Why Economic Progressives Fail in America

[RMNIXON]

David Brooks is a moderate conservative that managed to get into the left club down at the New York Times. He recently took on the legitimate concern over growing income gaps. But also the issue of wealth redistribution and cripling tax policy as the solution. He found some curious answers as to why most Americans don't go for the Revolution as seen in other more socialist leaning nations:

"Nobody was smarter on this subject than Seymour Martin Lipset, the eminent sociologist who died at 84 on New Year's Eve. Lipset had been a socialist in the hothouse atmosphere of New York's City College during the 1940s, and though he later became a moderate Democrat, he continued to wonder, with some regret, why America never had a serious socialist movement, why America never adopted a European-style welfare state. . . .

As he studied these matters, Lipset moved away from structural or demographic explanations. He drifted to values. America never had a feudal past, so nobody has a sense of social place or class-consciousness, Lipset observed. Meanwhile, Americans have inherited from their Puritan forebears a sense that they have a spiritual obligation to rise and succeed.

Two great themes run through American history, Lipset wrote in his 1963 book The First New Nation: achievement and equality. These are often in tension because when you leave unequally endowed people free to achieve, you get unequal results.

Though Lipset never quite put it this way, the clear message from his writings is that when achievement and equality clash in America, achievement wins. Or to be more precise, the achievement ethos reshapes the definition of equality. When Americans use the word "equality," they really mean "fair opportunity." When Americans use the word "freedom," they really mean opportunity. . .

In his American Exceptionalism (1996), Lipset pointed out that 78 percent of Americans endorse the view that "the strength in this country today is mostly based on the sucess of American business." Fewer than a third of all Americans believe the state has a responcibility to reduce income disparities, compared with 82 percent of Italians."


Brooks concludes with some advice to Democrats:

The "party is now divided between moderates - who emphasize individual responcibility and education to ameliorate inequality - and progressive populists, who advocate and activist state that will protect people from forces beyond their control. The centrist will most certainly win out."



Indeed, if we can get "real" reform to improve education and keep our economic heads well above the socialist trends in Europe the Class Warfare Act just might have less to offer?

Get that John Edwards?

Stop pretending you are "Uniting" people with when you real intent is to divide.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

David Brooks is a moderate conservative that managed to get into the left club down at the New York Times. He recently took on the legitimate concern over growing income gaps. But also the issue of wealth redistribution and cripling tax policy as the solution. He found some curious answers as to why most Americans don't go for the Revolution as seen in other more socialist leaning nations:

"Nobody was smarter on this subject than Seymour Martin Lipset, the eminent sociologist who died at 84 on New Year's Eve. Lipset had been a socialist in the hothouse atmosphere of New York's City College during the 1940s, and though he later became a moderate Democrat, he continued to wonder, with some regret, why America never had a serious socialist movement, why America never adopted a European-style welfare state. . . .

As he studied these matters, Lipset moved away from structural or demographic explanations. He drifted to values. America never had a feudal past, so nobody has a sense of social place or class-consciousness, Lipset observed. Meanwhile, Americans have inherited from their Puritan forebears a sense that they have a spiritual obligation to rise and succeed.

Two great themes run through American history, Lipset wrote in his 1963 book The First New Nation: achievement and equality. These are often in tension because when you leave unequally endowed people free to achieve, you get unequal results.

Though Lipset never quite put it this way, the clear message from his writings is that when achievement and equality clash in America, achievement wins. Or to be more precise, the achievement ethos reshapes the definition of equality. When Americans use the word "equality," they really mean "fair opportunity." When Americans use the word "freedom," they really mean opportunity. . .

In his American Exceptionalism (1996), Lipset pointed out that 78 percent of Americans endorse the view that "the strength in this country today is mostly based on the sucess of American business." Fewer than a third of all Americans believe the state has a responcibility to reduce income disparities, compared with 82 percent of Italians."


