The Nation has been running a series of articles outlining a progressive alternative to what they call “Rubinomics,” named for Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. The first article, published in the March 5 edition, was by James K. Galbraith. The second, which appears in the latest issue (May 21), and is by Thomas Palley. Coincidentally, there is also a great discussion of No Child Left Behind by Stanford Education prof Linda Darling-Hammond.

Through reading I found that I was not as woefully under informed as I originally felt. Part of the disconnect was due to a difference in terminology (recall our abortion v. sanctity of life divide from the Che post). In reading up on Keynesian Theory, I was interested to see that I was relatively familiar with the debate, its historical underpinnings and the economic elements involved. I’m sure that you will be disappointed – though not surprised – to hear that we are on opposite (though maybe not polar opposite) sides of yet another issue. It seems to me that the effect of laissez-faire/supply-side economic policies have done more good for more people (at least in the US) than any other system. This is real-world affect as opposed to theoretical benefit. I still have more to read, but I have a hard time buying into an economic theory that was spawned by the chaos of Versailles and virtually debunked within barely a half-century. There is something to be said for cumulative experiential wisdom.

Neoliberal policies favor privatizing state industries and balancing budgets by cutting social spending. Ironically, there has been a notable backlash in Latin America, even as this school of thought has come home to roost.

Jimmy Carter was the first U.S. president to embrace neoliberalism, but it took Reagan, Bush I and Clinton (with the help of Gingrich) to drive the final nails in the coffin of New Deal liberalism. Historically speaking, Nixon was indeed the last president of the Liberal era. No president since him, Republican or Democrat, “liberal” or “conservative”, has strayed far from the monetarist path.

I will concede that the term is not generally accepted by its practitioners. “Economic liberalism” is the more broadly accepted term, as espoused by Hayek, Friedman, et al. See also globalization and corporatism.

As on the other thread, we may have reached a conclusion. You have backed me into defending either Clinton or Nixon which is not going to happen.

Though the right loves to tar the Clintons as liberals, in the context of the 20th century they are clearly center-right. Casting them as leftists has the unfortunate effect of skewing the starting point for political dialectic to the right.

In an honest reading of 20th century political history, Nixon was arguably the last “liberal” president in terms of economic policy.

Plus, I don’t give Clinton high marks on immigration, crime, cutting taxes and shrinking government. It appears that you’re not a staunch partisan so I doubt it hurts your feelings for me to say so.

We may have to agree to disagree on socialized medicine

As always, thanks for the interchange.

Even if Sarkozy wants to chip away at the French social contract, he’s not proposing moving it anywhere close to the embarrassment of a “system” we have here. Meanwhile, you’d be hard pressed to find a Democrat who wouldn’t hack away at the tattered remains of our social safety net in the name of a balanced budget.

Obviously you didn’t address France initially, but the thread seemed to be heading that direction by the time I showed up to comment. I am aware that France is technically not socialist, however – at least on my side of political spectrum – the term is often used as shorthand for European social democracy (note that I did differentiate “French socialism”). It’s not very precise, but since there are no true socialist nations on the planet, I’m not that worried about it being misunderstood.

I was interested to note that despite being a self-avowed socialist, you stated, “France, like most of Western Europe, is a social democracy. This means that normal working people have some basic guarantees against getting screwed over.” May I infer that full-blown socialism does screw over the working people? Obviously this is true historically, but do you concede that it is an intrinsic characteristic of socialism? Just a thought…

As to Sarkozy, you are probably right. Even if his belief system was in lock-step with American conservatives, he would probably not be able to move policy very far, particularly not until UMP’s likely victories next month give him a solid parliamentary majority. I am not so sure about your assertion that though conservative by European standards, Sarko is to the left of the Democratic presidential candidates. Let’s review the platform that got him elected.

Law Enforcement/Immigration
You contend that the popularity of this issue stems from xenophobia, but when the great city of Paris has dozens of cars burned on a slow night and entire suburbs into which the police don’t dare venture, I think they have a real problem. The suffix –phobia implies an irrational fear and I don’t see concern about nearly perpetual rioting as irrational.

Economy/Taxation
Sarkozy stated that he wants to encourage people to work longer hours by making overtime pay tax exempt. He also wants to lower the inheritance tax, wealth (read redistribution) tax and business taxes.

Social Programs
He wants to tighten restrictions on unemployment benefits, cut public spending and reduce (through attrition) the number of civil service employees.

Wow! Tough on crime, close the borders, tax cuts (for the rich even), welfare reform and smaller government. At least on the surface he sounds like Newt Gingrich! Ok, that was childish, but my point is that his alleged position to the left of the Dems on the political spectrum is certainly debatable.

You are right that some of the key changes to the safety net necessary to invigorate their stagnant economy would not be touched even if Ghingis Khan were elected president and supreme ruler. Last year the youth rioted and demonstrated simply on the suggestion that regulations preventing their being fired for incompetence might be loosened. Plus France’s health care/guaranteed retirement/cradle-to-the-grave-nanny-stateism is as sacred as cows get.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and sorry for my long-windedness.