I think that the key factor is institutions that either facilitate or impede certain political factions. In the US, this was in a large part a grave strategic mistake of the labor movement not to build political institutions and parties (as the European labor movement did) but instead rely on the existing ones (not just Democrats, but also capitalist institutions from insurance schemes to direct negotiations with capitalists) which made it very difficult for liberal and left leaning parties to solidify political influence as the right did.
But such institution building must take place in favorable economic climate, when economy is expanding rather than shrinking, which in the US was before the 1960s. After that, a steady economic decline of the working and later middle class made it even more difficult.
Wojtek
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] I do not disagree with your broad concept of "reaganism" or your
> claim that they controlled public policy and discourse (even uder
> Clinton administration.) My point was slightly different, namely that
> their rise to power was possible mainly because society as whole moved
> to to the right as a result of declining standards of living. Had
> those standards of living been rising, I think society as a whole
> would become more liberal, and reaganism as we know it woul dnot have
> happened.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ^^^^
> CB: OK, but I guess I'd have to say that's a bit vulgarly materialist
> with no offense intended. I don't quite think objective conditions
> are so predominant, nor that progress only occurs with "rising
> expectations" unmet ( somebody recently said that's de Toqueville's
> theory). The 1950's were the Golden Age in the US but liberals didn't
> come to power. The 1930's had falling living standards, but it brought
> the New Deal. We just entered a recession , yet the American
> population went more liberal in this election than the last, started
> to end Reaganism.The exceptions to your rule are as "big" as your
> rule, no ?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>