Ross Douthat, the NYT's new 'conservative' columnist, takes a shot at diagnosing why it is that we may be headed for greater income inequality and slow-growth in our economy, despite the 'liberal' concerns about such inequality.
Since he's not a trained economist, nor am I, let me try to match his analysis with my own common-sense, historically based observations.
The kind of liberalism Douthat is talking about, concerned about income inequality, disappeared sometime in the 80s and 90s, to be replaced by neo-liberalism, which wasn't (and isn't) really concerned about such things. Clinton certainly wasn't a traditional liberal in that sense, nor were any of his economic advisors like Robert Rubin or Larry Summers. And since Obama has used the same advisors as Clinton, the new President has clearly revealed his stripes as a neo-liberal.
So it seems that only the 'left' seems concerned about reasonable income equality in America. The neo-liberal/conservative consensus, representing the heart of both political parties, seems to be only about economic growth and the opportunity to become rich.
Douthat, like most conservatives, has simply set up a 'liberal' strawman here: there is no liberal concern about income equality that has been represented at all in our political system since the late 70s. Democrats have been captured by neo-liberal ideology, captured by free-market, free-trade, globalist economists and businessmen, for a long time now. Many people hoped and prayed that this would not be true of Obama, but alas, it seems to be.
So, where does it leave all of us who are concerned about income equality? Sitting on the political sidelines, stewing in our frustration and growing anger.
No comments:
Post a Comment