Toward a Republican Ascendancy, by John Engelman

[JohnEngelman]

In the United States during the late 1960's and early 1970's there was more energy on the left. Nevertheless, the country was moving to the right. Michael Harrington's Toward a Democratic Left: A Radical Program for a New Majority expresses that energy. Unfortunately, Harrington revealed little understanding of why the United States was moving to the right. He also failed to realize that while most on the left were motivated by temporary issues, the concerns of those on the right were durable.

I wanted to agree with this book. During the War in Vietnam when I was in college Harrington was one of my intellectual mentors. I was never attracted to the new left, but to the old, socialist labor left of Norman Thomas and Walter Reuther. Harrington was solidly in that tradition. Back then I read the book as uncritically as though it was a mathematics textbook.

This time I noticed that there was little in the book that would attract "a new majority." Harrington did not understand why most middle class whites lacked his concerns. In 1968 the economy had been growing since the inauguration of President Roosevelt in 1933. The unemployment rate was 3.6 percent. The growth was broadly based. One did not need a genius level IQ and a fancy college degree to benefit.

In 1968 most whites thought capitalism was working fine. They thought liberalism was not working. The civil rights legislation, and the war on poverty - inspired by Harrington's earlier book The Other America - had been followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and an ongoing crime wave.

Harrington wanted much more money to be spent on welfare and foreign aid. Welfare and foreign aid were and remain the two most unpopular items in the federal budget. Still, Harrington called his program "democratic."

The left was motivated by the War in Vietnam, and more specifically the draft. As one who was active in the anti war movement I can say that it was difficult to get many people to go to a peace demonstration after President Nixon ended conscription in 1973.

The election of Nixon was a major defeat for the American left. It meant that the New Deal Coalition that had dominated the United States since the Roosevelt administration was collapsing. It also meant there would be six more years of the War in Vietnam. When Harrington presented a leftist wish list he should have been thinking about what went wrong, and why.

The black ghetto riots and the rise in crime turned the United States into a Republican country. Harrington briefly mentioned the riots and sees them as vindication for his beliefs. He hardly mentioned the candidacy of George Wallace. Nevertheless, that candidacy, rather than the "new politics" of Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, pointed the way to the future.

In 2022 the democratic left has more possibilities than in 1968. A recent Gallup Poll indicates that socialism is more popular than capitalism among those under 30 years old. While the rich get richer the standard of living for most Americans declines.

A successful movement toward a democratic left is more possible now than in 1968. It will require effective leadership and appealing messages. Toward a Democratic Left can inform leaders of the movement. Nevertheless, they will need to read it more critically than I did as an undergraduate.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Before I read this thread I have to Google what ascendancy means.

Nah, that's going to take to much time right now. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm sure it's a good thread though, but just not for me.

ascendancy​

noun

as·cen·dan·cy | \ ə-ˈsen-dən(t)-sē \
variants: or less commonly ascendency

Definition of ascendancy​

: governing or controlling influence : DOMINATION

Synonyms for ascendancy​

• ascendance
• (also ascendence),
• dominance,
• domination,
• dominion,
• hegemony,
• imperium,
• predominance,
• predominancy,
• preeminence,
• reign,
• sovereignty
• (also sovranty),
• supremacy
• 
  
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascendency

 

[Chobham]

You have made some fairly glaring historical mistakes.

The first being that the "New Deal" policies of FDR led to prosperity, they didn't. Here is a quote from Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Sec. of the Treasury.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!”
― Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

You may also refer to Milton Friedman's Nobel winning thesis regarding how the "New Deal" policies actually exasperated any attempts at recovery from the depression.

It was WWII that pulled the US out of the malaise that the "New Deal" brought with it. And it was the Capitalists that produces the armaments (employment) that allowed us to win a two front war in a mere 4 years.

In 1952 Eisenhower was courted by both parties, Eisenhower himself being mostly apolitical. His decision to run as a republican was primarily motivated by the fact that the democrats wanted to return to the policies of the "New Deal" writ large. Eisenhower was appalled by those notions.

Centralized planning and micro-management of the economy, any economy, don't work. They have never worked. Yet every 40 years or so we are back in a battle with those that think that they will............this time.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You have made some fairly glaring historical mistakes.

