Even Thatcher was doing it, until her infamous interview where she talked the country being "flooded by people of alien cultures", Labour and Conservatives were about equal in the polls (Labour sometimes led the Conservatives slightly). After that interview, Conservatives pulled significantly ahead of Labour and won the election.
Same with Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood speech. Despite being sacked from Heath's shadow cabinet right after the speech, historians note that it played a decisive role in the Conservatives winning in 1970. Powell's racialising of immigration not only won over Conservative voters but a significant Labour vote which was opposed to non-white immigration.
Typical. These populist politicians are happy to use the skills of immigrants but when there are economic and social issues, they throw the same people under the bus as scapegoats. Reform is doing the same now with its chairman claiming that "immigration is the lifeblood of the country" but they will turn on immigrants when it suits them politically.
And people say "culture war" is irrelevant, just talk about economic issues and people will come vote for you. No they wont. We need to be doing constant agitation and education against reactionary cultural views, to convince people to stop holding such views.
I mean it played a considerable part, but the new deal did survive the southern strategy. What it didn't survive was Jimmy Carter, so in many ways Anti-establishmentarianism both killed the new deal AND gave us Neoliberalism.
Yeah, Carter appointed Powell to the Fed and began the deregulation of the trucking/airline industries. Reagan picked it up and ran with it but Carter was the US President who got the ball rolling.
Well...Jimmy Carter only came in after the backlash against the Great Society. Nixon won the 1972 election in a landslide over a staunch progressive. And Reagan won the primary and general as the most conservative candidate by far. It was a conservative era with a racist backlash. No way around it.
I feel like global stagflation in the 1970s is probably a stronger reason for the resulting neoliberalism which emerged in the 1980s (globally and not just in the U.S.). There’s a racial element sure but not enough to claim it to be the sole cause of neoliberalism nor enough to call it even the most impactful of multiple causes of neoliberalism.
Yeah, The Great Society was just LBJ, so I don’t know why we are making it the demarcation of the end of the entire New Deal era from FDR when the economic deregulation of Regan is a more total repudiation of new deal economics and the ushering in of neoliberalism
Nixon lessened the impacts of the already concluded great society (which ended in 1968 while Nixon became president in 1969) but he didn’t overturn the core economic infrastructure of the new deal like Regan did.
Again, neoliberalism is more of a Regan and Thatcher concept. Additionally even if we were to say that Nixon was the beginning of neoliberalism and that was due to racism, that doesn’t change that the growth in support of neoliberalism by the end of the 1970s was definitively influenced by the reaction to stagflation in the 1970s.
This is a pretty good summary, it took the crisis of profitability in the 70s, the business revolt, the southern strategy and the social conflicts of the late civil rights era, the costs of the Vietnam War (aprox 10% of the economy on military spending at the time) and the 70s oil shock.
Plus Nixon's "Franklins," (the silent majority of disproportionately small business owning stivers that rebelled against the "Orthogonian" WASP new deal elite), plus the broader move by the top 15% of middle classes to ally with the business revolt as they chafed against the limits of their wealth in the new deal order. On top of those there is the boomer generational change where the liberals were less suspicious of business power then post Watergate politicians reflect that and slowly abandon the new deal era class collaborationism in part because of union support for Vietnam. Then they have to find a financial base and settle on high tech and capital intensive industry like finance.
If you are from the Adolph Reed or Cedric Johnson school there was also a pretty decent section of the black elite and political class who accepted this later on. And if you're from the Nancy Frasier type it was also sold to both sides of the gender upheaval, to feminists as an end to the old family wage system that entrenched male domination, and to traditionalists as something that would strengthen the position of the father as head of the household. As part of the business revolt there was also a society wide push to frame neoliberalism as democratising 'public choice' that exploited real working class resentments with the snooty state bureaucrats.
It is really hard to break down a social order, especially when it has large social support and so it's going to be a long generational tern to get rid of neoliberalism.
The shift to Neoliberalism was a global phenomenon so it is a stretch to argue that a US specific political realignment was “the” key driver in that shift.
