Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> At 09:38 AM 1/22/2010, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I think the foundation of their convictions is to be found in Jimmy
> >Carter's statement that "The world
> >is unfair." That is, the premise here is that much, perhaps most, human
> >suffering isgrounded in the nature of things, not in the historical
> >accident of capitalism.
>
> Ok. So why has it come to the point of doing absolutely nothing to
> make it more fair?
As I indicated in the original post, we can't reach demonstrable conclusions either way. I'm just trying to rough out a possibility that I think requires serious consideration.
So my first answer to your question is: Suppose the resources are not really there, and it has become a political necessity to train the public not to expect them Carter's presidency was in the first years of what seems a fairly lengthy crisis. (I wish there was a better word for it: "crisis" smacks too much of impending doom, which I don't mean. Capitalism is not, I think, in a crisis in that sense, but elites _may_ think something like that. I copy at the end a post Lou Proyect just put on Pen-L.)
What the Democrats are doing now is (I'm suggesting) just the continuation of a gemeral policy initiated by Carter's administration and carried on by all administrations since then, both Republican and Democratic. No crisis in the dramatic sense of the term, but the days of the Golden Age of capitalism (1950-1975) are over and the public must be tautht not to expect too much. No Revolution of Rising Expectations allowed.
This is relevant to the matter of agency. Sure it will make a difference which party, which nominee, which Chairman of Ways and Means -- but they all will be working under conditions not of their own choosing, and ifthose conditons are one's of limited public resources, then the differences are apt to be more of rhetoric than of substance. Also, I suggested this a year or so ago: It seems to me that the Democrats, even when they are out of power, act and think like a Party in power; and as such, they must be "responsilbe," and do not have the 'freedom' of irresponsibility that the Republicans, as a permanent Opposition, even when in power, have.
Carrol