Somebody I know has been recommending Juan Cole to me forever. So I finally found time to check him out. And this is the first article of his I stumbled upon:
I take it the American news cycle is dominated by the artificial debate over raising the debt limit. It is a silly season story. The budget was being balanced by Clinton in the late 1990s, and the Republicans were the ones who created long-term structural deficits by slashing taxes on the wealthiest Americans (even Bush argued with Cheney over the second cut), by an unfunded prescription drug give-away to get votes from the medicare crowd, and by two unfunded wars, one of them illegal in international law.
The reason that the Republicans deliberately destroyed the balanced budget and created unprecedented government debt was precisely in hopes that at some point they could use the debt as an excuse to destroy social security, medicare, and myriads of educational and health programs. They represent rich people, and the rich don’t want to be having to bear their fair share of the national burden. What better way to get out of having to pay those pesky taxes than making sure the government doesn’t do anything for anyone but the rich.
So everything unfolding in Washington was planned out in a room in 2001, and is going according to plan.
I like a good conspiracy person as much as the next person, but this one is just too outlandish. A group of people huddled in a room ten years ago and planning everything that would happen ten years from then would make for a bad Hollywood movie. Reality, however, is always a bit more nuanced, complex, and unpredictable.
Also, I don’t think that demonizing the Republicans in this way is useful to the Liberal cause. If they are capable of such brilliant, out-of-this world planning and strategizing, then we really might want these resourceful and organized people leading the country. Of course, the question arises as to why such ultra-intelligent folks allowed themselves to lose the White House in 2008. Maybe that was part of their hidden agenda whose consequences will become evident ten or a hundred years from now.
The reason why the Republicans are anti-tax is much simpler, in my opinion. The voters who handed them the congress last November are anti-tax, so the Republicans are simply following through on that popular sentiment. In my Spanish class that I was teaching right around the time of the 2010 elections, we arrived at the chapter in our textbook that introduced the vocabulary related to politics. I always ask my students to begin approaching the new vocabulary by creating sentences with the new words. From these sentences, I discovered that my students in the American Midwest overwhelmingly believe that taxes are the government’s way of ripping off hard-working folks to feed a huge bureaucracy.
One might not like this fact but the truth is that there are very very many people in this country who are anti-tax and anti-government spending. A huge number of citizens is driven by the hope of becoming extremely rich and buying their own yacht. Whether they will succeed or not, having that possibility is crucial to them. They are more prepared to identify with a millionaire on a personal jet than they are with an unemployed steel worker. Even though their personal circumstances place them much closer to the steel worker, their sympathies still lie with the more positive example of the millionaire. Psychologically, this makes a lot of sense.
I’m sure most of my readers are well-aware of all this. As in immigrant, however, I felt puzzled by this phenomenon for a long time. Only after living in the Midwest and talking to people of all ages and professions did I begin to understand why these hard-working folks seem to vote consistently against their own economic interests. The thing is, they don’t. They are neither stupid nor deluded. They simply vote for the interests of their future selves, the ones who will have managed to make it big eventually.
Clarissa's Blog 
I think this is indeed the Repubenron agenda. And it dates back at least to the Reagan years, not just to 2001: Run up a big debt and use it as an excuse to destroy all social programs. End of story.
LikeLike
Agree with David, that it started way before. Thomas Frank writes a lot about it, specially in “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation” . Even if it is not “a night in Washington bad guys got together and conspire”, I do think there was a deliberate effort and long term project from certain people working at Think Tanks and advising politicians to destroy whatever remains of the social net in this country. Also, although not completely related, it is very insightful how Republicans during Reagan managed to make federal agencies inefficient, therefore creating the myth that anything the government does, it does it wrong.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, Clarissa, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. The man just gets his dates wrong, and praises Clinton on the basis of too little. As David says, it started gathering momentum with Reagan, and you can public education to the list.
LikeLike
yes, i will pile on w/ the other commentators! 😉
not sure why you would find it hard to believe that groups of people would not act with a long term vision? and this is a complete straw man: “A group of people huddled in a room ten years ago and planning everything that would happen ten years from then”. nobody is suggesting anyone has a perfect map, but is it that hard to believe that there is some intent in the conservative/religious right movements longer term than just now?
http://theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell#The_Powell_Memorandum
http://archive.truthout.org/100109A
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm
LikeLike
We are not talking about “some intent.” We are talking about the kind of vision and carry-through that the Republicans must have concealed very well from everybody for over a decade. Have they planned the market crash of 2008-9, Obama’s election, and the rise of the Te Party, too? Because the current situation would not exist without all those events.
