Saturday, January 3, 2015

Boomers and Reaganomics

That might seem like a strange title for a start-off-the-year post.  But I thought it just as well to start it off with a little historical perspective.

In 1980, we had a presidential election that, by common consensus, changed the political landscape in ways that continue to define--I would argue "haunt"--our national policies and priorities.  The election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency and the reduction of Democratic power in Congress to one house was the beginning of a mindset that has emerged in full bloom during the Obama years.  That mindset, of course, is that anything that shifts the distribution of wealth to the investing cast is good.

What is especially pernicious about this shift is that, at first, it was justified on the grounds of economic necessity--this shift, it was argued, was the only way to bring the economy back from the post-World War II heights it enjoyed for over three decades.  It was, of course, during this decade that the Baby Boom occurred, and that "boomers" started to come of age in the late-60s--and started to change the post-Depression complexion of our national politics by voting Republican.  As much as the Democrats made gains by expanding the franchise to the 18-to-21-year-old population, so did Republicans.  As much as the "Southern Strategy" began to tip national elections in favor of the GOP, the ascent of the "boomers" into the ranks of the voting public contributed to that trend.

Why?  For the obvious, historical reason that the Republicans, whatever else they might claim to be at any given point in time, are the party of money.  Of people who've got it.  Who want to keep it, above all else.  And who will go to any lengths to not only keep that money, but get more of it--preferably, without lifting a finger.  And boomers (myself among them) came of age having had the most financially comfortable childhoods not simply in American history, but in world history.  They had no reason to doubt that the good times would last indefinitely--until the oil shocks of the 1970s, and the beginning of today's multipolar economy, made it clear that the cost of "keeping up" would grow as increased competition bid up the demand for resources.

It was therefore, in spite of Watergate, that the early flow of boomer voters toward the GOP increased from a trickle to a flood.  And it is that flood that has provided the political undergurding for the Republican successes from 1980 on up to the election of Obama in 2008.

But then, along came 2008 and the ultimate, unavoidable reckoning that occurred when the financial house of cards built by the investing class--and their voters--on debt collapsed.  At that point, history, which had been declared "over" after the collapse of the Soviet bloc with a "victory" for capitalism, decided to write one more final chapter--this one about the death of capitalism.  For, after the financial bailouts that were supported by both parties, it was clear that capitalism in the United States now existed in name only.  Republican pro-investor policies could no longer be justified by their alleged economic success.

And now we come to the truly pernicious part of the boomer-fed shift in our voting trends.  Republicans, knowing that they could no longer depend on Reagan-era arguments, reached further back into our history the likes of Ayn Rand and Calvin Coolidge.  Money should flow up to the top, it was now said, because the top was were jobs were "created," as if by magic.  Never mind the lessons of history, from the last century or this one.  And never mind the fact that consumerism, with a little help from both the private and public sectors, is the real job-creation engine.  Wealth should flow up, according to Republicans, because they said so.

Is it any wonder, in such a world, that wages are a fraction of their value in the 1960s?  Is it any wonder that boomers, who have fed their material appetites with debt as a result, are all tapped out, and dependent on their parents' eventual estates for retirement?  And, far worse, is it any wonder that the generations who come behind the boomers may never retire?  That they may never even be able to afford a house, thanks to wage stagnation and post-bubble housing values?

What can boomers do to atone?  Very simple.  They should get behind public policies that end the tilting of the playing field toward the investing class.  They should support programs that increase the minimum wage, bring home capital and jobs from overseas, give stability to pensions and other retirement programs (especially Social Security) on which they will depend, and build new industries based on the renewal of resources rather than their consumption.

In other words, they should do what their parents did decades ago.  Demand a New Deal.  And get it at the polls.

No comments: