I remember Pete Buttigieg talked a lot about this in 2019 when he was running for president. That the neo-liberal era was over and that the chaos we experience is because we're in this uncomfortable limbo, "on the blank page between two chapters".
This was the most sober look at today's politics that I've heard in a long time. Not only a great conversation but educational. As a millennial I don't have much of a grasp on the New Deal era and the beginning's of Neoliberalism. On the other-hand, I do have an understanding of the criticism of "free markets" and the yearning for more traditional values in America. I share many of those same sentiments
Thank you for having Gary Gerstle as a guest. He clarified my understand of political orders and where we are right now in America. I want to second Gerstle's recommendation of The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory (Tim Alberta) which I happen to be reading as I write. I stumbled onto it with a desire to understand why Christians would support Donald Trump, and Mr. Alberta provides insight into conflicts and divisions within evangelical churches about the politicization of the pulpit. It's an important book. Mr. Klein, thank you for your thoughtful questions and your diverse guest list. Your podcast shines light on what the heck is going on in America and our world today.
Populism is going on, poorly educated people and mass propaganda. Outsourcing everything to others. It’s not new, it goes in cycles, it causes death and destruction. Sadly thought constructive leaders are hardly ever elected.
The cool aloofness of this nuanced discussion belays a strange indifference to the destructive legacy of neoliberalism. The near total hollowing out of the American working middle class and the subsequent rise of extreme wealth inequality have so profoundly corroded societal cohesion that we are literally contemplating abandoning American democracy as we understand it, yet there seems to be no real acknowledgement of the deep and structural crises that neoliberalism has left in it's wake.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new political order emerged in Russia and then Hungary. It was an order of "Strong Men" taking control of government and transforming government institutions to gain an incrementally stronger grip over courts, the media, police forces, the military, and other institutions. It's a new 21st century variant of fascism. Today, the majority of the Republican Party has either actively or passively signed onto this new form of 21st century fascism. CPAC and the Heritage Foundation hold joint conferences with delegations from Orban's Fidesz Party or Le Pen's National Front/Rally. Representatives from the USA serve on the editorial board of "The Hungarian Conservative", while representatives from Fidesz help influence the authors of Project 2025. They adopt the same language on immigrants as invaders. They adopt the same strategies of seeding their allies into courts at the highest levels to make themselves immune from criminal prosecution. They borrow violent threats against political opponents from 1920s and 1930s European fascist parties. The outcome is still uncertain, but a new fascism is emerging as a global political force, and this may become the new political order in the United States as well.
This is all excellent information and excellent reference. The trouble is that the general population will not read or seek out these books and it does not care. The general public does not read; it acts on a very visceral agenda and responds to "strong man" tactics. Might is right, is the thinking abf food and gas prices are the main topics, with immigration thrown in. We now have locker room views of how and who government is going to operate.
I am dutifully listening. I just heard it said that in the 1940s, the highest income tax rate was 91%. I’m sure you were correct. But what everybody leaves out, 99% of the time in these discussions, lectures or speeches, is that the rate was 91% after you made something like $25,000 a year in the 1940s and believe me that was a good, high salary. So it makes it sound scarier for the grasping Capitalist to hear a word like 91%, when in fact that was the surplus after their first $25,000. In 1970 the median yearly income was $10,000. So there you go.
This dude also seems convinced the tension between labor and the financial class was only brought on by the fear of communism. While that certainly exasperated their fears, people like Ford and Rockefeller were perfectly fine using force, often lethal force, against their workers to avoid any change in power dynamic. His reading of early industrial history is *very* obtuse.
@@joeranadae3247it’s the opposite-he doesn’t say that the tension was due to communism, and he says that the concessions made to labor by the business class were due to fear of communism. He explicitly acknowledges that previously they did everything in their power to crush the la or movement
Whats always left out is the "effective tax rate" the amount actually paid, the effective tax rate was very similar back then as it is today.. government revenue as a percentage of GDP doesn't really change that much no matter what you set the top marginal rate at, people with means will just find ways to hide there wealth and in the end that hurts the economy more...