LikeLike
i guess i do not understand why those exact events are required? take obama: does it matter? it seems to me that it does not matter either way: if they won the election, they get to do what they want. if not, the specific dem is irrelevant and they get to vilify either way. on the market crash, i do not find that anywhere in the quote. and the tea party? again, i am not sure how they are important here, except that they need any rabid group (and not that the tea party is all that new/different: did not the same people, with their same ideas, exist prior to the tea party?)
anyway, i do believe that there is a conscious plan to shape, conform, bound, and limit the “system” which restricts available options and actions to a desired scope later.
LikeLike
That one actually seems plausible. It wouldn’t require deep-cover conspiracy, since it falls under the general heading of short-term strategy. In 2008 it wouldn’t have taken a secret committee of geniuses to figure out that the presidency was bound to be a very thankless job for the next few years.
LikeLike
Those events are consequences of deliberate acts of Republicans while they were in government. No, they did not plan the market crash, the rise of the Tea Party, etc, but they did intentionally create budget deficits by spending in the military and wrecked government agencies so as to force reductions in “entitlement” programs and as a way to advance their creed that the government can’t do anything wrong. Take a look at the book I suggested above. Whether you agree with Frank’s interpretation or not, it has a lot of very well documented facts.
LikeLike
I’m a great fan of Frank. I reviewed his book on this blog a while ago. However, I don’t find this particular theory to be very convincing.
LikeLike
Did you read that book, or “What’s the matter with Kansas” (or both)? You don’t need to accept the theory he presents, but he does back it up with facts (the action of independent right-wing think tanks, Reagan cabinet’s appointments and their specific beliefs, the actions they took and the consequences). You can come up with an alternative theory, but denying those facts is difficult.
LikeLike
I found it, I found it! Here is the review: https://clarissasblog.com/2009/07/01/franks-whats-the-matter-with-kansas-part-i/
Where Part II went is a mystery to me.
LikeLike
Thank you for using scare quotes on “entitlement.”
LikeLike
They did, of course, have good collaboration from Clinton and his neoliberal politics. Which are continued by Obama.
LikeLike
If the Republicans are, indeed, so smart and far-reaching, how does it happen that the Democrats are not? Where is their long-term vision?
This is a question to everybody.
Another question: why would the Republicans be so dedicated to destroying the social programs that they would scheme for decades to do so? Why should they care about these programs so much that they’d vote themselves out of power?
LikeLike
“Another question: why would the Republicans be so dedicated to destroying the social programs that they would scheme for decades to do so?”
Because it’s part of their worldview, and nothing can change it. That is how they believe a society should be organized. It’s another take of the religiousness of America, even if it’s not religious in a traditional sense. It’s an article of faith for them. Take, for example, Alan Greenspan, the former director of the Federal Reserve. As a young man, he was a disciple of Ayn Rand, part of her inner circle. The idea that you should abolish any regulation because the market is capable of self-regulating was ingrained in him. It was impressive (and sad and depressive) watching him testified in Congress after the Crash of 2008, as to why he didn’t do anything within his power that would have prevented the disaster of 2008. His answer: “Because it was my belief that regulations are wrong, and I’ve always thought so. I was wrong”
I’ve seen other versions of self-destructive behavior in other parts of the world. In Argentina, for example, for many years, every time there was a recession, the recipe was to cut spending as much as possible, because that’s what the neoliberal dogma says you have to do. One and every time, the recession worsened. But they never changed the answer until the Kirchner, because it was the dogma economists in power and from the IMF believed in. Many people are not pragmatic. When reality collides with theory (or dogma, or moral stance on how a society should be organized), f**ck reality.
As far as the Democrats, I don’t think they have a long-term vision anymore, and have become a bunch of cowards (with some exceptions).
LikeLike
“Because it’s part of their worldview, and nothing can change it. That is how they believe a society should be organized. It’s another take of the religiousness of America, even if it’s not religious in a traditional sense. It’s an article of faith for them. ”
-If by “they” or “them” you mean the majority of the American people, then I agree completely. This was actually the point of the entire post. What I object to is the vision of a small group of Republicans huddled together, making plans to sabotage things everybody else holds near and dear just because they are evil by nature.