Brooks concludes with some advice to Democrats:

The "party is now divided between moderates - who emphasize individual responcibility and education to ameliorate inequality - and progressive populists, who advocate and activist state that will protect people from forces beyond their control. The centrist will most certainly win out."



Indeed, if we can get "real" reform to improve education and keep our economic heads well above the socialist trends in Europe the Class Warfare Act just might have less to offer?

Get that John Edwards?

Stop pretending you are "Uniting" people with when you real intent is to divide.

Thats a pretty good assertation on his part.

I think we're seeing more and more turn away from economic progressives because the policy is not sound economic policy. Even many of europes countries are shifting more and more towards capitalism and away from socialism.

I hope that within the next 20 years its not even a political issue anymore and I wish the democrats would jump on board a flat tax initiative that would require a 75% majority to adjust...this would pretty much make taxes a non issue furthermore it would get the dems a lot more votes...but I think we're still a decade away from this.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats a pretty good assertation on his part.

I think we're seeing more and more turn away from economic progressives because the policy is not sound economic policy. Even many of europes countries are shifting more and more towards capitalism and away from socialism.

I hope that within the next 20 years its not even a political issue anymore and I wish the democrats would jump on board a flat tax initiative that would require a 75% majority to adjust...this would pretty much make taxes a non issue furthermore it would get the dems a lot more votes...but I think we're still a decade away from this.

I must have missed something, in 1996, 1998 and 2000, the democrats gained seats and won the presidential popular vote, in 2002 and 2004 the GOP gained ground on national security, and in 2006 democrats gained ground again and things look good for 2008

Where do you get this sense that we're "turning away" from economic policies?

Was it the overwhelming support for raising taxes on oil companies, raising the minimum wage, intervention in the market for Rx, tens of billions in social programs for student loans

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing whatever you two are talking about

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats a pretty good assertation on his part.

I think we're seeing more and more turn away from economic progressives because the policy is not sound economic policy. Even many of europes countries are shifting more and more towards capitalism and away from socialism.

So is China!

But I still read just the other day that the Chinese cross teh border and get medical care in Hong Kong when they can get away with it!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I must have missed something, in 1996, 1998 and 2000, the democrats gained seats and won the presidential popular vote, in 2002 and 2004 the GOP gained ground on national security, and in 2006 democrats gained ground again and things look good for 2008

Where do you get this sense that we're "turning away" from economic policies?

Was it the overwhelming support for raising taxes on oil companies, raising the minimum wage, intervention in the market for Rx, tens of billions in social programs for student loans

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing whatever you two are talking about

There is still significant resistance to progressive notions, that is not inclusive to all Democrats and policies. I don't see a major move on redistributive taxes. We did see major Welfare reform durring the period you site. The labor movement in the country continues to shrink in the private sector. The resistance to European style socialism has been present here since the 1930's. Only hard core Unionist demonize employers in solidarity. I am feeling pretty good about that!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There is still significant resistance to progressive notions, that is not inclusive to all Democrats and policies. I don't see a major move on redistributive taxes. We did see major Welfare reform durring the period you site. The labor movement in the country continues to shrink in the private sector. The resistance to European style socialism has been present here since the 1930's. Only hard core Unionist demonize employers in solidarity. I am feeling pretty good about that!

not that i see

why should there be a "major move" we already have a progressive tax system, and it looks as though those making over 200,000-300,000+ are going to get their taxes raised...corporations will have loopholes closed...capital gains tax cut will expire, as well as estate tax cut

the labor movement shrinks because companies caved in overwhelmingly to what they wanted in prior decades...unions kept winning and winning...if workers rights are ever seriously violated again, unions will come right back in full force, and they still are a powerful force

I don't know what you are talking about but socialism had strong support in America after the great depression, and it is many historians and my personal opinion that we were pretty close to a socialist revolution (See Gen. Butler's testimony to Congress)

So I have no idea what you are so happy about, compared to the 1890s we have become far far more "socialist" and many of the most "socialist" ideas of the 1930s and 1960s are strong today...even the GOP expands medicare