The first being that the "New Deal" policies of FDR led to prosperity, they didn't. Here is a quote from Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Sec. of the Treasury.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!”
― Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, when Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6%. Eight years later it had declined to 14.6%. In other words Henry Morgenthau was mistaken.

https://www.infoplease.com/business/labor/united-states-unemployment-rate

 

[JohnEngelman]

You may also refer to Milton Friedman's Nobel winning thesis regarding how the "New Deal" policies actually exasperated any attempts at recovery from the depression.

There was nothing new about Milton Friedman's Nobel winning thesis. Republicans were saying it during the Roosevelt Administration. Because most Americans knew that their lives were improving, Roosevelt was re elected three times.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It was WWII that pulled the US out of the malaise that the "New Deal" brought with it. And it was the Capitalists that produces the armaments (employment) that allowed us to win a two front war in a mere 4 years.

I am glad that the United States entered the Second World War. Nevertheless, military spending and employment is government spending and employment. People can't eat bullets. They can't live in tanks. If the money spent on the military had been spent instead domestically, which is what Roosevelt would have liked to do, the United States would have recovered from the Great Depression earlier.

This is what President Eisenhower said about the difference between military spending and domestic spending in his "Cross of Iron" speech, delivered 16 April 1953, at the Statler Hotel, Washington, D.C.:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

"This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercrossofiron.htm

 

[JohnEngelman]

In 1952 Eisenhower was courted by both parties, Eisenhower himself being mostly apolitical. His decision to run as a republican was primarily motivated by the fact that the democrats wanted to return to the policies of the "New Deal" writ large. Eisenhower was appalled by those notions.

During the Republican presidential primary of 1952 Robert A. Taft ran against the New Deal Reforms. Dwight Eisenhower accepted those reforms because he knew they were overwhelmingly popular with the voters.

In November 8, 1954 President Eisenhower wrote a letter to his brother, Edgar Eisenhower, in which he said:

"But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

"To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true."

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/

 

[Chobham]

Good example there. What is he saying? Firstly "moderation", radical changes are to be avoided. Eisenhower did not eliminate that which already existed, he did, however, prevent even broader sweeping programs (such as Universal Healthcare) from being implemented.

The program examples he lists are still with us today, some in modified form, some expanded. But his statement is nothing more than an acknowledgement of political reality. Programs can be altered, sometimes to the point where they'll ultimately collapse, but the politician that immediately terminates them is probably committing political suicide.

The last sentence is a 'tell' though. The phrase "in some instances" is the operative phrase. What is left unsaid is those "other instances."

 

[JohnEngelman]

Good example there. What is he saying? Firstly "moderation", radical changes are to be avoided. Eisenhower did not eliminate that which already existed, he did, however, prevent even broader sweeping programs (such as Universal Healthcare) from being implemented.

The program examples he lists are still with us today, some in modified form, some expanded. But his statement is nothing more than an acknowledgement of political reality. Programs can be altered, sometimes to the point where they'll ultimately collapse, but the politician that immediately terminates them is probably committing political suicide.

The last sentence is a 'tell' though. The phrase "in some instances" is the operative phrase. What is left unsaid is those "other instances."

President Eisenhower was a true conservative in the Burkean tradition. Barry Goldwater was a reactionary, who wanted to reverse as many of the reforms of the New Deal as possible. He lost the 1964 presidential election in a landslide, as a result.

Since Goldwater Republicans have learned that they can win elections by running against "big government, high taxes," but that they will lose elections if they get specific about which domestic spending programs they want to cut. With the possible exceptions of anti poverty programs and foreign aid every item in the domestic budget has a powerful political constituency to protect it. The largest and most expensive programs are the most popular. Most Americans want the government to help them get through life. The government grew to its present size in response to popular demand.

 

[Chobham]

"New Deal" reforms was just one of many reasons Goldwater lost in '64. The democrats "Field of Daisy's" add scared the shit out of people. *chuckle* And then LBJ went ahead and escalated in Vietnam just as was accusing Goldwater of doing during the campaign. The democrats tried to revive the scepter of nuclear war to use against Reagan but folks were burned out on that message by then.

Isn't it funny how the biggest 'constituents' of those programs happen to be 'K' Street lobbyists employed by concerns that provide the goods/services that those benefits buy?

I remember the political run up for the food stamp program. It was being sold because there were white people in Appalachia starving to death. The reality was they were probably on a healthier diet than the rest of the nation. But they damn sure looked emaciated in those grainy black and white photo's that were being shopped around DC.