As someone from Gen Z, what concerns me more than America entering a post-neoliberal order is the prospect of us ending a post-liberal order entirely. That is, the post-WWII idea that by-and-large we should have a pluralistic, democratic society with rigorous civil liberties mostly blind to a dominant culture or code of morality. I'm not in anyway saying civil rights were always strong since then or that I've agreed with the social agenda of the government at all times since then, most definitely not. But I think civil liberties have always been improving since then, and even if there was a socially conservative government in power alongside a conservative political climate as was the case in the Reagan era, the idea that radically dissenting with these ideas should bring governmental oppression was never truly politically viable. Neither of those seem to be true today as LGBT rights seem on the verge of going backwards and a startling number of Americans seem fine with the government exercising its power to punish those they seem as undesirable socially or politically. The most pessimistic possible takeaway I have of Trump and Trumpism is that this era of American society and Western society as a whole is on its way out, that Americans have grown sick of it and that it may never have been as strong as it seemed.
As a Gen Xer I agree entirely. But I'll add an insight here; from George McGovern on, the Democrats -- stacked with alumni from that disaster of a campaign -- took their eyes off the ball on economics and focused on civil rights and identity politics. At roughly the same time the Republicans pivoted to guns, abortion, tax cuts and over time this became more and more the culture wars side of this equation. Biden -- one of the few Dems to do really well in that 1972 cycle and never all that comfortable with the McGovern wing of the party (which included Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer for example, both of them McGovern campaign workers) -- is the first Democrat to have definitively broken with this model in the White House and I think this was a factor in him picking Harris as a running mate. And the McGovernites and those sympathetic to them (I think Galston falls into this group) don't quite understand how this works. But they are now passing from the scene and there is a new generation of Democrats, especially millennials, and we'll see about Z as more of them get elected, who get the need for government to be seen to be doing something material for the public......and of Republicans of the same age who are gravitating to the tech bro culture that is terrified of what this implies in terms of higher taxes and more proactive regulation.
I also wonder if the take away from the end to the Soviet Union was a victory due to democracy not necessarily capitalism. I know a capitalist might say “what’s the difference”; but I would argue that right now Trumpism is abandoning democracy in favor of capitalism. Hence, me wanting to highlight it was not specifically capitalism that shaped the 20th century but mainly democracy. The idea that capitalism was the reason for the breaking of the Soviet Union allows them to justify why democracy is so easily abandoned by them. Why it might have always been easy to subvert the strength of Western Society; show that when push comes to shove, people would abandon democracy over capitalism.
Fellow Gen Z here, I think you're missing the extent to which politics and economics are interlinked in this process. The civil rights/democratisation movement does not stand independent of the New Deal and Neoliberal eras, but is directly correlated with them. As described in the podcast, the New Left which brought about sexual liberation and LGBT rights and everything you probably see as positive shifts, was the same one that ushered in Bill Clinton and the rise of individualism. To focus on the culture war as the main terrain of political conflict misses the forest for the trees. If politics is downstream of culture, culture is downstream of economics. The project of personal civil liberties was inexorably linked to the project of personal economic liberties. The shifts you are seeing are the result of a failed economic doctrine, on essentially both sides of the aisle. People have grown sick of liberalism because it has failed to fulfill its own promises. To retain the current clip of liberal individualism would require a corresponding new individualistic economic system, and no such system is on the horizon. I do not think things will go backwards. There is simply no impetus for that to occur. But I think that some of the furthest overreaches of the 2010s will be curtailed, and domestic culture war will recede, in favour of conflict with outside forces. Questions of identity, and of morality, will be insignificant in the face of climate migration and conflict with China. This will be the case regardless of Trump or Kamala winning.
The democrats created themselves a new ( for the time) voting base. As it is beginning to fade, they are importing another group via the border. Do not ever think LBJ was sympathetic to the plight of black people
Fukuyama meant 'The End of History' in the Hegelian sense. Specifically that, over time, societies would tend towards having democratically-organized governments. This has largely been the case so far. He did not mean that things would just stop happening.
@@colejhudson Yeah, we knew that's what he meant. And I'm not sure if you've been looking around much lately (around the world, around the US) but even that interpretation of the thesis seems to have fallen apart. Many societies seem to be drifting towards oligarchic autocracy.
