t r u t h o u t | Whither the American Left?.(an excerpt--read the whole thing)
That denial is enabled by an unstated premise: democracy. Because Clinton was democratically elected, the pact to barter away our destiny is presumed to be 'our' pact, rather than the extortion exerted by the finance sector. It assumes, in other words, that there was some kind of collective decision to pursue greed, that collectively people thought that greed is good. But this only makes sense if the case for continuation and even extension of the collective provisions of the welfare state was made. If the left failed to make this case, then it certainly failed (and I think it did--as I argue in Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies--which will appear in September from Duke).
But that is not the end of politics. It is a defeat.
The response to the end of politics is to turn to culture, playful stagings of resistance (submission), anarchic jabs at power (hysterical foolishness), service and volunteerism (as opposed to organizing), and signing online petitions.
The response to a defeat is to regroup, rethink, and fight back.
A "Righting" of the Left
Twelve years later, Clinton appropriated Reagan's themes and became the bard of neo-liberalism. He kept the marginal income tax rate at half of what it had been under Nixon. He eliminated social assistance for 9 million poor children.
With help from the financial bubble, he presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich since 1929. The income of the richest one percent of Americans doubled, while that of the median tranche rose by 15 percent only (over eight years in constant dollars). The Wal-Mart founder's family possesses a personal fortune equal to the collective personal fortune of 120 million Americans.
Clinton doubled the prison population compared to what it had been under Reagan. Accused of being "soft on crime" during his campaign, he went to attend the execution of a mentally handicapped man, famous for having asked the guard who served him his last meal whether he could keep his yoghurt for later.
Welfare Was Supposed to Reinforce Poverty and Consequently Had to Be Subjected to Merit Criteria.
In 1996, along with the great "Welfare Reform Act," Clinton signed the death certificate for the American left. The attractive idea was: since welfare reinforces poverty, let's submit it to merit criteria.
In this politically savvy marriage of solidarity and common sense, the key word became "responsibility."
Hidden therein, however, as though it were totally insignificant, is what historian Tony Judt has described as the return of the spirit of "England's New Poor Law" of 1834.
As in Dickens's England, citizenship became conditional. So there was an outright assault on the primary idea of social justice, that is, the absolute right to dignity. When one is hungry, well then, one asks for alms.
In its wake, the unconditional right of membership in the community disappeared also. Society became a club in which one is a member "under certain conditions." The images of Hurricane Katrina would reveal the cruel meaning of that conditionality to the whole world.
On top of this "righting" of the left came submission to the capitalist schema of historical determinism. Echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous "Tina" ("There is No Alternative"), New York Times editorialist Tom Friedman explained enthusiastically that once a country puts on the "Golden Straitjacket," "its political choices get reduced to Pepsi or Coke."
It's not the "End of History" Fukuyama proclaimed, but the end of politics. The Faustian neo-liberal pact is to barter away mastery of our collective destiny for a promise of prosperity, a promise that moreover often proves illusory. In close to half the world's countries, income per person in 2000 was inferior to what it had been in 1990.
I agree with most of this description of what happened under Clinton. I disagree, though, that it's the end of politics. In fact, that conclusion makes no sense: the rest of the article describes the political victory of leading sectors of capitalists as a class. The piece describes the political accomplishments of the neoliberals, but then denies that they are political accomplishments. With help from the financial bubble, he presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich since 1929. The income of the richest one percent of Americans doubled, while that of the median tranche rose by 15 percent only (over eight years in constant dollars). The Wal-Mart founder's family possesses a personal fortune equal to the collective personal fortune of 120 million Americans.
Clinton doubled the prison population compared to what it had been under Reagan. Accused of being "soft on crime" during his campaign, he went to attend the execution of a mentally handicapped man, famous for having asked the guard who served him his last meal whether he could keep his yoghurt for later.
Welfare Was Supposed to Reinforce Poverty and Consequently Had to Be Subjected to Merit Criteria.
In 1996, along with the great "Welfare Reform Act," Clinton signed the death certificate for the American left. The attractive idea was: since welfare reinforces poverty, let's submit it to merit criteria.
In this politically savvy marriage of solidarity and common sense, the key word became "responsibility."
Hidden therein, however, as though it were totally insignificant, is what historian Tony Judt has described as the return of the spirit of "England's New Poor Law" of 1834.
As in Dickens's England, citizenship became conditional. So there was an outright assault on the primary idea of social justice, that is, the absolute right to dignity. When one is hungry, well then, one asks for alms.
In its wake, the unconditional right of membership in the community disappeared also. Society became a club in which one is a member "under certain conditions." The images of Hurricane Katrina would reveal the cruel meaning of that conditionality to the whole world.
On top of this "righting" of the left came submission to the capitalist schema of historical determinism. Echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous "Tina" ("There is No Alternative"), New York Times editorialist Tom Friedman explained enthusiastically that once a country puts on the "Golden Straitjacket," "its political choices get reduced to Pepsi or Coke."
It's not the "End of History" Fukuyama proclaimed, but the end of politics. The Faustian neo-liberal pact is to barter away mastery of our collective destiny for a promise of prosperity, a promise that moreover often proves illusory. In close to half the world's countries, income per person in 2000 was inferior to what it had been in 1990.
That denial is enabled by an unstated premise: democracy. Because Clinton was democratically elected, the pact to barter away our destiny is presumed to be 'our' pact, rather than the extortion exerted by the finance sector. It assumes, in other words, that there was some kind of collective decision to pursue greed, that collectively people thought that greed is good. But this only makes sense if the case for continuation and even extension of the collective provisions of the welfare state was made. If the left failed to make this case, then it certainly failed (and I think it did--as I argue in Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies--which will appear in September from Duke).
But that is not the end of politics. It is a defeat.
The response to the end of politics is to turn to culture, playful stagings of resistance (submission), anarchic jabs at power (hysterical foolishness), service and volunteerism (as opposed to organizing), and signing online petitions.
The response to a defeat is to regroup, rethink, and fight back.
"That denial is enabled by an unstated premise: democracy. Because Clinton was democratically elected, the pact to barter away our destiny is presumed to be 'our' pact, rather than the extortion exerted by the finance sector. It assumes, in other words, that there was some kind of collective decision to pursue greed, that collectively people thought that greed is good. But this only makes sense if the case for continuation and even extension of the collective provisions of the welfare state was made. If the left failed to make this case, then it certainly failed (and I think it did--as I argue in Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies--which will appear in September from Duke)."
I think you're right, in the main, except where you accept that Clinton was elected democratically. That is, I agree that the idea that he was leads to your other points, but that in fact he was not, not because of fraud, but because the electoral system is not democratic. So, though various cases against welfare reform were made, however ineffectively, they didn't matter.
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2009 at 01:27 PM