American University professor and political historian Allan J. Lichtman, speaking Monday on CNN, went so far as to argue that it is the end of the conservative economic era ushered in by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and that the Obama election represents the start of a new liberal era.
In November 1980, Reagan won the presidency in a landslide, with Republicans capturing the Senate, in an election that marked the start of the Reagan Revolution of tax cuts, increases in defense spending, and decreases in the growth of social programs. Reagan's presidency ushered in a broad, secular trend toward privatization and free markets that would eventually encompass all of the world's major economies, including China, and the former Soviet Union, which disbanded in 1991.
The times, they are a changin'
During his Monday interview on CNN, Lichtman went so far as to say that Obama's election marks the end of economic conservatism and the start of new era of liberalism. However, in a column published on January 16 at Gazette.com, a Maryland Community Newspaper, he argued that "Obama should recognize that there is no consensus answer to recovery and reform, and experiment with a mix of market and regulatory approaches." Further, rather than 'governing from the center,' Lichtman said Obama should "move the middle to [him] them by changing the conversation about government and implementing programs that work."
But what does Obama really represent?
End of economic conservatism? Move the center to you? What is going on here? Keeping in mind that one disagrees with scholar Lichtman only at one's peril, the view from here argues that the rise of Obama stems not from the financial crisis, but from structural problems facing the U.S. economy that long predated it, but that without question, contributed to it.
The main problem has been that for far too long, an increasing percentage of Americans have been earning too little, even as massive wealth has been building up among upper-income groups. These economic and social problems would have eventually led to a reform candidate, with or without Obama. Obama's genius, then, is due to his intellect, temperament, pragmatism, campaign skills, ability to connect with the concerns of these modest-wage Americans (and others), and yes, to being in the right place at the right time.
However, although Obama represents big change, don't be concerned that he's going to try to implement the French Fifth Republic. The American system - - corporate capitalism - - has been remarkably resilient, with the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects repeatedly providing the necessary safety valve for the nation.
Hence, look for a solution to arise from that safety valve itself - - the American system's ability to reform itself and encourage and implement innovation - - or as Obama puts it "a good idea over here, a viable solution there," as the telling clues of that more perfect union.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Struggling Playboy outsources business ops
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-19-2009 @ 2:16PM
Iridium said...
I don't even want to argue the point. True conservative economic policies are all that really work.
Wall Street has been run by liberal economic policies for the past 15 years. Pleae take a look at the top investment bankers, heads of government finance, CEOs of mega corporations, big time bankrolled lawyers. The vast majority are liberals running very liberal economic policies.
1-19-2009 @ 3:29PM
Robert Bailey said...
President Bush did not use conservative economic policy. His economic policies more closely resembled liberal, big government, government knows how to spend your money economics. That caused the failure of the economy. Now we will have more of the same from Obama and we will go deeper into debt and the economy will sink lower until true conservative economic policies return.
1-19-2009 @ 3:33PM
Mike said...
This author is probably better fitted to be writing for DailyKos or HuffPost. Notice how Forbes stocks their staff with capitalists only...
1-19-2009 @ 3:36PM
Mike said...
...and for the last time, just because Bush was a Republican, that does not imply that he was a conservative. Granted he did rebuild our military, he also did just as much to push the Democrat agenda. Can anyone say Medicare Part D?
1-19-2009 @ 4:07PM
BHarrison said...
It is unequivacoble that it was overt "liberalism" that foistered the creation of this economic disaster. By the same token radical conservatism is not the answer either. How about a moderate approach to all of this.
If Congress instills integrity in the FIs, the corporations, and the markets with reasonable and prudent regulations, and effective oversight, won't 99% of the problems simply go away? There must be full disclosure and transparency to the quareterly financial reports of the FIs, corporations and the market / fund managers . . . that is merely the "costs of business" keeping things on a fair and honest basis to ensure that the "sins" (felony crimes) of the past are not repeated.
I find it somewhat wryly amusing that "honesty", and adherence to "sound business principles" and "accounting practices and standards" are so difficult for politicians, CEOs, and businessmen to accept. They are the perversions of a decent capitalistic system for the benefit of our society.
Congress has been the MAIN CULPRIT in the failures that led up to these economic debacles; they "allowed" all of the crimes and abuse to be orchestrated, abused, and perpetuated.
1-19-2009 @ 4:26PM
Eric said...
and for the last time, just because Bush was a Republican, that does not imply that he was a conservative. Granted he did rebuild our military, he also did just as much to push the Democrat agenda. Can anyone say Medicare Part D?
....Rebuilt our military. REcruitment shortages so bad theat convicted felons are allowed to serve now is rebuilding. Troops deployed in two warzones without the proper equipment and armor is "Rebuilding" the military? Allowing subcontractors to do jobs done by the military at hundreds of times the cost is "Rebuilding"? You are and idiot.
1-19-2009 @ 8:51PM
steve bourg said...
Oh God, not you again Lazzaro! Yes, we're at a crossroads.......but the troubles began many years ago as govt grew larger and larger with less and less respect for the taxpayers and the tenets of Capitalism. We have a seriously diluted form of Capitalism with ~ 35% of GDP going to taxes, and the top 10% earners are paying too much. So job-creation's in big trouble, and Obama will make it worse. You write that he'll take ideas from various sectors, but you're seriously deluded. He thinks even our Capitalism-lite, is unfair and needs more income-transfer to poor people. That will be his mantra, and it'll be the doom of our vibrancy (or return to vibrancy). We're sunk Lazzaro....his spending to oblivion will only be supported by larger taxes from fewer who can afford it. We are freaking toast with this semi-socialist, and you're whistling past the graveyard to think otherwise.
1-20-2009 @ 4:30AM
sgentilejr said...
There was absolutely nothing 'conservative' about Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Boy. Between the 3 of them they added $8 Trillion dollars to the National Debt by spending and borrowing.
Ike was our last true Conservative Republican President.
1-20-2009 @ 8:41AM
Lawrence Phoenix said...
Sorry Charlie, the big 100 foot statue you built to Reagan just had it's ass fall off... again..his savings and loan crisis was just so darn much fun we thought we'd export it globally this time...Hope you big-time 'conservatives' are ready for your new paradim ,ie, ''Shovel-Ready"...
1-20-2009 @ 11:10AM
Jeff said...
If the republican's only reconciliation is that they staunchly supported a wolf in sheep's clothing for 8 years, well then it shows how pathetic their party has become.