To say it differently, the change of living condition is the key to political attitudes of society (the being determines consciousness thing.) A decline in the living conditions tends to produce conservatiev attitudes, which in turn bribngs conservative parties to power. A rise of living conditions tend to produce more liberal attitudes, which in turn brings liberal or left wing parties to power. Of course, there are always exceptions, but these are general trends in most modern societies.
Wojtek
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:30 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wojtek S
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [WS:] I think you give the Reaganites too much credit, Charles. The US
> standards of living are in a slow but steady decline since the 1970s,
> and downwardly mobile societies tend to espouse a conservative
> political outlook. So controlling for that generally conservative
> trend, Reaganites do not seem to add much value of their own. They did
> not even cut government social spending, (see my calculations of
> inflation adjusted government social spending increases by
> administration at
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArE2VA3WdmNAdEc0eTRKS25qSUJJODZFbUd6MGpwT0E&hl=en
> )
> let alone Social Security.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Hey Wojtek.
>
> "Reaganites" is my term for the people Chuck is talking about (I
> guess Michael P in his book, too), not just the Reagan administration.
> It is those who carried out the successful counter-reform movement
> against the reforms of the 60's and 70's. It didn't just happen
> spontaneously. There was an organized , very, very well financed
> effort by the rightwing, and I call them "Reaganites."
>
> Clinton's admin was part of Reaganism, especially with the incursion
> of the Gingrich Congress. Reagan himself was actually only a puppet of
> the Reaganites. He just recited the lines they gave him. In a certain
> sense, Reagan was a minor player in Reaganism. The monopoly media of
> the period were Reaganites, as well as all the rightwing think-tanks.
> It included hundreds of governors, members of Congress, state
> legislators, judges, local officials. In Michigan, Governor John
> Engler was one of the most destructive Reaganites.
>
> It was not a "conspiracy", in the sense of "conspiracy theory" (
> although it included a lot of crime). It was the normal function and
> a revival of the US ruling class. It was a successful counter-reform (
> "deform") against the New Deal, Great Society/War on Poverty, Civil
> Rights and anti-Viet Nam War movements
>
> ^^^^^
>
> If I were to name the most successful Repug administration after WW2,
> it would be - ironically - Bush jr. In a sinister and repulsive way,
> to be sure, but very successful indeed, if we measure success by
> pursuing an agenda in spite of the built in inertia of the US
> political institution. Nobody else as able to pursue such a radical
> foreign policy agenda, undermine so many civil liberties at home, give
> so much public money to cronies and lead the Congress on a leash like
> a puppy throughout the whole process.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Both Bush administrations were part of Reaganism, as I am defining
> it. I agree that Bush jr admin was the farthest that Reaganism got (so
> far). That was because it was building on the destructive programs of
> the previous three Reaganite administrations. Bush jr. would not have
> gotten so far without the groundwork laid by the Reagan, Bush , sr.
> and Clinton admins.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> Wojtek
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>