The article actually touches on some of the more significant drivers globally, such as the end of Bretton Woods (which can be blamed on various US-centered domestic political developments) and probably most important, the stagflation that occurred in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo. Also key is the power shift in the mid 20th century within Left and Social Democratic parties away from rural populations and especially industrial workers toward white collar professionals. The shift to the “New Left” at the expense of unions was felt most acutely in anglophone countries but affected politics throughout the developed world.
The other main problem with this analysis is the blame placed on “colorblind” policies, when it was actually the more active racially redistributive measures that were that were more explosive politically, including Affirmative Action with enforced quotas, school busing (especially the busing of white children to poorer black neighborhood schools), and a focus on using anti-discrimination lawsuits to target anti-black discrimination. Such measures often alienated not just white southerners but also white ethnics in the North (especially Southern and Eastern Europeans), also a key part of the New Deal coalition. Note that many in these populations had only recently been integrated themselves (1930s) and in many cases they still felt the effects of discrimination.
For a great analysis on the Neoliberal shift and its intersection with US racial politics (among other things), take a look at two books by Judith Stein - “Running Steel, Running America” and “Pivotal Decade”. The former looks at how the United Steel Workers union navigated the politics of the 50’s through 80’s, with one half of the book focusing on racial politics. The latter builds on the first, focusing on the politics and decisions of the executive branch of the US government during the long 70’s as a lens into the Neoliberal shift.
I don’t think it’s that simple, but yeah race played a large role
Even Thatcher was doing it, until her infamous interview where she talked the country being "flooded by people of alien cultures", Labour and Conservatives were about equal in the polls (Labour sometimes led the Conservatives slightly). After that interview, Conservatives pulled significantly ahead of Labour and won the election.
Same with Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood speech. Despite being sacked from Heath's shadow cabinet right after the speech, historians note that it played a decisive role in the Conservatives winning in 1970. Powell's racialising of immigration not only won over Conservative voters but a significant Labour vote which was opposed to non-white immigration.
Which is funny considering in 1963 he invited over thousands and thousands of Indians and Pakistanis to work in the NHS
Typical. These populist politicians are happy to use the skills of immigrants but when there are economic and social issues, they throw the same people under the bus as scapegoats. Reform is doing the same now with its chairman claiming that "immigration is the lifeblood of the country" but they will turn on immigrants when it suits them politically.
Exactly, it’s disgusting
And people say "culture war" is irrelevant, just talk about economic issues and people will come vote for you. No they wont. We need to be doing constant agitation and education against reactionary cultural views, to convince people to stop holding such views.
Racism def has helped torpedo the Great Society programs
I mean it played a considerable part, but the new deal did survive the southern strategy. What it didn't survive was Jimmy Carter, so in many ways Anti-establishmentarianism both killed the new deal AND gave us Neoliberalism.
It was way less Jimmy Carter and way more stagflation
But hell even Jimmy Carter wasn’t much of a new dealer himself, kind of a proto neoliberal in some ways
Yeah, Carter appointed Powell to the Fed and began the deregulation of the trucking/airline industries. Reagan picked it up and ran with it but Carter was the US President who got the ball rolling.
Well...Jimmy Carter only came in after the backlash against the Great Society. Nixon won the 1972 election in a landslide over a staunch progressive. And Reagan won the primary and general as the most conservative candidate by far. It was a conservative era with a racist backlash. No way around it.
I feel like global stagflation in the 1970s is probably a stronger reason for the resulting neoliberalism which emerged in the 1980s (globally and not just in the U.S.). There’s a racial element sure but not enough to claim it to be the sole cause of neoliberalism nor enough to call it even the most impactful of multiple causes of neoliberalism.
The Great Society ended in 1968 with Nixon
The great society stated in 1964. I didn’t realize the New Deal era was from 1964-1968.
