OK, so you can't buy toys made in China that you can be sure are lead free. You order a burger and get E-Coli on the side. Salmonella with your nuggets. Can't trust that Spinach. Your Peter Pan is putrid. And medicine? You can't trust the prescription you were given to actually do what is claimed or if it will even help you. What gives?
If you listen to the Bushies and the economic gurus of the right, the "free market" is the answer to everything economic. Well, that and give away the economic future of the country to the rich through idiotic tax cuts. Energy problems, infrastructure, even war - privatize! If there is money in it, someone should own it, right? This is a downright stupid policy for many reasons. And I think most of those who push it realize that. Bush, of course, just thinks the voice in his head is Jesus telling him to start another Crusade. Actually, I think he probably knows his economic policies are crap too.
Those who say the "free market" is the best solution say that the markets will rise to all challenges, filling a void when needed. They also say that regulation isn't needed because the market will correct itself. In essence, if you get sick from some Hot Dogs you ate, you won't buy from that company again. Well, duh. The problems come when you consider the fact that they were bad in the first place. How many people got sick? Or died? And did the maker just change his name after that, and keep selling dogs?
That doesn't even take into account those who enter a "free market" with no intent of doing things the right way. Without regulations unscrupulous merchants enter the market for the quick buck. Hit and run, not caring if you buy from them again or not. When you factor in the international nature of business and the lack of accountability it gets even more problematic. The idiocy of relying on the "free market" to determine product safety should be apparent to everyone - well, except for those who still believe Bush is doing a good job.
Another gaping hole in the "free market" approach is to assume that it will be pro-active. The market doesn't look at the country and say "damn, I think I'll build an interstate transportation system" Or "wow, it would be nice if we had clean air." It takes planning for the public commons. The good of all of us is up to all of us. The market won't fix the energy problems. And it most assuredly won't do anything to stop the occupation of Iraq. It's great for the bottom line of far too many companies.
The truth is there is always some jackass who will cut the last tree, shoot the last buffalo, or burn the last drop of gasoline (most likely at a Nascar event) or sell you snake oil and call it a cure for cancer. For capitalism to work it needs to be substantially regulated. Without strong regulation and strict enforcement, you get chaos. You get corporatocracy, not anything free. And corporatocracies collapse. The last big one in the United States was in 1929. The only ones who benefit from a "free market" like that are those at the very top.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to be successful in business. I am saying there should be strong regulations that ensure safety and consistency and promote the general welfare. And that don't allow CEO's to make millions as companies rape and pillage and/or go bankrupt.
Ronald W. Reagan is regarded by many Americans as the best American president. Seen as some sort of "American Idol" of the political realm, he is credited with everything from "ending the Cold War" to cutting taxes. The realities are far different. If not for the incredibly incompetent Bush Administration, the presidency of Reagan would be the worst in modern times from the perspective of the Middle Class. It is definitely the most overrated. Reagan began the attacks on the Middle Class and the sustained assaults on good government. His misguided policies and ill-informed foreign policy set the stage for many of the problems we see now. He was very successful at portraying government as an evil entity, yet had no problem at all using it (legally and illegally) to enrich cronies and push far right policies. Still, in the current election cycle we saw the Republican presidential candidates fall over themselves in an attempt to convince voters that they were the most like Reagan, as if that comparison was a good thing. Trouble is, the comparison is paramount in the mind of voters on the right.
What is it that drove the legacy to exceed the reality so much? First, the personality of Ronald Reagan. He knew how to speak to "hearts and minds" of his followers. He wasn't as up on geography and foreign affairs as one might wish for a president, but he could deliver a speech. Quips and quotable lines out shined any real information or policy. Some have accused Barack Obama of being the same kind of empty hat. Truth is, Obama has great policy proposals. And more importantly, he has the mindset that will not allow the neo-conservative policies that have been so damaging to continue.
One of the biggest myths about Reagan is the "ended the Cold War" story. The Soviet Union primarily collapsed from within, partly at it's own choosing. Many in Russia did not want to maintain empire anymore. The CIA predicted the fall midway through the Carter Administration. Some of Reagan's pressure tactics did push it along, but it was happening anyway. What Reagan's policies did do was to help ensure that the change would be painful for the people of the former Soviet Union. He could have taken a different approach and we could now have a strong ally in Russia.