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the labor movement shrinks because companies caved in overwhelmingly to what they wanted in prior decades...unions kept winning and winning...if workers rights are ever seriously violated again, unions will come right back in full force, and they still are a powerful force

A whopping 7.8% of nongovernment workers are unionized
How is wal-mart not violating the "rights" of workers

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

A whopping 7.8% of nongovernment workers are unionized
How is wal-mart not violating the "rights" of workers

if the workers really felt violated they'd vote in a union

but let's get serious here, this isn't the dark days before liberal unions, people aren't being paid cents a day to die in the coal mines for Wal-Mart

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if the workers really felt violated they'd vote in a union

but let's get serious here, this isn't the dark days before liberal unions, people aren't being paid cents a day to die in the coal mines for Wal-Mart

they'd vote union if they wanted their place of work to close

so working in Wal-Mart ain't so bad huh?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Unions are fine, imo, but it's the government intervention that goes into regulating unionized businesses that bothers me.

[RMNIXON]

Just think what Lipset's observations could mean? Without the United States cultural resistance to socialist trends what might have happened in this country from the turn of the 19th Century up to WWII for example? Would we have bought into the popular notion of a Communist vs. National Socialist struggle? Would we have picked sides and let Europe be the spoils instead of our Post War resistance against a Communist Europe? Makes you wonder?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't know what you are talking about but socialism had strong support in America after the great depression, and it is many historians and my personal opinion that we were pretty close to a socialist revolution (See Gen. Butler's testimony to Congress)

I know you don't. And that revolution failed even with a horrible depression. And we are much better for it!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they'd vote union if they wanted their place of work to close

so working in Wal-Mart ain't so bad huh?

I've worked there, obviously I don't think it's the most evil place in America

However they are soul-less...but so are libertarians and I talk to them everyday

Listen, little family stores were run out by supermarkets and now supermarkets are being run out by wal-mart and target, and one day they'll get run out too

I'm more worried about AT&T, with its mergers and working to tap our phones with the government and data mining, than Wal-Mart

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Just think what Lipset's observations could mean? Without the United States cultural resistance to socialist trends what might have happened in this country from the turn of the 19th Century up to WWII for example? Would we have bought into the popular notion of a Communist vs. National Socialist struggle? Would we have picked sides and let Europe be the spoils instead of our Post War resistance against a Communist Europe? Makes you wonder?

uh New Deal anyone? compromise?

The country took a far far turn to the left

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

uh New Deal anyone? compromise?

The country took a far far turn to the left

And we suffered that lack of progress until the wartime economy bailed us out and brought us into the prosperous 1950's. Compare our conditions at any time with more socialist leaning Europe. We are not as Island! We bailed them out and saved them from a more progressive disaster thanks to the Marshall Plan.

But the selfish news: No American Socialist Quagmire!

...Not yet anyway!


I wonder about "some" on the left? Are they really happy with this economy under Bush or Clinton? Would they rather have a big crash so they can break out the pitchforks?

[Thorgrim]

During your prosperous 50s, the tax rate on the rich was over 90% in the top bracket

Ike did nothing to take apart the new deal or fair deal, the "socialist compromise" was in 100% full effect

Also, if Huey Long wasn't shot...he was never defeated...we'd be even more socialist today, but FDR tried to balance the budget in the middle of the GP, an absolutely stupid thing to do, and that seriously hurt America's belief in continually turning hard left to solve our problems

[mididoctors]

uncontrolled speculation fueled by reckless PR caused the crash of 29 that spread across the globe.. In germany this was a prime cause of the fascist and communist power struggle... the Nazis won..

the effects of any particular ideology or behavior can be far reaching as is the promotion of individualism expressed through consumption as the primary reason for existence

Boris
london

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

During your prosperous 50s, the tax rate on the rich was over 90% in the top bracket

Should we bring that back?







Lower Income Tax Anti-Communist President!


He beat my ass in 60 but did some damn good!