“When reality collides with theory (or dogma, or moral stance on how a society should be organized), f**ck reality.”
-First of all, profanity in all languages is welcome on this blog. 🙂 🙂 Second of all, yes, this is, unfortunately, very true. Ideas come before the economy every single time. Everywhere.
“As far as the Democrats, I don’t think they have a long-term vision anymore, and have become a bunch of cowards”
-This is obviously true. Does anybody have any theories as to why that is? When did it all go so wrong? When the Conservatives rolled out the religious fanaticism? After? Before?
LikeLike
“What I object to is the vision of a small group of Republicans huddled together, making plans to sabotage things everybody else holds near and dear just because they are evil by nature”
I wouldn’t call it a small group of Republicans huddled together to plan evil things. I think more of a certain sector of a political elite, in a country that hasn’t seen much political participation from the civic society since the 60s, that managed to achieve its worldview through a long term strategy. One of the main components of this strategy was raising the deficit in the budget while they were in power through military spending (this is the only kind of spending OK for them), in order to force cuts in the social programs to “balance” the budget. Ronald Reagan sent the budget deficit through the roof, Clinton balanced it, Bush junior destroyed it again. Now, they are all worried about a balanced budget.
The other component was to fire, transfer, cut the budget or put idiots as directors of important public agencies. The result is that they can’t achieve their mission, of fuck it up (there, foul language), so people start thinking that the government is worthless. Believe it or not, 50 years ago, most Americans, while always believing in self-reliance, entrepreneurship and private property (perfectly valid ideals) also believed that the State had a role in society, and where not massively against government programs (at least in theory, because if a Tea Partier is receiving Medicare and you reduce his/her benefits, watch him/her scream).
I am not saying anything too profound here, just explaining what I learned reading history books. The process is well documented.
LikeLike
So this sounds like you are saying that the majority of Americans believed in social programs. Then, a much smaller group of politicians developed a profound dislike towards these welfare programs and created a long-term plan aimed ta eradicating them. The question that remains is Why? What is the end goal of this destruction of government and the welfare programs? What does a politician gain through undermining faith in the government other than making him or herself unemployed?
Believe me, this is one of those rare cases when I’m not being contrarian. I honestly want to understand.
LikeLike
I’m on the middle of something now, but I’ll post a longer response soon, or write something in my blog. Let’s just say that when you mix Milton Friedman, Fredric Von Hayek and American religiosity, you get weird outcomes.
“Believe me, this is one of those rare cases when I’m not being contrarian” Hahahah.,…
LikeLike
No hurry. The great thing about the blog format is that one can revive any thread at any moment.
LikeLike
I just posted a few thoughts. Don’t take it as a coherent argument exactly, but more as an indication of where my ideas point to.
LikeLike
No hurry. The great thing about the blog format is that one can revive any thread at any moment.
Except that it is very difficult to find new comments since they are interspersed anywhere and don’t even have constant reference numbers.
LikeLike
The italics did not turn off. I do not understand why. Sorry.
LikeLike
Recent comments should appear in the left-hand panel. Of course, when there are many comments it’s difficult to keep track. It’s even difficult for me to keep track, and I have access to the Dashboard.
This is the price we pay for popularity. 🙂
LikeLike
“making him or herself unemployed” — they are nearly all rich from other means!! what do they care? but again, why is greed and a completely unregulated capitalist economy not enough of a reason?
LikeLike
In order to go into politics, you really need to love the power and the importance it gives you. Politicians do it not because they can find no other means of existence.
Are you suggesting that these Republican conspirators will somehow personally benefit from cutting medicaid and unemployment benefits?
LikeLike
My longer explanation will come in the following days. But regarding this “Are you suggesting that these Republican conspirators will somehow personally benefit from cutting medicaid and unemployment benefits?”
In the case of Medicaid and unemployement benefits specifically, I really think it’s an ideological belief: “everybody should be able to fend for themselves, and if you can’t you are not trying hard enough and you are lazy”. Google the term “welfare queen” and you get a better picture.
As far as privatizing Social Security, it’s probably an ideological belief too. In addition, those who will benefit are the banks and Wall Street in general. And a politician cannot get elected in this country if he/she does not receive tremendous contributions from corporations. The thing is, you need to do it in the right moment. Bush tried it 6 years ago, and it turned the people against him. Now, however, we are in the middle of a huge crisis. And, as Naomi Klein says, this are the circumstances were those extreme measures can be imposed in a society. We’ll see what happens, but I won’t be counting on Social Security for when I retire.
