Thursday, June 28, 2012

Progressive States of America

Here is where the United States is at:
The regime of public spending has at last drawn so many groups into the public arena in search of public dollars that it has paralyzed the political process and driven governments to the edge of bankruptcy.
Rent-seeking coalitions have little interest in moderating their demands in the interests of the broader economy ... (Future Tense – The Fourth Revolution)
President Obama is right. We can’t go back to the failed policies of the past. Progressive tax and borrow and spend does not work.

James Piereson has written an article entitled Future Tense – The Fourth Revolution. In it he explains that the US government, rather than being equally shared by two parties, has actually always been dominated by one party or the other that sets the “regime” that the other party must work within. The regime continues until a “revolution” happens that breaks the grip and ushers in something new.

Three Revolutions
The United States has been shaped by three far-reaching political revolutions: Thomas Jefferson’s “revolution of 1800,” the Civil War, and the New Deal. Each of these upheavals concluded with lasting institutional and cultural adjustments that set the stage for new phases of political and economic development. 
The dominant parties in each of these eras might be called “regime parties” because they were able to use their political strength to implement and carry forward the basic themes around which these political settlements were organized.
In this sense, the United States has rarely had a two-party system but rather a one and one-half party system consisting of a “regime party” and a competitor forced to adapt to its dominant position.
Are we on the cusp of a new upheaval, a “fourth revolution” that will reshape U.S. politics for decades to come?
... based on the evidence of the three previous revolutions, American voters are unlikely to support for very long any party that fails to enhance their standard of living or the nation’s position in the world.
[…]
... each of these realignments discredited an established set of governing elites and brought into power new groups of political and cultural leaders. After reorganizing national politics around new principles, these new elites took control of the national government, staffing its departments and agencies with their political supporters. As they strengthened their control over the system, they also gradually extended their influence into important subsidiary organizations, such as newspapers, college and university faculties, book publishers, and civic associations. 
College and university faculties and our major newspapers today are overwhelmingly Democratic; from the 1870s into the 1930s, they were generally Republican. This is one of the factors that cements any realignment in place and gives it the stability to persist over many decades. (Future Tense – The Fourth Revolution)
It makes sense. It explains why even Ronald Reagan, with the electorate overwhelmingly behind him, could not roll back government. Skilled communicator that he was, he was debating issues framed by FDR and LBJ.

It's FDR’s World, We Just Live in it…
In the midst of the Great Depression, FDR’s Democratic Party organized the modern system around the politics of public spending and national regulation. (Future Tense – The Fourth Revolution)
The FDR system is collapsing--It's unsustainable...
The question today, then, is whether or not the party system formed in the 1930s and 1940s is about to exhaust itself in a new upheaval that will lead to some new political alignment around a new constellation of issues. There is little doubt that many of the political signs present in earlier upheavals are increasingly in play today. (Future Tense – The Fourth Revolution)
He concludes that the answer is yes…
This point will arrive fairly soon for the following reasons: (1) unsustainable debt; (2) public promises that cannot be fulfilled; (3) stagnation and slow growth; and (4) political paralysis. The last point is important because it means that the parties will fail to agree on any preemptive solutions to the above problems until they reach a point of crisis.
I agree. The way ahead? Booming Sweden’s Free-Market Solutions

17 comments:

Shaw Kenawe said...

Sweden's population is roughly the same as metropolitan Los Angeles.

America is the third most populous country on the planet.

Because of our political divide, we can't agree on anything, as the past 3 1/2 years have shown.

Plus our demographics have changed. While Sweden is still essentially a homogenous population, we in the US are undergoing a significant change in ours.

I believe we've become ungovernable in our present system.

We Americans will not come together to solve our man-made economic problems, and a great many are resentful of the social changes that have occured.

I doubt very much that we'd be able to achieve anything near what the Swedes have because of our divided country.

You can bring up the idea that perhaps a great leader could bring us together.

But that won't happen in a country so stubbornly divided as this one. What would make anyone think that a GOP president will make those in the country who are not conservative embrace him or her. Our politics have become nothing more than payback politics.

A few years ago I read a book on Italy's political parties. What struck me the most was reading how badly divided the Italians are and the intense hatreds that exist among the political parties that render the country ungovernable and unable to solve its problems. That hatred has destroyed any hope for cooperation and solving Italy's massive problems.

We're not Sweden; we're becoming Italy, [without the food] if we're not already there.


Ciao!

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw:

Surprisingly, I pretty much agree with your comments.

I believe we've become ungovernable in our present system.
[...]
Our politics have become nothing more than payback politics.


We most definitely do not need a "great leader."

We need decentralization, returning to the states, municipalities and the people those functions not enumerated in the constitution.

It wouldn't solve everything, but it would stop this forced cookie cutter stamping everyone in the nation. We are too diverse for one size fits all federal "solutions" to everything.

What it would do is bring the debates down to a lower lever more accessible to the people.

We also need to drop the folly that an elite group of smart people can plan the economy. Set the rules and leave it to the people. You build economic prosperity through liberty, not government planning.

conservativesonfire said...

I have recently begun reading some of the Anti-Federalist papers. A common complaint in those that I have read was that the United States was far to big for a centralized representative government to work. In other words, the states needed to be where the power was held. The Federalist won and much of what the anti-federalist predicted is coming true. I don't think the American people have suffered enough yet to think they will bring about a political revolution any time soon. It's a nice thought, however.

Z said...

"Set the rules and leave it to the people. You build economic prosperity through liberty, not government planning."

Unless half the country has bought the lie that entitlements trump liberty. My post on Star Parker's speech covers this...she so badly warns about not only black AMericans but all Americans now being on a plantation planned for them by government, not their own hopes and dreams and hard work.

fascinating article you discuss today, thanks, SF>

Finntann said...

Interesting perspective.

Silverfiddle said...

I agree with this article I cite, including his inkling that we are headed for another "revolution."

The progressive model is broken, intellectually, morally, and financially.

This is why Obamacare is doomed. We don't have the money for the programs we have, let alone new ones.

Silverfiddle said...

I will post on the Supreme Court Obamacare decision tomorrow (Friday), so please hold your fire here on that subject until then.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

President Obama said: "We can’t go back to the failed policies of the past.".


Obviously this like most things that Obama does is a tactic, and a sack of lies, distortions and distractions. Anything to get the bad news out of the headlines. . Anything to avoid talking about his utter failures.. Hence his favorite line “George W. Bush's fault”

Z said...

SF....I will only come tomorrow to read your post on the SCOTUS decision if you please try to include something optimistic in it!

Silverfiddle said...

Z: It is very optimistic. I expect to be labeled a liberal Roberts apologist by some fellow Right Blogistanis. :)

Liberalmann said...

Dude, it's long been the 'Corporate States of America.' And you know this. You're just another wingut who hoodwinks the predominately lesser among your ranks.

Finntann said...

Hmmm... the lesser speaks

Silverfiddle said...

Finn: Go easy on Libmann, he just doing what the mslsd tv told him to do...

viburnum said...

SF: "Go easy on Libmann, he just doing what the mslsd tv told him to do...


And they got him got him coming and going.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” Søren Kierkegaard

KP said...

<< We need decentralization, returning to the states, municipalities and the people those functions not enumerated in the constitution. >>

I agree. And there is no greater example of this than medicine. I will hold my fire, as you suggest.

beamish said...

I expect to be labeled a liberal Roberts apologist by some fellow Right Blogistanis

Come on now. I'm pretty sure I'd never be that restrained. ;)

Right Wing Theocrat said...

If it really is coming, can it hurry up and get on with it.