Gordon Fitch:
> -"The revolt against the poor."
Nathan Newman:
> My point is that Thatcherism actually made structural changes in the public
> sector of Britain through privatization and union-busting in government-run
> facilities. Despite PATCO and despite cuts in many programs (often restored
> when the Dems retook Congress in 1986 and after), public sector unionism has
> actually grown since Reagan and the basic structure of the welfare state is
> largely intact. Yes, TANF is no longer an entitlement at the federal level -
> although some states come close to implementing it that way still -- but food
> stamps, Medicaid, and a host of other programs still exist. The largest
> assault of Reaganism was on housing programs for the poor and the continued
> lack of funding for affordable housing is probably the longest-lasting legacy
> of Reaganism.
I was thinking of the public legitimation and acknowledgement that it was all right to despise and abuse or ignore the poor. Certainly there were many people who felt that way before 1980, but the preponderance of public opinion was, I think, still pro-Welfare, at least when Welfare helped White people. In this regard, I believe that Reagan's election, first term, and reelection (confirming what he had done) crossed a Great Divide in American politics and that Reagan should be regarded as a kind of prophet or messiah. Consider that before Reagan, threatening Social Security was absolutely unthinkable; now, it's just daily life.
Reagan also began the important work of relegitimating militarism and imperialism, without much success in his own reign; but his work bore much fruit for his successors, and today the occasional invasion and destruction of foreign countries has once again become an unremarkable event.
I suppose one might say that Reagan and Reagan Revolution were not a cause, but an effect (of the leading edge of the Boomer wave hitting middle age, middle management, middle income, and the polls).
-- Gordon