On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:53:12 -0400 Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> writes:
> FC: "Why is the political landscape south of the border so different?
> One
> answer has to be the great American distinction: race. Let's say it
> bluntly: in the United States the beneficiaries of social programs
> tend to be of a different color than the beneficiaries of tax
> cuts."
>
> [WS:] I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It is the
> other
> way around - limiting social benefits to often unpopular minorities
> by
> idiotic "means testing" requirements ascertains little general
> public
> support for social programs in general. In countries where social
> programs
> provide universal benefits - they enjoy huge popularity. The only
> social
> program in the US that provides universal benefits - Social Security
> -
> enjoys wide public support as well.
Well, Medicare is also pretty popular, for the same reasons as Social Security.
>
> The reasons of the shortage of universal social programs in the US
> is a
> complex issue that cannot be reduced simplistic soundbites like
> "capitalism," as most capitalist countries have universal social
> programs -
> US seems to be an exception. One of the key reasons why it is the
> case is
> the historically peculiar nature of the political party system in
> the US.
> The essence of that system is dispensation of political patronage to
> party
> supporters and sponsors (aka "political machine.").
In the nineteenth century, when there was no welfare state to speak of, political patronage was really the only form of public assistance that was available to most people. Both parties, especially the Democrats, were able to build up formidable political machines in the major urban centers, based on the dispensation of patronage. The development of a welfare state from the time of FDR on, had as one of its consequences, a weakening of the urban political machines, since it was now possible for people to get various kinds of pulbic assistance without their having to go thrrough a ward captain or other party operatives.
We should also not forget that the US lacks a mass-based socialist or labor party. Back in the early 1900s, it looked as if the US, like most of the other industrial capitalist countries was well on the way towards developing such a party. Eugene Debs's presidential campaigns attracted quite sizable votes. Perhaps, even more importantly, the Socialist Party was successful at winnig offices at the local and state levels. They had at least a couple of congressional seats but many seats in various state legislatures. The SP did relatively well in the Midwest as well as in some of the urban centers. All that came to end with the US entrance into the First World War. The Wilson Administration launched a campaign of ruthless supression of antiwar forces, including the SP. Eugene Debs as an outspoken opponent of the war and of conscription was imprisoned, as were many other Socialist activists. Many foreign-born members of the Party were deported from the country.
This repression (and the later repression during the Red Scare of 1919) effectively smashed the SP, which then underwent splits following the October Revolution in Russia.
Later on in the 1930s, the Democrats under FDR were able to head off a resurgence of the SP by stealing planks from their program and enacting them as part of the New Deal, and FDR was likewise successful in co-opting the CPUSA, which was, in conformity the Soviet Union's emphasis on Popular Front politics. All this, effectively precluded the development of a mass-based party to the left of the Democrats.
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
>
> The existence of programs that offer universal benefits to both
> supporters
> and non-supporters of a particular party undermines the ability of
> both
> political parties to dispense patronage. Therefore both political
> parties
> make sure that social programs and government spending in general
> are tied
> to support for a particular party as much as possible, instead of
> being
> provided on a statutory basis (i.e. being provided universally
> rather than
> being tied to a particular party gaining power.) That explains why
> Democrats ruled out the public option in their health care "reform"
> even
> when they had the votes to pass it.
>
> I am reasonably sure that the main reason of widely spread public
> opposition
> to social programs in the US is that these programs take the form
> of
> political patronage to supporters of particular political parties.
> If these
> programs were universal, the public opposition would largely
> disappear.
> However, the only hope for an expansion of universal social programs
> in the
> US is breaking the backbone of the political party system. Voting
> Democrat
> (or Republican) in the hope of gaining some benefits for this or
> that group
> of constituents will only reinforce the existing patronage system.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
____________________________________________________________
NEWS: iPads for $23.74?
Special Report: Apple iPads are being auctioned for an incredible 80% off!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c1a5aab20737a5500m03vuc