Somehow we nurtured a whole generation of conservatives who are too young to have suffered the depredations of the Great Depression, have never heard Glenn Miller play, have no clue whether “LaSalle” is a university or an out-of-production poor man’s Cadillac, and who think Herbert Hoover’s policies should be replicated even though they are have no idea what those policies were and why they failed.
“Boy, the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days!
Didn’t need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight. Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days!
And you knew where you were then! Girls were girls and men were men. Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent. Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days!
Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win. Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin. Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song. I don’t know just what went wrong! Those Were the Days!”
One of the beauties of the All in the Family theme song is that it predates the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Because of this, it can perfectly capture the vapid nostalgia for a bygone era that never was without being challenged by any attempt to revive that era. The lyrics I supplied are more expansive that what you heard while watching the show, but the full version only serves to amplify the point.
The song is obviously a reaction to the turmoil of the sixties, touching on everything from the loss of the Brooklyn Dodgers, to the new style of music, to the pain of inflation, to the changing styles of hair and dress.
But what’s really going on is a sentimentality for simpler times. Anyone driving a LaSalle in the 1930’s was doing pretty well. They probably belonged to a social caste that was able to pull its weight even during the height of the Depression. Maybe they even had the cash to go see Glenn Miller’s band play in person. If they did, they should have counted themselves as fortunate. Glenn Miller’s plane went down over the English Channel in 1944 as he was traveling to France to entertain our troops. That kind of tragedy is whitewashed out of Archie and Edith Bunker’s patchwork remembrances.
Today, conservatives don’t long for Herbert Hoover and the good times they had in the 1930’s while the world was sliding into Hell. They long for Ronald Reagan. But they don’t long for the real Ronald Reagan. They wouldn’t even recognize the real Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes repeatedly when his fondest hopes for his ideology proved to be hopelessly wrong.
Everyone remembers Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture–a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.
Ronald Reagan who…
…called for the abolishment of “all nuclear weapons,” which he considered to be “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”
That last snippet is from a column written in 2007 for the Wall Street Journal by George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. But today’s conservatives have no use for George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.
There’s a lot of debate going on about why the Democrats are not more effective in sticking together and why they are not as ruthless as the Republicans. I am no longer terribly interested in that question, which seems to be a fact of life. What I want to know is how this new breed of conservative was created and what we can do about making sure that the cycle is not repeated.
Because, every time this cycle goes around it gets more dangerous. Archie Bunker was quaint, anachronistic, and therefore somewhat amusing. In these times, he’d be serving in Congress.
This one’s for Tucker Carlson and Rich Lowry:
Good point about every new mutation of the GOP/conservative movement getting worse. But part of this is that Dems/Obama refuse to point this out- and in the absence of them making the case that the latest iteration is even more pro-rich/fiscally irresponsible/generally crazy then nobody is there to call them on this. And since the GOP occupies the “center-right” position in our duverger iron law 2 party system, they get a lot of street cred no matter how crazy they are- if the crazies on the right take over the GOP, then they get to say they are mainstream and normal and in an institutional sense, they are. And average folks don’t really know any better.
What I want to know is why you think Obama and the Dems are so reluctant to present the narrative that explains what the GOP is about, how their plan destroys the middle class, how its always been about destroying the middle class, to call the GOP out on their extremism? To simply say, the GOP is fighitng for rich folks and the Dems are fighting for the middle and working class. If anything, I think Obama goes to great pains to legitimize the crazy, to say its just bygones, good faith disagreements, that’s what elections are for, etc. And I think you have a view on why that is and so does Matt Stoller, Kos, Digby and other denizens of the left blogoshpere – some keep it close to the vest, some don’t.
But I think that’s the issue. And one’s view on it defines one’s position on the left.
You’re not paying attention. Senator Menendez spoke about the Republicans today. It was a good one.
Why is it always Obama’s fault when the Republicans do something crazy?
Obama has indeed pointed out the problems with the Republicans, but it isn’t drama of the day and doesn’t get msm coverage.
There was a vicious tone in DC in the 1930’s. It was in the social set as well as the political. It was worse than what we hear now.
The nutrition bill killed another part of the Reagan Doctine.
And more to the point, the Democrats cut and ran on the president on Gitmo, on terror trials, on tax hikes on the wealthy, on ramming home the best Wall Street reforms and health care plan. And he’s supposed to convince Republicans to bow to his will? Blame Democrats if you don’t want to blame Republicans. Until they stand up for something, the president can’t do a whole lot.
The President is the leader of his party, right? What do you expect when Obama still supports the cut and runners(see Blanche Lincoln as just one example). As Jack Balkin states here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/11/parliamentary-parties-in-presidential.html
Maybe the Democrats are going to have to become more parliamentary or suffer severely. Unless you’d rather the Pukes rule.
Yeah, what the hell am I supposed to think when i read “President Obama said he would consider adopting some of the recommendations in the provocative debt-reduction plan from his fiscal commission”?
So I have the republicans, who want to cut social security, and I have the leader of the democrats, who also wants to cut social security.
and this:
…is preposterous. “what we can do about making sure that the cycle is not repeated”? NOTHING, until the democrats are “more effective in sticking together” and “as ruthless as the Republicans”.
Until they become “terribly interested in that question”, it will remain a fact of life. And this all reminds me of how, when he became a democrat, Arlen Specter displayed much more political acumen then his new party’s leadership. And that the only people in obama’s cabinet who know how to play hardball are Republicans like Ray LaHood.
and damn man, that deficit commission is his OWN. HANDPICKED. COMMISSI0N.
You can’t blame THAT on a feckless party or the GOP, the deficit commission is Obama’s idea.
What I want to know is why you think Obama and the Dems are so reluctant to present the narrative that explains what the GOP is about, how their plan destroys the middle class, how its always been about destroying the middle class, to call the GOP out on their extremism?
Maybe because a lot of Democrats(Bill Clinton .. Evan Bayh .. Ben Nelson .. Max Baucus …) are helping the Pukes destroy the middle class.
OT, LaSalle was a junior marque sold by Cadillac, when Cadillac really was something special. Think of Rolex’s Tudor watches.
In these times, Archie would be a lame duck, having lost the GOP primary to a TP asswipe of dubious sanity.
I think it’s pretty obvious why Dems don’t stick together. Republicans are all on the money team. While democrats are ostensibly, at least a little bit, on the people’s team, many if not most are actually on the money team or would really like to be. So they’re pansies. This tax-cut fiasco is a textbook case of the basic spinelessness of many elected democrats.
that is a HUGE problem, and one that is truly lamentable. it’s actually the key to almost everything else.
the GOP is able to articulate what it stands for because it just doesn’t care: they represent the wealthy and the corporations and that’s it. Low taxes, low services, etc.
The democrats KNOW they are supposd to stand for the opposite, but they don’t anymore. And because admitting that would be the end of the party, they twist themselves in knots to stand for nothing while acting like they stand for something.
a democratic party that really stood for universal health care wouldn’t have passed health insurance reform, they would have passed health care reform. There would be a jobs commission instead of a deficit commission.
The comparisons to the USSR keep coming…
What comparisons?
well, let’s see.
We have two parties that don’t stand for anything much more than the entrenched oligarchy, so we might as well have one party. A party that isn’t making anyon’s lives better, but stands for the status quo.
We have rampant corruption.
We have a burgeoning seccesionist movement in som of our states.
We have a “free” press that reports what the government tells it to (asking permission to publish certain wikileaks, running cover for the iraq war, for just two examples): as they used to say, Pravda isn’t truth and truth isn’t Pravda.
And we have a war in Afganistan that’s draining our treasury.
Tellin’ ya, it’s coming. We’re gonna crack up just like they did.
I was guessing more the recent tendency towards executive autarky and the growing serfdom of the populace.
Agree entirely, Brendan. Dems are pulled in two directions. Yes, they are supposed to be the party of the people. No, they can’t get elected in our system if they don’t get at least some money from wealthy interests. The upshot is that they are better than the republicans, but often not by much.
In any case, it’s the system that’s rotten. Wish I knew what to do about it.
Imvho: first step is to decide what the system is. Democracy? Obviously not. Oligarchy? Closer.
Actually naming the system helps us see where we are. Then: is the form of government we have actually subject to democratic change?
We’re so far even from this point, because we’ve been taught to invest emotionally in an exemplary democracy that is neither.
What change can & will take place is in our emotional relationship to our governance (or ‘governance’). Then we’ll see.