(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era. Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century. If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale. Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.
This is an example of sloppy thinking. The Progressive Era end in 1920. This brand of Progressivism was spearheaded by Republicans. The Republican party then was a pro-business, free market party then just like now. They were also the Blue party.
The liberalism of the New Dealers was the product of the Democratic party, which was the Red party, but was less enthusiastic about business and free markets. The founder, Andrew Jackson famously disliked bankers. It was they who created the SEC and pass Glass-Steagall.
The Democrats got their brand of progressivism from their economic ideology; it ran counter to their red nature. Similarly the GOP got their progressivism from their blue nature, it ran counter to their economic ideology. The problem is blue (i.e. cultural) progressive solutions to don't resolve the cause of the perception of things going in the wrong direction. Hillary was offering another Progressive era with the sort of "Blue Republican" solutions proffered a century ago. They didn't work then and they wouldn't work now. Angry voters sensed this, so they voted for the other guy, thinking simplistically that if one side isn't offering what is needed the other side must be.
Neither side was offering any solutions. Movement conservatives labored half a century to expunge these solutions from the body politic. They completely succeeded in doing so from the Republican party and they were largely successful in the Democratic party as well. Both Obama and the Clintons have drunk the movement conservative kool-aid, which is why their approach to our problems so resemble those of a century earlier. Take Obamacare. Why not just expand Medicare to cover everybody not on a company plan, and put the bill on the nation's charge card. This is how Republicans fund their tax cuts. Let the Republicans run an a program of taking away Medicare in order to balance the budget. Good luck with that. As Dick Cheney said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
But they didn't do that. That's because they are like the old Progressives who were all about "The Wisconsin Idea" (look it up). The New Dealers were still from the party of Jackson, so they were willing it to stick it to the Republican elites and "welcome their hatred". Trump can't be like the New Dealers because the problem is guys like him. He has to act in the interests of himself and his class, and so he will. The negative trends will continue and intensify. The best thing Trump would do for the country would be to preside over a complete collapse of the economy, which will finally force cosseted elites to deal with the problem. That is do we divide into teams an brawl it out (civil war) or all accept a proportionate haircut,reducing absolute wealth, but minimizing the changes in relative wealth (from whence status is derived).