[lbo-talk] left aiding right

[andie nachgeborenen]

Maybe because Democrats spend more public money on things that don't go boom? Are less hostile to labor unions, more likely to enforce wage and hour laws? That sort of obvious thing? Also they are less single minded than the GOP about upward income redistribution. They don't try to stop it, but it's not their raison d'etre. That's what I'd guess.

--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] left aiding right
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 4:13 PM
> 
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> 
> > Well, worker's incomes went significantly up under
> Clinton for the first time in a generation. And this under a
> neo-liberal, welfare cutting administration that failed to
> achieve a substantial progressive legacy. Contrast this with
> the declining fortunes that Americans subsequently dealt
> with under Bush.
> > 
> > It's not implausible to suggest that an economic
> recovery under a Democratic president, even a neo-liberal
> one, is likely to be more egalitarian than under a
> Republican executive, even in the absence of any major
> expansions of the welfare state.
> 
> This comports with Larry Bartels' findings that the broad
> population does better under D presidents than Rs. It's not
> clear why, though.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>