On 2011-09-13, at 8:57 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "So long as the economy is expanding and living standards are
> rising, this is not necessarily a losing electoral strategy. But it is
> a disastrous strategy in a serious crisis in which jobs and homes are
> being lost and incomes are falling. It's doubtful the Roosevelt
> administration would have won a second term with a record majority if
> it had largely emulated the policies of the Hoover administration and
> appeased Wall Street rather than breaking sharply with both in
> rhetoric and practice."
>
> [WS:] I am not sure FDR approach would work today. We have a very
> different social environment.
It seems to me that the social environment - rising unemployment and job insecurity, falling home prices, the failure of old economic nostrums to effect a recovery, a sense that the system no longer works - has never been more reminiscent of the 30's. Many, not only on the left and reaching deep into the ruling class, feel likewise.
> For one thing, the bulk of the working
> class today consists of college educated professionals or
> para-professionals
Maria G. has already noted that the bulk of the working class do not have post secondary degrees, although it is true they form a much larger share of it than in the 30's, reflecting the shift from a predominantly industrial to service economy.
> who - outside the liberal arts and sociology
> departments - tend to be neo-liberal, anti-government, pro-market, and
> anti-wealth redistribution.
With the exception of senior managers, workers in health, education, government, entertainment and communications, hotels and restaurants, and other service sectors have shown the same propensity to unionize and to engage in strike action when conditions permit as did their industrial union forebears. Like the latter, they've equally favoured the Democrats over the Republicans, precisely because they are not typically "neo-liberal, anti-government, pro-market and anti-wealth distribution."
Those views constitute the conservative ideology of the Republican base, which you habitually conflate with the entire country, skewing your perception of the white and non-white urban working class, which has traditionally supported the Democrats. It's worth noting that even within the sizeable constituency of registered Republicans and independents, and to the dismay of right-wing ideologues and politicians, many who self-identify as "conservative" will resist cuts to social programs and favour trade unions and other policies traditionally identified with the left when their own interests are directly affected. This contradiction has been reflected in numerous polls, as well as recent research by two academics, Ellis and Stimson, suggesting that "the American public is operationally liberal, but ideologically and symbolically conservative." (http://www.unc.edu/~jstimson/Working_Papers_files/Pathways.pdf). As FDR did before him, Obama could have exploited this contradiction.
> I recall Geraldine Ferraro holding an
> election campaign meeting at some university - this was when polls
> were showing that Modale/Ferraro were trailing behind - and Ferraro
> posing a question to the college audience - "Why are we loosing you?".
> The response she received from the audience were along the lines "we
> want jobs and money" - and it was clear that the markets and
> Republicans were better positioned to deliver these.
This was in 1984, when the Reagan administration could claim credit for the falling jobless and inflation rates and recovery from the early 80's recession. It is not, however, an iron rule that the Republicans are best positioned to deliver prosperity. It wasn't clear to students and other voters in the 30's, nor, for purposes of our discussion, in 2008, when the public, fearing another Great Depression, blamed the Bush administration for the financial crisis and resulting plunge in jobs and housing values, and swept the Democrats to power.
> As much as I would
> like to hear an FDR-like agenda from the president and Democrats, I am
> also afraid that it would fall largely on deaf ears.
There is no way of knowing for certain. But my strong sense of the public mood in 2008 was one of anger at the bankers and Republicans coupled with hopeful expectation that the new Obama administration, promising change, would break decisively with both. Instead, the administration determined it was in its own best interest and that of the system to generously help the discredited bankers and Republicans off the mat. We know now with what result.