@@PhilTomsonhave to agree with you: the big “emerging economies” (China, India, Russia, Turkey) are not converging to the western liberal democratic system, at least not in the short-run
29:50: The French post-structuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze warned the left about precisely this in one of the final essays he published before his death, ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control.’ (1990) In it he warns that these changes“could at first express new freedom, but they could participate as well in mechanisms of control that are equal to the harshest of confinements”, and that “It’s up to them to discover what they’re being made to serve, just as their elders discovered, not without difficulty, the telos of the disciplines.”
Ezra, this is not individualism that implied also personal resposibility, but hedonism, enjoying the upside of freedom while ignoring the downside of individual acts.
Stuff of this quality & intellectual plane is probably viewed by the twelve million or so who regularly watch C-Span and other material on the net at this level. Like a "pre-requisit" for a difficult college class, a lot of Americans do not have the intellectual horsepower to obtain the intended benefit from such a talk. I can hear comments similar to the one's I receive back from those on the net like "word salad" and "in obscurity lies security" -- all admittedly unfair.
I'm not sure where Gary got his learning from, but the washing machine debate was about women's equality not who could build the better appliances for women to slave over. Soviet Union sent women to space decades before the US bothered, to me that signifies the heart of the debate. Should the goverment play an active role in gender equality or should the market figure it out?
yes its quite dense and, honestly, some of the ulterior intentions undeneath some of these big terms seem to swivel and reverse themselves like eddies in a polymorphous current. which economic activity oftens, empirically
Missing from this conversation are the names Musk, Bezos, Zuck and Murdoch and their unaccountability. America is one election away from becoming a Russian style Oligarchy. Hair on blazing fire time.
Disagree a bit about Newt and Clinton (And I was there as well). Newt was actually spellbound by Clinton. He reminisced about how he and Clinton would meet and talk policies like grad students "..and it was all terrific." Newt also fell victim to Clinton's superhuman charisma in a room (a real thing, btw) and asked his aides to keep him from sitting close to him in meetings. Now..could he have hated Clinton simultaneously? Sure.
Love this episode. Would love to hear more modern American history. Learning about Eisenhower makes me double down on my feelings that competition with China is why America needs to win at the hugely profitable transition to electric power and solar.
Many of ya’ ll may not have been born when in the 1970s-1980s when ABC’s Good Morning America was the go-to show in the morning. Re: Jimmy Carter as President. My memory is long, but flawed, so help me recall this memory correctly. The congenial and kind host on ABC was John Hartman. President Carter was the guest that day, with the goal: To demonstrate the burdens on society that regulations or tax filings, I cannot at age 70 now recall, can impose. His display was of stacks and stacks of paperwork he was freeing us from, that was my general impression. The President of the United States of America walked unescorted onto that TV stage to address an issue of importance for all Americans, face front, answering Hartman’s questions, no nonsense. I was young and unequipped to evaluate how unique that moment was. Looking back over my consistency in observing politics since I was 17, however unwillingly ignorant I was, leaves me flummoxed at the willing ignorance of young folks I encounter these days. Even in high school we were more acutely concerned with our government at state and federal levels, and Wars.😢
Hi Anna, I think this is a very good insight. I am only in my early 20s myself, and many people my age do not know that it was Carter, not Reagan, who was the first Neoliberal president. Carter's mistake was that he was all stick, no carrot. He deregulated, cut, and gutted the federal government, but did not compensate voters with tax cuts and low interest rates. It is why he was punished so harshly in 1980.
The book of evidence from the last 12 months has told the world what the US meant by the "rules based order". I shudder to think what the next political order will entail.
Ezra, I am pondering military service. Wealthy, both right and left generally see military service as something "lower" castes do. Not them or their generations. The right wants a strong military, but... many minorities and working whites serve. Whether right or left or independent, do you think these groups may choose to forego serving this country if they don't see a country that respects/serves them? I am thinking, when THIS happens, our country will have the actual tipping point in our standing in the world community. I am thinkingn the refusal to serve may be on the horizon. How about a show considering whether this backlash is a possibility?
The elites despise the common people, while they themselves gobble so much power and wealth from people’s hard work and tax dollars. There was a time when military service was greatly appreciated, and 31 former presidents did serve in the military. But Clinton, Trump, and Biden all found ways to dodge and defer their enlistments. I would say this is not a good trend, and I think the people should not have elected them to the presidency in the first place.
Some enlist due to "patriotism, etc"; others for post benefits such as GI Bill as well as VA benefits (minimal health care for life, possible VHA mortgage assist and the like.) Which service may depend on your interests. Air Force: more selective if you have had any legal issues. Not certain your locale - one person who rec'd a low lottery number during Vietnam, enlisted in Coast Guard which counted. It is currently under Homeland Security but I believe still qualifies for VA/GI benefits. You may also investigate Reserves.
@flea10x6 I know, my family members served for all the above reasons and I see them becoming anti-serving. Whether they came from the left or right. I hear, "No Thank you." Would like to here some intelligent conversation/reporting on this.
Excellent comment and that would be a great discussion. However, I was an engineer and I worked with many veterans of the Navy and AF who, during their service, got trained in highly technical fields, and they came out the other side with full-blown lifelong careers working for military contractors. So they did their service AND worked themselves into a career. There is much to be said for going military if you can get into a technical field.
Ezra you do not disappoint - Gary Gerstle is a historian I now want to follow and gleam insight from. Your discussions are so real, current, and balanced. It is absolute refreshing. Thank you
You sound very erudite, but you're afraid to say the quiet part out loud. Absence the morality of the kind we were brought up with (and antisceptically absent from discussion here) what is threatening/ happening is simply a brutal push to a kind of chaotic reshuffling that does indeed work for a lucky few. It's called Fascism. It's called cold blooded imperialism.
What makes me think that the notion of free market perfection is an illusion is it’s bumping up against reality of human greed. Ideas crash against human imperfection.
54:16 Strong disagree. Regan manipulated the religious conservatives and simmering racial tensions to maintain a strong concensus. His popularity had very little to do with his economic policy. I remember hearing a friend of mine say unironically that they chose politicians solely on their position towards abortion. Do you honestly believe a majority of voters are deeply invested in a politician's practical policy goals for the economy, let alone the theories behind that policy? Most people can't even explain how income tax works, let alone prescribe an alternative. I hate to say it; I hope I'm wrong. I want to believe that people pay attention and care about these things, but my experience is otherwise. People say they care about the economy, but few have macroeconomic theories of any kind, nor are they looking for any.
The point about young conservatives starting to move away from evangelical churches as the arbiters of morality and toward more classical sources was really interesting. One thought that occurs to me is that it might be a way of diversifying their membership, given the pivotal role White evangelical churches have played in maintaining racial segregation. According to some accounts, the pro-life movement only became a thing once Christian segregation academies lost their tax-exempt status, since opposing abortion was a good substitute for segregation as a moral issue that could be used to mobilize people. The attraction of the Catholic Church among adult converts like J. D. Vance and Newt Gingrich might support this explanation, as that denomination has historically been more inclusive, but still very conservative in its morality. An alternative explanation for the move to classical morality is that Jesus was just too damn woke (some conservatives have actually made this complaint). Trump’s world view is more representative of a lot of pre-Christian morality, actually.
I remember Bill Maher saying something like --- Americans love socialism, they just do not like calling it socialism. Also, he once said something like, when you go somewhere in your car, you do not have to bring your own street or highway.
Conclusion? Any system can work -- but requires inspiring leadership, competent technocracy, and buy-in on the part of the populace. Where any one of these three is absent, things fall apart...
My take is that the forever search for the cheapest means of production eventually lays waste to everyone. With time there is always a cheaper place to move to.
wow, what a fantastic conversation-- I feel like I understand the past century and the events that led to our current volatile situation so much better now
Thanks for bringing all of this together in a way that makes sense to me. I've lived through a lot of what you've been discussing and this was excellent. I just wonder what's coming next...I really wonder.
Ezra, Nixon was a move too the right? He was one of the most progressive presidents in the history of the country. EPA, OSHA, and much more. Wage and price control, closing the gold window. So much more which I will not list since I assume that you know.
Yeah, he was more like an Eisenhower Republican. He had to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, and his fierce anti-communism made him more amenable to broad government power in the service of “containment”. And I believe it was he who said, “we are all Keynesians now.”