LikeLike
Believe it or not, this entire comment I actually agree with. 🙂 🙂 I do think that these efforts we are seeing today (and have been seeing for a while now) are driven precisely by this kind of ideology. I spent years trying to understand why Americans just put up with having no guaranteed maternity leave, no guaranteed vacations or just some puny 2 weeks a year of paid leave (a barbarity!), etc. And then I realized that it’s all part of this kind of mentality. People would prefer to go on no vacation themselves rather than see a neighbor get “a free handout.” To an outsider it seems bizarre but I guess it’s one of those cultural oddities one has to get used to.
LikeLike
yes, i do totally believe they personally benefit! in fact it seems so obvious to me, that i am quite happy you are disbelieving–perhaps i have been brainwashed too much by the stuff i read.
anyway, they benefit (IMHO) in 2 ways: (1) the market immediately jumps (in general) to conservative policy; and (2) the revolving door w/ business means their actions while in congress will be rewarded when they leave.
also, my understanding is that being a CEO is just as “special” as being a congressperson. you fly around on your private jet, meet and set policy (just as much as an “official” congressperson), and basically feel you sit astride the world controlling a billion(s) dollar company or managing a billion(s) dollar fund.
i actually find the ideological argument less compelling for the super-rich and elite: i just think they are greed sociopaths. i think the ideological argument is what they use to hoodwink the masses.
LikeLike
the 2nd is easy (and obvious to *me*, but then i am a chomsky-bot! grin!): greed.
and i believe they push as hard as possible and sometimes lose. but they have other means and modes of achieving their goals and returning to power. notice it is usually through some sort of fear. pretty sure Naomi Klein has explained well in _The Shock Doctrine_.
as for the dems, i think most of the leadership are faux-repubs or repub-lite: greed, but with a floor for the raff.
LikeLike
I think that gross irresponsibility can produce results similar to conspiracy. The dialouge probably went like this:
“We want tax cuts and more defense spending.”
“How do we pay for it? Cut domestic spending?”
“Paying for this with large domestic spending cuts isn’t feasible.”
“So what do we do?”
“We worry about it later. We won an election, let’s get what we want.”
“Won’t we have to deal with it at some point?”
“No matter how hard we try, we won’t be in power forever. Let’s stall the consequences as long as possible, and cross our fingers and hope that stalling doesn’t fail until somebody else is in charge.”
“Won’t they raise taxes then?”
“They’ll try. But our team in Congress will kick and scream and use procedural maneuvers.”
“Will it work?”
“Maybe.”
“And if it does?”
“Well, then the other party will have to cut domestic spending. And that will suck for them.”
“The public won’t like it.”
“Yeah, well, not our problem.”
LikeLike
Irresponsibility or simply being responsible to their own voters and giving those voters what they want?
I think the dialogue you provide is what, in all likelihood, happened. Except the part about the public not liking it. The public is deeply divided on this issue. Half of the public would gladly lose an eye to guarantee that the neighbor lost two.
LikeLike
#16 could pass for a rough outline of the Two Santa Claus Theory of J. Wanniski. The strategy is to corner the opponent into making the hard decisions. The tactics are improvised along the way; taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves: No long-term conspiratorial explanation is needed for the role of big money in the tea party movement. That’s simply striking the iron when it’s hot.
LikeLike
By #16 I meant Thoreau’s post of 11:52 am. Somehow the numbers got sloshed. Next time perhaps I’ll use the comment permalink.
LikeLike
Though Republican politicians are generally awful, the people who vote for them are not, at least on the personal level–as long as they’re not talking to you about politics. So yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the belief that, some day, they’ll just work hard enough or come up with that one great idea (I’m thinking the Jump to Conclusions Mat from the movie Office Space), and that’ll land them a piece of the pie. I think, also, that a lot of it has to do with family and peer pressure. People are just not as likely to ‘come out’ as progressives or believing in progressive ideas in certain areas of the country–the same areas, it goes without saying, where open atheists are treated rather poorly (fortunately, not MY part of the country!), and from whence open gays move for major metropolitan areas on the coasts as soon as possible. Half my family won’t even talk to me because of my own cosmopolitan liberalism. Wierd.
LikeLike