His policies in the Middle East served to deepen animosities instead of reduce them. His injection of troops into the Lebanese civil war was initially welcomed from a people that had grown very weary of war. Then the "Gipper" decided to side with the Christian Militias. The same groups that went into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and slaughtered people. When he took sides, we became the enemy of everyone except that side. Shortly after that, the Marine Corps barracks were attacked. Reagan, to a large extent, laid the foundations for both Hezbollah and the Mujahadeen. And he was quite the supporter of Saddam in Iraq.
Another huge lie is that Reagan was a tax cutter. True, he did do the bidding of the corporate elite, giving huge tax cuts to the rich. He presided over the largest tax increase on the Middle Class in history. In spite of his giveaways to the wealthy, his Administration had a net tax increase. He was anti-labor, anti-health care, and anti-environment. In a bold move of short-sighted idiocy, he rolled back Carter's alternative energy initiatives, even taking the solar panels off the White House. If carried through, Carter's initiatives could have us off of imported oil by now. OPEC gave America a big slap-down, and Reagan fell for the "I'm sorry" afterward, and took America back to the udder, mouth wide open. Now we are going to have a much harder time economically getting off oil because we threw away that chance.
He also launched the failed "War on Drugs" policies, while covertly operating a war on the Middle Class (much more successfully) that has transferred huge amounts of wealth from almost all Americans to the very few at the top. So much so that even some who have benefited greatly are disgusted. That's why people like Warren Buffet and George Soros and those in "liberal Hollywood" are progressive Democrats.
Another thing Reagan did was to move the paradigm of American politics way too far to the right. What was middle became left, and what was right wing extremism became mainstream Republican thinking. Religion was injected into politics in very harmful ways. Very good ideas got attacked as "socialist" or "wacky liberal." In the time of Eisenhower or even Nixon, most of Hillary Clinton's positions would be considered conservative and those of today's Republican base as just plain nutty. It will take some time bring America's center back away from right.
The basics of Reaganomics have proven to be foolhardy, especially by George Bush. The conservatives of today see government not as an entity to help the country and it's people move forward, but as a tool to be used to push ahead with their vision of America. They see government as a hindrance to profits and only necessary for military and police type functions. His economic policies (and record deficits) caused a big recession in the 80's and set the stage for the current slowdown. The American economy became "boom and bust," going through swings in many areas, including the current housing downturn. De-regulation of major industries caused turmoil in everything from energy to airlines. But as industries roiled, CEO salaries shot up. Go figure.
Reagan changed politics in America, shifting the entire spectrum to the right. He discovered the power of playing to the fears and insecurities of the religious right. He was much more successful than anyone before him at "telling the big lie," or saying something so patently wrong so often that people began to regard it as fact. That is the first - and most important - factor in a successful propaganda campaign. Reaganomics is mostly a way to transfer wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the "special few" that George Bush likes to call his base. The idea of a privileged aristocracy being given the keys to a country is nothing new. Modern conservative leadership holds that the few at the top are the people that matter, and that deserve policy to be on their side.
If you have lost a good job in recent years, if you have been appalled at what air travel has become, if you can't understand why health care is degrading while costing more, if you are disgusted that we have become a country that sanctions torture and first strike warfare, if you are tired of politics having to answer to the whims of the religious right, take a look back. Ronald Reagan has been built into some sort of demi-god when in fact he did substantial damage to America.
The light at the end of the tunnel is Barack Obama. His candidacy truly has the power to shift the paradigm back. Conservatives have never had a true majority in America. They have become very good at establishing a vitriolic and motivated base to get out and vote. Obama has shown the capability to energize enough new voters to bring an end to what has happened. And his extra voters aren't going to be motivated by hate of homosexuals or fear of brown people. They will be coming to the polls because of their hope for a better future and a better government. Hope and promise vs. fear and hatred. I think the first will motivate more Americans than the second this time around.
More Americans are realizing that elections have consequences. Maybe some that didn't vote before are feeling a little guilty about Mr. Bush. The young are motivated like they haven't been in decades. All elections have consequences, and some shift things for decades. 2008 will be one that does just that.
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