Very intriguing podcast. I feel that the author is presenting a view that contrasts nicely vis a vis Fukuyama's "The End of History..." I would like to see the author respond to Fukuyama - - who (while a thoughtful analyst) has, IMO, vastly oversimplified the history of western thought. My point is that Gerstle's analysis goes far beyond Fukuyama's, which attempted (but failed, IMO) to sketch out a history of the absolute "triumph" of Western democracy. We can now understand how flawed Fukuyama's analysis of history actually was (even though Fukuyama deserves some credit for his attempt at an historical neo-Hegelian dialectic).
I think the point that a kind of proto-neoliberalism began under Carter is under-appreciated, and it’s refreshing to hear someone say so. I reached voting age in 1980, and I did not like Carter at all by that time because in his rhetoric, he seemed to be turning his back on the New Deal priorities that my FDR-loving mom had raised me with. After the bitter primary battle, in which I supported Ted Kennedy, I forced myself to vote for Carter out of concern about the Supreme Court and certainty that Reagan would be far worse (which, in my opinion, he was). I’m sure that a lot of Kennedy supporters opted for the couch. Carter ended up being defeated handily, but, for me, the swan song of the New Deal Democrats came three months earlier, when Kennedy conceded with his stirring “The Dreams Shall Never Die” speech. Mario Cuomo gave an equally stirring keynote at the 1984 DNC, but by then, a young Governor Bill Clinton would react by saying, “I don’t see anything new here.”
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
the problem with all of that is that we do not live in a vacuum . and the public knows next to nothing about economics ,foreign policy , science , even our policy ideas come out of business class not out of engineering class .( development of real ideas and solutions ) things like batteries and other problem solving ideas . we left it to the Chinese .
We missed the lesson at the end of the Cold War, that you cannot choose between "left" (cooperation, socialism) and "right" (competition, capitalism). Humans cooperate and compete all the time, at the same time, but not consciously. Politics (community, civilization) has always been the challenge to balance competition and cooperation thoughtfully and with purpose. Then we will have common ground and can solve the problems of living together. America practices socialism, but mostly to benefit the wealthy. Now that the rich and poor are so far apart, we can be divided and destroyed from the inside by fascism. Most of us are fighting over the crumbs, unable to afford to raise and educate their children. The wealthy are miserable, too, as they never truly feel they have enough.
Regardless of the outcome of the Election tomorrow; the United States is heading for a period of individual State self-realization which will include the worst of the religious objectives being legislated into existance presently in those minority States; thanks to the assistance of the Supreme Court. By the time of the mid-century in 25 years; America will look quite like Western and Warsaw Pact Nations in 1947 Europe, complete with "checkpoint Charlies" and "papers please" border guards keeping people both in and out. Deterioation of epimistic systems and quality of information will continue down the road of what we currently think is "freedom of the press" to turn half the country against the other half --- and then sub-divide those halves against each other.
This is a valuable discussion. I got his audio book after the episode. I worked for William Leuchtenberg (New Deal and FDR Historian) at Columbia University years ago. Did not know that FDR let the Southern politicos have a pass on voting rights in favor of his New Deal initiatives.
Yep I am surprised people don't cite citizens united...apparently institutions can withstand legalized corruption for about 15 yrs before things really start cracking up
@@patrickdaly3628good institutions can. You can find historical accounts of especially bad forms of corruption tanking entire states rather quickly. The U.S had* alot of checks and balances, and we still have more than previous Republics, which, in my opinion, is why we have survived in this situation for so long. The country has been limping along on it's emergency systems since 2000 when we had to use an emergency system to give Bush the election. Since then, its been kicking the can down the road and hoping that the system stays afloat long enough for another FDR or George Washington to come along.
It was interesting until the end when it came to talking about both current and future political order, definitely lost me there with a lot of "ivory tower" takes that don't feel grounded in the reality of everyday Americans, but the historical topics were interesting.
Much ado has been made about "the end of neoliberalism". As Klein says, it's a slippery term. Gerstle's concept of a "political order" helps by separating the US partisan political consensus from the world economic order. The global economic order which is also called "neoliberalism" is not over. The dollar remains dominant and China's rise presupposed the US-dominated economic order.
One point on China during the Obama administration, he was instrumental in crafting the Transpacific Partnership which would have acted as a bulwark against Chinese economic hegemony, I read the excellent proposal, Trump killed it of course.
Thank you for mentioning this. I don’t know why no one discusses this! Obama was harder on the Chinese than Trump was through the TPP alone. Biden’s policy is not a continuation
@@jamesphelps1958because thats the game in MAGA land. Dont admit that the other side has done anything good, take all the credit for your side, and try to get everyone to forget about the good Obama did. After all, if we do admit that Obama did some good things, then it diminishes the narrative around Trump's presidency.
I’m so tired of people misunderstanding the culprits and “bailouts” of the financial crisis. It just feeds into the misplaced grievance that is destroying American conservatism. I hope he’s not teaching this to his students
if i undrstand your elipsis, yr saying that the banks being too big to fail and a necessary bulwark to saving the overall economy, an argument to which i must reluctantly agree
That is not thr point of this podcast. This is providing historical perspective, which can provide comfort, especially when we are powerless in the moment. In other words, people long before us have gone through hellish times and yet, here we are.
@@Mhantrax : claiming to provide historical perspective while avoiding the fact that this is the first time there's been a coup attempt, is rather burying the lede. There's been acrimony, there's been political rearrangements, there's been assassinations. There's never been a party that was behind a former coup leader, advocating for the end of democracy itself.
@benoithudson7235 Yes, I know all of that. But my guess is you can locate 47492938726749595837271728384 news sources and other podcasts discussing that. This one is not required.
24:30 god do I wish we still had speakers like that. Even though I disagree with that sort of left wing populist indescribable attack on "the system", I still found his speaking skills amazing
My wish list for post-Trump politics: 1. A return to a progressive tax system. Not only do we need the revenue but it’s dangerous to have so much power in the hands of Elon Musk, for example, who increasingly sees himself as our God. 2. For the love Christ, deal with the simple practical problem of greenhouse gas emissions before we cook ourselves. 3. Repair our antique broken down political system. Get the dark money out of politics. End gerrymandered voting districts and voter suppression. Either get rid of or find a work-around for the slave era electoral college. 4. Top notch education and infrastructure.
At 78 here, your ambitious question I feel did get addressed. The one key explosive change is our cell phone use, from 8 year olds on up. It's profound change. Lots of changes not addressed well enough to get to what now? GLOBALIZATION honored as a new religion, now is seen with its massive ugly sides from climate changes therein and slave wages in China for the 100s if things we all own. Frankly, I do not see New Political Order in near term, 5 years plus ahead. I can see Harris emulating Clinton who brought gazillions of experts to the WH table and this tempered his successes. A Trump win has bad to horrific outcomes including Vance coming in to the WH sooner than later. Trump may be Prince Jarring, but Vance, a Catholic convert, states he is a code of personal and cultural behaviors ideologue. The title could have been here: What ball got dropped abandoning ethical pragmatism(s) in economics related to governance(s). Ethics, even pretense to it, was still at the least, self-describing profiles of Dems and Rs. After 9 years of this propaganda show, ethics is barely if ever discussed or applied to policy making. Project 2025 is a basket of amoral pet peeves getting codified in to a one party, no discussions government. Am I off?
The new political order will arise from environmentalism and the demise of the two party system as we reach the limits to growth foretold in 1972 that is beginning to erode the current economic system. The bi-polar view of things is as unsustainable as the economic theories/military-industrial complex that have brought us to the brink of disaster.
The opening premise is about polarization in current American politics. Historically, the polarization of the Cold War was formative for American politics. The one point of convergence between Democrats and Republicans today is about protectionism from China. More us versus them mentality. The other polarization that was not mentioned was humanity versus the rest of the biosphere. Our economic as well as spiritual well being will be well served by realizing the underlying truth, We are One. Instead of tariffs on Cinese solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles, reverse engineer their manufacturing processes, and support U.S. manufacturers to sell those products at the same low prices. The faster we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the better for everyone.
This is mostly great, but I couldn't help stumbling on the idea of those four freedoms, because with services in place of information, this is literally the foundational basis of the European Union: free movement of goods, services, labor and capital. Further, myself and many others pushed in the 2010's (when the world was somewhat more simple) for free movement of information to be a fifth freedom of the EU. Obviously didn't happen, but the idea is at absolute minimum 15 years old.
