link here to article
This article provides some historical perspective on the origination of social safety nets in the US. It describes financial crises prior to the Great Depression and the public response to unemployment and rising income inequality. The basic thesis is that social safety nets were developed to curb the public unrest. The implication is that those in our new "gilded age" should learn from the past and proceed with caution in their efforts to destroy the current social safety nets.
What strikes me most about our current economic situation is that the political response to unemployment, rising inequality and the conservative attack on entitlements is that it so different from those in the past. In the US we got the tea party instead. It has been the most vocal and the most politically effective movement in the context of the Great Recession. They oppose government provided safety nets as strongly as they opposed the bailout of the banking system. It is difficult to determine what the tea party stands for but it is clearly opposed to liberalism in any form. They tend to view the social safety net in terms of aid to minorities and illegal immigrants. They seem to be an amalgamation of religious fundamentalists, and economic fundamentalists, sprinkled with a peculiar flavor of nationalism. Their nationalism is reserved for the military, but they prefer state government to the federal government. Their preference for state government is probably related to the social activism that they perceive in Washington. State government, particularly in the South and in rural states, is much less concerned about the plight of the economically disadvantaged. Thus far, I don't see anything on the horizon that should worry our plutocrats. The rise of the tea party, which has been supported by conservative media, and organized by groups funded by wealthy conservatives, has siphoned off most of the political unrest in America.
No comments:
Post a Comment