By Marc Jampole
Here is an abridged version of my review of G. William Domhoff’s new book, The Myth of Liberal Acendancy: Corporate Domination from the Great Depression to the Great Recession, which appears in the Winter 2014 issue of Jewish Currents. Check out the longer version online and buy the issue, which has a lot of other interesting articles in it!
Here is an abridged version of my review of G. William Domhoff’s new book, The Myth of Liberal Acendancy: Corporate Domination from the Great Depression to the Great Recession, which appears in the Winter 2014 issue of Jewish Currents. Check out the longer version online and buy the issue, which has a lot of other interesting articles in it!
Many contemporary
progressives look back at the 1960s and early
’70s as a golden age when the United States was supposedly a much more
politically liberal land. Sometime in the mid-’70s, the commonly believed story
goes, corporations started working together to move our nation. After thirty
years of union-busting, elimination or privatization of government functions,
and lower taxes on the wealthy, we have devolved into a society of rich and
poor with a shrunken middle class, inadequate tax revenues, a frayed social
safety net, and the most inequitable distribution of wealth since the Gilded
Age.
Many progressive writers and pundits,
including myself, have recently taken to reciting this brief history of class
warfare in America with some frequency. But as G. William Domhoff reminds us in
his latest masterpiece, The Myth of Liberal Ascendancy, the
class war perpetrated by corporations and their owners against the rest of
America predates the Reagan Era and, in fact runs all the way back to the New
Deal and earlier. In his new book, Domhoff establishes the peak of
liberal-progressive influence in the United States not in the 1960s and early
’70s, but during the last two years of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term,
1935-1937.
Domhoff, Distinguished Professor
Emeritus at the University of California-Santa Barbara, is one of the most
important sociologists and progressive thinkers of the past hundred years. His
specialty is the sociology of power: who has it in America, how they got it,
how they keep it and how they use it. His seminal Who Rules America Now?,
now in its seventh edition, builds on and broadens the scope of C. Wright
Mill’s classic, The Power Elite, in its analysis of the power structure in
America. Domhoff and his collaborators keep the world updated on new research
on who has power and wealth in America on his website, WhorulesAmerica.net.
In The Myth of Liberal Ascendancy, Domhoff
tells a stirring tale of class struggle between four power groups:
- The liberal-labor coalition of lefties and labor unions, formed during the early part of the New Deal years.
- Corporate moderates, from the New Deal to the oil shocks of the 1970s, believed in using Keynesian techniques to combat recessions, and recognized the value of full employment.
- Ultraconservatives comprised two groups that always planned and voted together: the rightwing ultra free-marketers, and the Southern, primarily agrarian, racists who were opposed to any kind of desegregation or granting of voting or workplace rights to African-Americans.
In Domhoff’s
telling, these three groups have been the
major power players on the national level since the mid-1930s. On the local
level, however, he points to a fourth group, real estate and development interests,
which dominated regional policy decisions and often made deals on a national
level with any and all of the three primarily national power players.
Domhoff’s history runs through the
formation and passage or failure of major legislation from Roosevelt’s second
term until the Reagan years and beyond. He inspects how these three and
sometimes four power centers viewed each piece of legislation, and how the
legislation developed or stalled based on their push-and-pull.
In the end, the corporate moderates
win — every battle, all the time. Gradually and inexorably, the power of unions
is weakened, taxes on the wealthy decrease, the purchasing power of the minimum
wage declines, and the wealthy control a greater share of income, wealth and
power. The story of each policy decision comes down to the policy groups,
experts and lobbyists who define and discuss the issues, promulgate the
solutions and help create the laws. Corporate moderates spend far and away the
most money forming these groups and supporting economists and other scholars
who formulate the policy and advise the various presidents.
Domhoff makes a very convincing case
that the liberal-labor coalition reached a pinnacle of power in the mid-1930s
and has been losing ground ever since. The high-water mark came in 1935, after
Democrats had swept the midterm elections. After about 1937, even when the
liberal-labor coalition got an occasional win, it was incomplete or tainted.
Take Medicare: Despite the protests of labor unions, private insurers were
allowed to have a large role administering the program. This led to rampant
medical-cost inflation, as predicted beforehand by labor experts. If the
corporate moderates were going to let taxes pay for medical care for senior
citizens, however, they insisted that the private sector be able to enrich
itself in the process.
Two dynamics seem to predict and
direct the move rightward that corporate moderates took in the 1970s: First,
they have always hated unions as much as the ultraconservatives have, and
always have had curtailing the power of unions high on the policy agenda.
Second, unions were too often unsupportive of the efforts of minorities to gain
civil and workplace rights, and, in fact feared and distrusted minorities and
the organizations representing them. Anti-unionism thus drove conservative
moderates into the arms of the ultraconservatives, while racism fractured the
liberal-labor coalition. Tragically, the left contributed to its own
demise.
After chewing
my way lately through the annoying personal
anecdotes and trivializing analogies that clutter many other recent books of
social science and science, I found The Myth of Liberal Ascendancy
refreshing for its sustained focus on the subject, and its breezy and direct
but non-patronizing style. I found no jargon and little if any academic
circumlocution.
As an electorate, we currently stand
at the dawn of what progressives hope is a new day for the United States.
Voters seem sick of Tea Party nihilism and understand that the government must
get involved to jump-start our economy, provide medical care to all, educate
our young and protect our environment. Domhoff’s book is a prescient reminder,
however, not to become too enthusiastic about a Democratic sweep in 2014 and
2016 if the Democrats elected are centrists and look to the corporate moderates
for legislative direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment