So we just saw a Democratic landslide election, at least in comparision to the last few.  53% may not be a huge mandate, but when it comes along with control of the House and Senate… well, I would bet that the DNC is pretty happy.  Was this an “electoral realignment”?  There is a theory that either the right or the left holds sway over the U.S. government, and that there have been five realignments of this since the parties coalesced – 1824, 1860, 1896 (sort of, really just a compounding of corporate power), 1932, and… well, it is disputed, but I would say 1972 or 1980.

So was 2008 a recapturing of the government from the Republicans?  At first glance it was, but at first glance 1992 was as well.  To really decide, I think we have to go into more detail.  Economically (and I’m going to focus on economic issues here) I’d argue there are four main ideological currents in the United States.  They are as follows:

1. Feudalists/right-corporatist: This group seeks to use the government to enhance the wealth power of the already rich.  They are the heirs to the old feudalist/monarchist tradition.  This group includes (or has historically included) Southern planters, some though not all corporate elites, and some wealthy inheritors.

2. The Libertarian/limited government right: These are the original (19th century) liberals, who believe that government should leave the market alone.  They gain support from our tradition (partly real, but partly exaggeration) of “rugged individualism” and entrepreneurship.  Generally the position of small business (though some fit in groups #1 and #3) and middle-class/upper-middle-class people who just want to be left alone.

3. Left-corporatist: Don’t get me wrong here – I am not calling these people fascists (I leave that to Jonah Goldberg).  But the idea, beginning primarily with Theodore Roosevelt, that the state, the major corporations, and the workers can ally for the benefit of all the people does share some characteristics with Mussolini’s original scheme for society.  Our corporatism is far less dictatorial or militaristic (well, maybe TR fits the militaristic part) than that seen in ’30s Europe.  And it has had some real successes in the past.  This area is where many moderate democrats fall, unless they have more anarchistic/socialistic/libertarian leanings.  One can see its roots in the Whig Party, with its large-scale infrastructure building.

4. The Populist Left: This is where the socialists fit in, though they are very few in number.  Basically, this is the home of liberals who don’t trust the major corporations enough to want to work with them.  Agrarian populists fit here, and so does Ralph Nader.

Looking at our politics since 1860, one can see the struggles unfold.  At first, group #1 was split but maintained control over both parties (planter elites in the South, corporate elites in the North).  This situation was untenable, and more progressive forces began to break out.

During the Progressive area, both parties were split down the middle.  Groups #2, #3, and #4 allied behind politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (though his foreign policy’s another story) to attempt to level the playing field.  But by the 1920s, a loose alliance of groups 1 and 2 was running things again.

The Great Depression shattered this coalition and allowed the ruling Democratic coalition of the 1930s through 1960s to arise.  During the more radical ’30s, group 4 held sway.  But as the economy stabilized and communism replaced fascism as people’s top foreign fear, group 3 settled into the ruling position.

This corporatism had many achievements (the moon landings, a 50% reduction in poverty rates, steady economic growth) but discontent was growing.  Small business was stifled by high taxes (48% corporate, up to 70% income (marginal) in the late 1960s) and business-government collusion.  The market had become rigid and the entrepreneurs of the future wore blocked from the highest levels by entrenched capital.

At the same time, the Baby Boomers were angry about elite control of society.  Their movement had many factions, ranging from John Birchers (probably group 1) to the SDS (way on the far end of 4), but its main thrust was to smash the existing power structure.  In the 1970s, as dissillusionment with government grew, group 2 took control, though elements of 3 and 4 still had some power.

The 1990s saw the election of a Democrat, but his coalition was only weakly center-left.  This can be seen in Clinton’s actions (welfare reform, budget-balancing, NAFTA), his quotes (“the era of big government is over”) and his foes (Ralph Nader’s strong showing in 2000).  The Clinton coalition was made up of groups 3 and 2 sharing power, with 4 playing a supporting role.

Meanwhile, the Republicans were moving to the right.  In the Bush Administration, we saw the government move towards supporting corporate power for its own sake – group 1 was coming back into the fold.  The Bush Administration was a coalition of groups 1, 2 and a portion of 3.

But in the end, over issues such as civil liberties, competence and corruption, all but group 1 abandoned the Bush Administration.  This, plus McCain’s shift to the right in the primaries, left McCain too weakly supported to win the election.

Obama was elected by groups 3 and 4 wholeheartedly, with some support from group 2.  So what will be his governing coalition?  There are really only 3 possibilities that I see:

1. New Great Society: Group 3 leads, group 4 follows.  This would infuriate small business and libertarians, but could recaputure the economic equality of the 1960s and 1970s.

2. New New Deal: Group 4 leads, group 3 follows.  This is the postion the old left hopes Obama will take – statist liberalism that opposes corporate power, too.

3. Left-Libertarianism: Group 4 leads, group 2 follows.  This is what people mean when they say they want Obama to be a “21st century president” (unless they are right-wing Clinton Democrats, in which case they probably want group 2 running the show).

In my view, alternative 3 is the best (and most likely).  It allows Obama to trust the market while still “spreading the wealth” (when did that become such an insult?).  It allows him to reject corporatist elitism and decentralize power.  This isn’t a center-right country, but it is a “get government out of my hair” kind of country – people want the state to do something, but they don’t want it to be everywhere.  By allying the left with small government advocates in a way tried by Clinton, but ensuring that liberals take the lead, Obama can bring the Democrats to ascendancy.

But to be honest, I’m just happy that the feudalists aren’t calling the shots anymore.  Obama ’08 – Yes We Did!

P.S.: I owe an intellectual debt to Ferdinand Lundberg for much of this – book discussion of his The Rich and the Super-Rich is coming soon.

Advertisement