On 2011-07-27, at 9:56 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> Well, Reagan was probably even more hostile to Medicare and social security
> and the like and didn't pursue these policies.
>
> So perhaps it was just political unfeasible then, but feasible now.
Bush junior also dared not go as far as Obama seems willing to go. Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but it's often easier for social democratic and liberal governments to preside over unpopular cuts to benefits than the conservative parties to their right. The former's trade union and other working class supporters are much less likely to become aroused, in no small measure because they believe that a conservative assault will be more ferocious than cuts made by the DP or social democratic parties seeking to mediate between the classes. The Obama administration is counting on holding its liberal base, which has nowhere else to go at present, while trying to reach out to independents and "moderate" Republicans as the party of class harmony and compromise. This has, IMO, been its guiding strategy since the 2008 election. It's not "madness" which has caused Obama to dash the expectations of those who voted for him at every turn, but it's a strategy which has been wholly un- or counter-productive to date, largely because the adminstration has been saddled with continuing job losses - that which typically counts for more than non-inflationary budget deficits or benefit cuts in determining the fate of governments.