dagblog - Comments for "Unrisible Irrascible Men"

Yes. I forget who it was who

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:44:41 +0000

Yes. I forget who it was who said that during out (of power, that is) years, ideas need to be developed, refined, and experimented with to figure out how to market them, so that when the opportunity presents itself or can be created, they are ready for prime time public rollout.

The late 1970s' economy was a bad one--long gas lines, double-digit inflation, high unemployment. It was impossible not to be either directly impacted by it or observe its consequences. There was a lot of pain and anxiety and a ready audience for anything that might fix it.

Reinforcing what was happening at the direct experiential level, at the idea level, the notion that Keynesian economics was outmoded was being actively pushed, along with the clear implication that there was a need for a very different approach.

But far from this being a subject garnering attention only from the small coterie of those working, long-term, to develop what was to be called the supply side economics program Reagan rolled out, mass publications such as Newsweek and Time were running stories on this. So ideas and thinking reinforcing what people were experiencing and observing percolated into the more engaged parts of the public.

It's a long time ago now and this might be off. That's what I remember now about that time, at any rate.

They think Reaganomics worked

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:41:02 +0000

In reply to Yes, and no. To be sure

They think Reaganomics worked because they ignore his increase of taxes and other reversals. Reagan was the good cop, the smiley actor face on top of Goldwater/John Birch bad cop conservatism. That said, he largely finished off the Cold War by playing dare with the Russians on nukes in Europe and a very slight bit of military intrigue (Grenada & Nicaragua, firmly under the Monroe Doctrine, along with continuing Brzezinski's arming of the Mujahadeen.) The left still has trouble living that one down. Additionally, Clinton showed that you didn't need pre-Reagan 72% tax rates to make a functional government. Unfortunately, you *do* need 38% or more, not the mythical 'tax revenues will grow as you cut tax rates" off of some rarely visited range of the Laffer Curve.

Yes, and no. To be sure

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:51:25 +0000

In reply to Is it not exactly the same

Yes, and no. To be sure "anger against" is a huge motivating force and may be necessary to move large numbers of people. The movement conservatism that emerged was "for" many things. They wrote and spoke about it a lot and they spent a lot of time spreading the gospel. And they did it bit by bit for DECADES.

Some people say that Reagan's victories was the apotheosis of this effort and what it stood for. Again, without being for or against Reagan here, my memory of Reagan wasn't that he stirred up a lot of anger. "Morning In America" isn't an angry slogan. They had a clear and compelling, if mistaken, economic theory and foreign policy. I doubt Reagan would've won over so many people, including the famous Reagan Democrats, if he'd just been angry and against.

Republicans spent the 1990s and 00s trying to recapture Reagan's magic sauce. They still believe that Reaganomics worked (why? because predicted outcomes came to pass), and still think that he won the Cold War. They're angry because they feel that Clinton stole what should've been a 1000-year Reagan Reich out from under them and that the Bush's betrayed conservatism's ideals as expressed by Reagan.

The Tea Party was mostly a reaction to Bush's and the GOP's betrayal of conservative principles and a revolt against the elites in the GOP whom they came to see as having gone off the rails with Iraq and all the spending of GWB.

The multi-decade effort WAS conducted by a relatively small group of people, but they did a lot to spread their gospel beyond their numbers and convince broad swaths of the public that they had the correct views on how the economy works and how foreign policy should be conducted. So their influence--and they did this on purpose-- was felt way beyond the few who were leading the charge.

Moi aussi.

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:50:13 +0000

In reply to I support the book club

Moi aussi.

It was created from a growing

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:49:40 +0000

In reply to P.S. Flip side: the Tea Party

It was created from a growing number of people who felt the GOP had betrayed Buckley's and Reagan's vision. Yes, it was angry and anti, but underneath, they were guided by the positive vision they felt had been betrayed. IMHO.

Fair point, but also, let's

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:32:37 +0000

In reply to Let's not skewer people for

Fair point, but also, let's not confuse clarity of purpose, strong belief, and persistence for fanaticism. A somewhat subtle difference--because they can amount to the same thing--but an important one, IMO.

Also, just to respond to the Tea Party remarks below, I'm not really talking about the Tea Party push here, though I guess it fits in. I'm talking about what Goldwater launched and all the think tanks and publications that emerged from that moment. Of course, a lot of conditional events occurred to spur that movement along, but it took clear- eyed, persistent people to move it along.

Think about it. The Goldwater push could've just died in 1964 in the way that the McGovern push more or less died. Goldwater is now seen as prescient while McGovern is seen as stillborn and his wing has had to fight its way back over decades, and yet they both lost by large margins.

I'm rolling over a lot of important differences to make this point clearer.

I support the book club

moat — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:24:43 +0000

In reply to Great review Peracles! Sounds

I support the book club proposal.
The selection process alone would be worth the price of admission.

AA, I agree that anger is a

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 23:04:11 +0000

In reply to Actually fits what I was

AA, I agree that anger is a powerful, galvanizing force, but angry is not the same as anti. The early progressives were angry at corrupt politicians and industrialists, and the anger fueled the movement, yet they channeled it into constructive, pro-gressive policies. By contrast, Republicans have largely failed to channel Tea Party anger into constructive policies, which is why they're flailing so badly now that they've achieved a majority.

P.S. Flip side: the Tea Party

artappraiser — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:09:13 +0000

In reply to Actually fits what I was

P.S. Flip side: the Tea Party was not created from support for William F. Buckley's positive conservative vision of the world. It was created by riling people up about things their supposed enemy was doing. Being passionate about positive change is rare and limited to special people, most people only get passionate when angered about something that is supposedly happening already.

Actually fits what I was

artappraiser — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:04:00 +0000

In reply to To nitpick, Soros' initial

Actually fits what I was saying, I'm just having a hard time saying it. Deep pockets of some kind are required to back small passionate movements about positive actions or changes, precisely because these are hardly ever "popular" Changes only become popular (as in: large numbers of people would give their time and/ot money or even get out to vote) when it's about anger about what those in power are doing or those out of power but reaching for it would like to do.

For example I would argue that the excitement and turnout of 2008 and activism for Obama fits this, as underlying it all was not Obama's white paper policy positions, but that the person of Obama was a symbol that soothed long simmering anger about racism and inequity et. al. And then there were just the self-deluded like the angry anti-Bush-warmonger bunch who convinced themselves that Obama was a peacenik. While the Overton window movers wanting moderation bet he was not, and they were right.