The Great Society was just LBJ
He was basically the last (barely) left-wing President
The plan was supposed to last so much longer but the reactionary backlash to Civil Rights killed it
Yeah, The Great Society was just LBJ, so I don’t know why we are making it the demarcation of the end of the entire New Deal era from FDR when the economic deregulation of Regan is a more total repudiation of new deal economics and the ushering in of neoliberalism
Because Nixon was the start of the dismantling and he came to power through reactionary forces
Nixon lessened the impacts of the already concluded great society (which ended in 1968 while Nixon became president in 1969) but he didn’t overturn the core economic infrastructure of the new deal like Regan did.
Again, neoliberalism is more of a Regan and Thatcher concept. Additionally even if we were to say that Nixon was the beginning of neoliberalism and that was due to racism, that doesn’t change that the growth in support of neoliberalism by the end of the 1970s was definitively influenced by the reaction to stagflation in the 1970s.
The stagflation was due to the oil crisis and Nixon breaking Bretton Woods
Even if so, that has no bearing on whether the rise of neoliberalism was responsive to stagflation or not
This is a pretty good summary, it took the crisis of profitability in the 70s, the business revolt, the southern strategy and the social conflicts of the late civil rights era, the costs of the Vietnam War (aprox 10% of the economy on military spending at the time) and the 70s oil shock.
Plus Nixon's "Franklins," (the silent majority of disproportionately small business owning stivers that rebelled against the "Orthogonian" WASP new deal elite), plus the broader move by the top 15% of middle classes to ally with the business revolt as they chafed against the limits of their wealth in the new deal order. On top of those there is the boomer generational change where the liberals were less suspicious of business power then post Watergate politicians reflect that and slowly abandon the new deal era class collaborationism in part because of union support for Vietnam. Then they have to find a financial base and settle on high tech and capital intensive industry like finance.
If you are from the Adolph Reed or Cedric Johnson school there was also a pretty decent section of the black elite and political class who accepted this later on. And if you're from the Nancy Frasier type it was also sold to both sides of the gender upheaval, to feminists as an end to the old family wage system that entrenched male domination, and to traditionalists as something that would strengthen the position of the father as head of the household. As part of the business revolt there was also a society wide push to frame neoliberalism as democratising 'public choice' that exploited real working class resentments with the snooty state bureaucrats.
It is really hard to break down a social order, especially when it has large social support and so it's going to be a long generational tern to get rid of neoliberalism.
The shift to Neoliberalism was a global phenomenon so it is a stretch to argue that a US specific political realignment was “the” key driver in that shift.
The article actually touches on some of the more significant drivers globally, such as the end of Bretton Woods (which can be blamed on various US-centered domestic political developments) and probably most important, the stagflation that occurred in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo. Also key is the power shift in the mid 20th century within Left and Social Democratic parties away from rural populations and especially industrial workers toward white collar professionals. The shift to the “New Left” at the expense of unions was felt most acutely in anglophone countries but affected politics throughout the developed world.
The other main problem with this analysis is the blame placed on “colorblind” policies, when it was actually the more active racially redistributive measures that were that were more explosive politically, including Affirmative Action with enforced quotas, school busing (especially the busing of white children to poorer black neighborhood schools), and a focus on using anti-discrimination lawsuits to target anti-black discrimination. Such measures often alienated not just white southerners but also white ethnics in the North (especially Southern and Eastern Europeans), also a key part of the New Deal coalition. Note that many in these populations had only recently been integrated themselves (1930s) and in many cases they still felt the effects of discrimination.
For a great analysis on the Neoliberal shift and its intersection with US racial politics (among other things), take a look at two books by Judith Stein - “Running Steel, Running America” and “Pivotal Decade”. The former looks at how the United Steel Workers union navigated the politics of the 50’s through 80’s, with one half of the book focusing on racial politics. The latter builds on the first, focusing on the politics and decisions of the executive branch of the US government during the long 70’s as a lens into the Neoliberal shift.
So you basically said racism was the problem
We know Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans often started race wars against African-Americans
Plus, the Great Society ended in 1968 with Nixon who was elected in reaction to Civil Rights