It’s 1980 Again, Not 1932

Submitted by Robert J. Shapiro on 11/13/08

While nearly everyone recognizes that the current financial crisis is the worst since the Great Depression, the economic challenges and the changes in the political landscape hearken back more to 1980 than to 1932. The distinction matters, because a misplaced metaphor or inapt historical analogy that takes hold of the political imagination can produce serious missteps.

In 1932 and 1980 -- and again less than two weeks ago -- the country strongly rejected an incumbent presidential party, with the White House and substantial majorities in both houses shifting, respectively, to Democrats, then the Republicans, and now the Democrats again. In retrospect, it’s clear that the political realignment of 1980 and the years following was not the political upheaval of 1932 and the decades which followed it. 1932 began a revolution in the federal government’s role in economic and national life that persists today, while 1980 jumpstarted a continuing shift in political preferences from center left to mainstream right, with policy evolving within a familiar framework.

If our times were truly most like the turmoil of the early 1930s, the basic character of government, the basic path for the economy, and the country’s role in the world would all be at stake. Times like that require deep and fundamental changes in both policy and politics, with a realigned electorate eager to back seismic shifts. And that’s what we hear from some members of Congress, urging President-elect Obama to make deep and fundamental changes in the economy, the health care system, the way we use energy, and the Middle East--and do as much of it as possible as soon as he takes office. If this were 1932, we would need such basic changes to head off profound social divisions and political upheaval – and a president like Franklin D. Roosevelt who could recognize that need and take it on.

1980 provides a different model which seems much closer to the country’s present predicament. There’s no popular demand to change the government’s essential role in national life and the nation’s basic role in the world. Instead, much as in 1980, the public demands major improvements in the quality of the President’s economic performance and the success of his foreign policies. Yes, the economic crisis almost certainly will be the most damaging since the 1930s. But still there’s a profound difference between unemployment rates of 7 percent or even 10 percent, and the 25 percent jobless rates of the 1930s. One reason is that today we understand much of the sources of our economic failures–which we didn’t in 1932—and so we can reasonably expect to be able to address them without fundamentally changing the government’s role in our lives. Similarly, we know that we face profound problems with our health care system, especially with the financing to ensure its universality and sustain its quality. If this time were a political and economic reprise of the 1930s, the health care debate would revolve around a government-run, single-payer system with comprehensive price and wage controls. Instead, President-elect Obama –and every other serious presidential candidate this year--could and did promise to address these problems in a serious way without fundamentally changing the government’s role there, too.

If our economic and political conditions recall 1980 and not 1932, what’s the best course for the new administration? The President-elect should be able to draw on an extraordinary level of public and congressional support for some time; and he has said, so many times and in so many ways, that his presidency will tackle the country’s problems from inside the policy discussions the two parties have carried on for the last decade. If that’s the path, the new President’s best strategy is to press for change step-by-step, rather than try to drive a wave of sweeping congressional actions in the storied, first 100 days. For one thing, when a president fails at sweeping initiatives, his political support for another go at it usually disappears. Anyway, step-by-step change doesn’t mean marginal or modest changes. Rather, it can describe a political process where the President’s initial round of reforms in, say, health care, regulation, energy and tax policies over the first year are followed by a second round of reforms the following year. And if the nation is lucky, there can even be a third and fourth round after that. This is the time for an Obama administration and Congress to finally fix the systems we have--and not, as it was for FDR, the moment to invent wholly new ones.

Robert J. Shapiro's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

It’s 1980 Again, Not 1932

Submitted by ceoceo on 3/6/09.

They’re likely

Submitted by sohbetara on 1/22/09.

the Senate, would bring the country as close to a pure liberalist agenda as it
has ever been. Proponents of a free market economy are concerned that Obama’s governmental “hands-on”
policies will not provide the American economy
with the long-term direction it needs. Those who support the ideals of
capitalism won’t say that we’re better off today than in 1932. They’re likely Sohbet Sohbet Sohbet Odaları

asdsa

Submitted by milk001 (not verified) on 12/11/08.

xyz 大補帖日本a片 a片下載批發回頭車搬家公司網頁設計 av片色情a片日本a片 av女優洪爺 Beijing travel Beijing tours Beijing travel service Tours to Beijing 陀螺仪水平仪加速度传感器倾角传感器美国留学英国留学澳大利亚留学粉碎机
 特价机票期貨注册BVI公司香港公司注册乌木

Is the...?

Submitted by PaydayLoanAdvocate (not verified) on 11/14/08.

Is
the United States better off today than it was in 1932? That’s the year that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected
president, and the country was spiraling into a severe recession. FDR’s “New Deal” economic
policies radically restructured the way the U.S. economy worked. Essentially, the government’s role in
the economy expanded
to a degree America had never seen. In the short term, Roosevelt's policies provided the
country with a needed lift, but it can be argued that they caused significant
long-term damage. This experience should not be done anymore. In this Wall Street
Journal article, Paul Rubin
suggests that while the current state of the U.S. economy is not in the state it was in 1932, many
of the same indicating factors are there: stock market in a tailspin, credit
markets locking down and the newly elected president – Barack Obama – is going to increased
government regulations
into problem areas like the economy.
There must be a balance and fair government regulation if there will be new
government policies. An Obama
presidency, coupled with what could be a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in
the Senate, would bring the country as close to a pure liberalist agenda as it
has ever been. Proponents of a free market economy are concerned that Obama’s governmental “hands-on”
policies will not provide the American economy
with the long-term direction it needs. Those who support the ideals of
capitalism won’t say that we’re better off today than in 1932. They’re likely
to tell you that we’re in for more of the same – a “New, New Deal.” Read more on this topic Payday Loans