan-type could win. The most Reaganesque candidate today is Joe Biden (in character, if not in policies).
 
Last edited:


owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
Duh! Clinton set out to "change Welfare as we know it". His own words.

He never set out to demolish it, as Trump and this generation of Conservatives want to. At least with the Third Way, Welfare, Medicare & Medicaid were secure.
Hillary Clinton ran with a program to the left of her husband, and Joe Biden is running to the left of Hillary Clinton. The Thrid Way is dead (that is an echo, because I said it before) - part of the death of Reagan -Thatcherism.

Blair has a good record on solical justice. But Blair's [and Gordon Brown's] successor (David Cameron) took an axe to the British welfare system, and clearly wanted to privatise the NHS, though they deny that now. But US welfare programs are secure no longer.
 
Last edited:

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,838
I cannot recall Antifa doing anything worse than spoiling Tucker Carlson's dinner. Enlighten us.

Compared to the series of murders and foiled plots of the Hard/ Radical Right, Antifa is small potatoes.



Well, there's the heavy-duty nightly riots in Portland where antifa have been trying to burn down government buildings now going on over a month. Quite a few police injured. And I recall at least two people killed in the Seattle CHOP Autonomous zone. Not to mention the massive damage and deaths caused in the initial riots in many cities.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
Why not? they elected Arnie a few years ago.
As a Liberal Republican, in 2003. Some of the things he did, like supporting climate action, were big Liberal causes, but anathema to Republicans. He has always been pro-choice and for gay marriage. His majorities he owed to Liberal, not Conservative, support and name recognition.

Schwatzenegger was a John Kasich supporter in 2016, and announced his would not vote for Trump. Kasich is supporting Joe Biden this year, so I reckon Schwatzenegger will also. Arnie is at least a Republican In Name Only.

There are a few signs that Moderates Republicans are fleeing the party. What Reagan would make of the new political alignments is an unknown quantity.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
Shouldn't the OP really be referring to "Reagan-Thatcher-Clinton-Blairism"?
The Third Way is for another thread. It was a response to Reagan-Thatcherism from the Moderate-Conservative Left, and failed.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
I wonder was Reaganism-Thatcherism even a separate thing, other than the General Electric corporate bonanza from the post war years and the 'white heat of technology' extended into the future by way of an apparently limitless credit card.

Perhaps the Reagan-Thatcher hyperdrive approach to national debt in the pursuit of trickledown economics could be more accurately described as an attempt to recreate the momentum of the 1950s but on credit rather than genuine fiscal space able to accomodate it all without creative accounting. That creative accounting, off-balance sheet accounting, banks treating the money they've lent out no matter how iffy in terms of repayment health can be treated as an asset rather than a part-liability in the balance sheet...

There was a lot of 'hide the consequence' accounting from the Reagan and Thatcher years when accountants suddenly stopped being recorders and joined the ranks of the creative industry and that hasn't changed since the 1980s.

In the 1950s at least the balance sheet had to relate back to actual stock in the logistics system.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
2,017
But Blair's successor took an axe to the British welfare system, and clearly wanted to privatise the NHS, though they deny that now.
Gordon Brown?
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
I wonder was Reaganism-Thatcherism even a separate thing, other than the General Electric corporate bonanza from the post war years and the 'white heat of technology' extended into the future by way of an apparently limitless credit card.

Perhaps the Reagan-Thatcher hyperdrive approach to national debt in the pursuit of trickledown economics could be more accurately described as an attempt to recreate the momentum of the 1950s but on credit rather than genuine fiscal space able to accomodate it all without creative accounting. That creative accounting, off-balance sheet accounting, banks treating the money they've lent out no matter how iffy in terms of repayment health can be treated as an asset rather than a part-liability in the balance sheet...

There was a lot of 'hide the consequence' accounting from the Reagan and Thatcher years when accountants suddenly stopped being recorders and joined the ranks of the creative industry and that hasn't changed since the 1980s.

In the 1950s at least the balance sheet had to relate back to actual stock in the logistics system.
Well, in 1980 three "moments" came together ...
  • The American backlash against Civil Rights. 1964 was the last year a Democratic candidate got a majority of the white vote. Meanwhile, first through Nixon, then Reagan, it was the stance of Barry Goldwater (defeated by LBJ in 1964) that took over the Republican Party.
  • The post-Vietnam hangover that the "West", and particularly the US, was in decline, and that the USSR was leading in weapons technology and aggression. In 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan, and the US suffered the humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis.
  • Related, but distinct from the previous, was the perception of economic decline, characterised by the "stagflation" (high unemployment, high inflation) of the era.
The "Reagan Revolution" was made up of those segments, dominated by Conservative thinking on all three.

You are right in saying the Reaganites were dishonest in their approach to deficits - Reagan ran up the biggest deficit of any President up to that time, but there had been no major real change in Government handling of Social Security and Medicare, even under George H W Bush, though poverty programmes to help "welfare queens" were undermined.

It was in the 1990s and 2000s that the real damage was done, imho. Clinton has to take part of the blame for deregulating banks, in keeping with the zeitgeist that capital should be liberated from all restraints. But he has bipartisan support for that. His election provoked an angry reaction from the Republicans, personified by Newt Gingrich, who commenced the assault on Social Security. George W Bush set out to privatise Social Welfare, as pensions had been, but failed in that.

Bill Clinton was only the second President in the 20th Century (and the 7th in History) to achieve a budget surplus - the other was Herbert Hoover.

Meanwhile, Republican Presidents (including this one) continued to run up massive deficits, all the time pretending to be fiscally parsimonious. There is a stink of hypocrisy about it.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
Stephanie Kelton is an Economist who has a big influence on the Democratic Party at the moment - she was for a few years on Bernie Sanders' Senate staff as an economic adviser.

Her radical and counter-intuitive re-think of budgets, deficits and surplus overturns traditional theory, and you should take a look.



I am just grappling with this myself - would be interested in other opinions.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
30,318
Well, large capitalists have been donating generously to black lives matter, it seems. The boss of Amazon is said to be tax-averse but he had no problem declaring his support for BLM. One cannot imagine big capital donating to Alt-Right groups.

I don't see the relationship there.

You just said why do they support BLM yet not Alt-Right organisations as if the two are comparable.
They don't support Alt-Right groups because they are a crowd of hateful cnùts who want a return to a 1950s America where women and negros knew their place.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,520
Well, there's the heavy-duty nightly riots in Portland where antifa have been trying to burn down government buildings now going on over a month. Quite a few police injured. And I recall at least two people killed in the Seattle CHOP Autonomous zone. Not to mention the massive damage and deaths caused in the initial riots in many cities.
Not a shred of evidence for this farrago of invention.

Trump's thugs are being pulled out of Portland and replaced by local cops. Not exactly the Gaza Strip is it?
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
2,017
No, I forgot about Gordon Brown :mad:, I meant the Cameron Austerity regime from 2010 on.
Cameron's "Big Society" spiel is an interesting footnote to Thatcherism. He claimed to want a return to Burkean conservatism where 'little platoons' of local social entrepreneurs and volunteers would augment (or replace) public service provision. Subsidiarity in action, as opposed to the big finance, big privatisation and reduction in local council power* under Thatcher.

Of course it failed, suffocated by the great recession and (rightly) derided as cost-cutting and privatisation by other means.


* One of the key features of Thatcherism (described by John Grey in False Dawn) was that for all the talk of scaling back government, the radical economic and social change she initiated was only possible with more centralised government with greater powers and funding, particularly relating to security.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,554
One of the big pluses of reagan and thatcher was the way they handled gorbachev, without crowing.

And then gorby ended the supply of semtex, which led on to Good Friday. A lot of our FDI economy followed from that.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,838
I don't see the relationship there.

You just said why do they support BLM yet not Alt-Right organisations as if the two are comparable.
They don't support Alt-Right groups because they are a crowd of hateful cnùts who want a return to a 1950s America where women and negros knew their place.
What seems to be happening is a de facto alliance between tax-averse big capitalists and woke lefties. Don't you think that is a somewhat ironic development?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,425
Twitter
No
What is not even a conspiracy theory is that there are close links between US corporates, tech sector and oil companies in particular, who have seats on local police foundation boards, a way of getting private funding donated to police departments across the US. It is an income stream for police departments separate to their publicly granted budget.

It also seems to have been in many cases the funding stream which appears to have paid for much of the military equipment US police departments have been buying in recent years.

What the corporate board-rooms get out of it of course is a position of influence via their funding stream and a seat at the table on civil matters within the emergency services environment. What influence they would have had years back via the taxes they'd have paid to the city at one time and payroll impact has now been replaced, as the corporations don't really pay taxes any more, with the impact of the corporation as a 'philanthropic' funder of the police department. Which means they wield influence because they can now choose whether to be philanthropic to the current police department or not. This immediately is a conflict of interest situation for senior police authorities.

Those military APCs, paramilitary uniforms and general military attributes that police forces have started to acquire with this corporate funding is a policy that needs to be halted.

'De-funding' police departments refers to the corporate influence system with police forces as it currently stands.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,838
Not a shred of evidence for this farrago of invention.

Trump's thugs are being pulled out of Portland and replaced by local cops. Not exactly the Gaza Strip is it?
Not a shred of evidence, other than 55 police officers injured in one night.

 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom