What's at Stake?

As I contemplate the Republican victory in the election last month, it occurred to me what is at stake in a broader sense. I have often spoke of the environmental damage, of increased inequality, of growing poverty and of the possibility of America falling further behind its competitors to the East and West. In a broader sense, what is at stake is the moral and ethical foundation of our very society. Republican rule over the past 40 years has led to a profound revaluation of values that has placed the individual at the center of social and economic life. After the Great Depression, the government and community took center stage and led to a period of increased civic responsibility, government intervention, regulation and a sense that the common good trumped the interests of the power elites. This story, of course, simplifies history, but it was clear, as Kenneth Galbraith among many noted, that governments could work toward reflecting the interests of the common good.

Since LBJ's Great Society, there has been constant pressure to reign in the size of government, to undermine the Keynesian goal of full employment and to deregulate the economy. At it's heart, neoliberal ideology is founded on the principle that the common good is best met by allowing individuals to act in their own interest without the influence of the government. Citizenship was rearticulated in consumption-oriented framing and attacks on the Nation-State and Welfare State sought to undermine the role of the government in regulation, ameliorating the deleterious effects of the market economy and ensuring relatively fair allocation of the costs and benefits of society. Thus ensued a period of privatization, dismantling of the social safety net, a shift from a focus on unemployment to low inflation, an anti-union and anti-labor stance, a backlash against feminism and civic rights legislation and a major change in tax laws that has resulted in one of the greatest transfers of wealth toward the top in history.

The new common sense is premised on the efficiency of markets and the relative ineptitude of government. It harkens back to the invisible hand of Smith without any reference to economic theory since the 70s, which has highlighted the flaws in this argument -- from asymmetries in power and access to knowledge, to barriers to entry for new firms, to market power and imperfect pricing mechanisms. While economists have recognized the necessity for government regulation of markets, conservatives have pushed for just the opposite, and have largely succeeded in establishing a society where corporations are responsible to no one but their shareholders. Yet history has consistently shown that government intervention not only protects citizens from the excesses of corporations, but tends to lead to more economic stability and growth. Even today, with the new realities of global competition, countries like China, India, South Korea, Malaysia and Brazil have all benefited from strong government oversight and planning of economic development -- while others that either embraced or were forced to accept neoliberal models of development have seen increased poverty, lower or negative growth and a general decline in sovereignty and quality of life.

So when I think of what is at stake, I believe it is the future of the globe and quality of life of its inhabitants. Are we to establish international bodies that can temper the excesses of the market system? Are we to find ways to more equitably allocate the costs and benefits of society (through a return to progressive income taxation and a stronger, more just legal system)? Are we to find ways to align corporate and social interests? Can we create a new ideology that places social responsibility alongside individual interest? Can a renaissance of democracy undermine the power of corporations to largely control public discourse and policy? Our collective futures are at stake, and I only hope that citizens wake up to the direness of the current situation before it is too late.