A moment in your article that I think is an excellent representation of the larger issue: "In truth, we should have done something similar for those factory workers who were dislocated by a shift in the economy from manufacturing things to financial performance in the markets. If we had, maybe the animosity would be lessened.⁴ But we didn't do anything because policy-makers wanted the financial side to win."
Now your above statement can be spoken with a straight face as justifiable policy by any pillow salesman on talk radio in order to gain followers on social media. With a little extra brinksmanship, the pillow salesman just makes sure to blame the (a, some) liberal government for failing the factory workers, even while he supports with propaganda the very conservative fiscal agenda that failed them.
Would these same naysayers have been so vocal about the GI Bill? I would bet that many of the middle class among them grew up well in no small part because of it.
Reagan wrecked the sense of national allegiance that kept these arguments from becoming so polarized since the Civil War. He was the beginning of our current plutocratic oligarchy. Even the 1960s, while punctuated with horrible domestic conflict, didn't drive the country to the brink of collapse. There was, at least, still a Cold War focus that united people. At worst there was a lot of misdirected animosity caused by the Vietnam war. The relationship between the government and private sector was still too chummy, and white men were the only effective decision makers, but the idea of the nation as a nation was still very much in play. And school was free to cheap.
Trump simply finished off what Reagan started--enabling an anti-government strain of knee-jerk vitriol against any idea--especially a good one--that isn't his. As Jon Voinovich, prompted by Mitch McConnell, said, "If he [Obama] was for it, then we had to be against it." When you think that way, why would you want more people educated, let alone use taxes to help them? That does nothing for an anti-government agenda used to make a handful of rich people richer.
Same theme will show up in the newsletter I'm working on for today. We knew that structural change was going on in the economy but ignored the obvious downstream implication of those changes. We'll pay the price for generations.
A moment in your article that I think is an excellent representation of the larger issue: "In truth, we should have done something similar for those factory workers who were dislocated by a shift in the economy from manufacturing things to financial performance in the markets. If we had, maybe the animosity would be lessened.⁴ But we didn't do anything because policy-makers wanted the financial side to win."
Now your above statement can be spoken with a straight face as justifiable policy by any pillow salesman on talk radio in order to gain followers on social media. With a little extra brinksmanship, the pillow salesman just makes sure to blame the (a, some) liberal government for failing the factory workers, even while he supports with propaganda the very conservative fiscal agenda that failed them.
Would these same naysayers have been so vocal about the GI Bill? I would bet that many of the middle class among them grew up well in no small part because of it.
Reagan wrecked the sense of national allegiance that kept these arguments from becoming so polarized since the Civil War. He was the beginning of our current plutocratic oligarchy. Even the 1960s, while punctuated with horrible domestic conflict, didn't drive the country to the brink of collapse. There was, at least, still a Cold War focus that united people. At worst there was a lot of misdirected animosity caused by the Vietnam war. The relationship between the government and private sector was still too chummy, and white men were the only effective decision makers, but the idea of the nation as a nation was still very much in play. And school was free to cheap.
Trump simply finished off what Reagan started--enabling an anti-government strain of knee-jerk vitriol against any idea--especially a good one--that isn't his. As Jon Voinovich, prompted by Mitch McConnell, said, "If he [Obama] was for it, then we had to be against it." When you think that way, why would you want more people educated, let alone use taxes to help them? That does nothing for an anti-government agenda used to make a handful of rich people richer.
Great post, as always, John.
Same theme will show up in the newsletter I'm working on for today. We knew that structural change was going on in the economy but ignored the obvious downstream implication of those changes. We'll pay the price for generations.