I study Herbert Hoover, (yeah I'm weird like that) and I definitely think we are approaching some sort of TR, FDR, REAGAN style shift in our politics but I'm not sure it's here quite yet. With Hoover specifically they could see the changes coming and if you read "American individualism" you will find lots of really cool things that are aligning with the coming tide. Hoover tried to be part of that tide but was overpowered by FDR (and the depression). I don't see democrats trying to align with this new Trumpist, protectionist, religiously led right...YET. I have been watching for the next "late regime affiliate" for a little bit now it's hard to say who it will land on.
not very often does a historian present a macro-view of recent political economy in such detail .. and explained in a way that is easily understandable and accessible .. too easy to get lost in the trees without seeing the forest ...
27:38 neoliberalism is a epithet, and an insult, but we know exactly what we're saying when we say it. Gerstle gives a purely aspirational description of neoliberalism here. I don't know if you'll cover it later, but neoliberalism never met those aspirations. For example, the NAFTA agreement of the early 90's stripped Mexican farmers of their collectively held land, and while it enabled money and goods to cross the boarder freely, the Mexican farmers were NOT allowed across (at least not freely). From the get-go neoliberalism was never really concerned about freedom for people, just freedom for money. The aspirational stuff just sounds like marketing. Maybe that's how it was sold, but I doubt it originated from a desire for more freedom for the average person.
Take a look at the manipulation of the value of purchasing power, that is, the value of money over time, especially inflation after Nixon abandoned the Breton Woods Agreement that linked dollars, all monies, to gold at $55/oz. Inflation took off largely to protect Nixon from the decisions of his administration and his Kennedy predecessors. I wish the discussion was more categorized…example: the gutting of our economy…the fact as I see, looking back, that the Reagan Administration thru to, including Clinton, all thru mostly Republican administrations, gutted our economic leadership, gutted our human library of talented skills, placed the burden of autonomy of freedom on impoverishment of the un-empowered artisan workers who provided enduring and comfortable shoes and clothes. At a price a 22 year old young woman earring $18,000 , could afford. Can you imagine that access to designer clothes NOW? I miss being able to buy leather shoes , clothes with created by skilled artisans,
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-WR6Zq7Qec/mqdefault.jpg)
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](/img/tr.png)
I remember Pete Buttigieg talked a lot about this in 2019 when he was running for president. That the neo-liberal era was over and that the chaos we experience is because we're in this uncomfortable limbo, "on the blank page between two chapters".
And like most of what buttplug says it was vacuous drivel
I guess back then, we were 'in the midst of starbucks'.
When I think of the neoliberal archetype, Mayor Pete is it.
This was the most sober look at today's politics that I've heard in a long time. Not only a great conversation but educational. As a millennial I don't have much of a grasp on the New Deal era and the beginning's of Neoliberalism. On the other-hand, I do have an understanding of the criticism of "free markets" and the yearning for more traditional values in America. I share many of those same sentiments
Ppppppp
Are you sure?
Thank you for having Gary Gerstle as a guest. He clarified my understand of political orders and where we are right now in America. I want to second Gerstle's recommendation of The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory (Tim Alberta) which I happen to be reading as I write. I stumbled onto it with a desire to understand why Christians would support Donald Trump, and Mr. Alberta provides insight into conflicts and divisions within evangelical churches about the politicization of the pulpit. It's an important book.
Mr. Klein, thank you for your thoughtful questions and your diverse guest list. Your podcast shines light on what the heck is going on in America and our world today.
Populism is going on, poorly educated people and mass propaganda. Outsourcing everything to others. It’s not new, it goes in cycles, it causes death and destruction. Sadly thought constructive leaders are hardly ever elected.
The cool aloofness of this nuanced discussion belays a strange indifference to the destructive legacy of neoliberalism. The near total hollowing out of the American working middle class and the subsequent rise of extreme wealth inequality have so profoundly corroded societal cohesion that we are literally contemplating abandoning American democracy as we understand it, yet there seems to be no real acknowledgement of the deep and structural crises that neoliberalism has left in it's wake.
The entire premise that we are shifting to a new political order is an acknowledgment of the very deep problems with neoliberalism.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new political order emerged in Russia and then Hungary. It was an order of "Strong Men" taking control of government and transforming government institutions to gain an incrementally stronger grip over courts, the media, police forces, the military, and other institutions. It's a new 21st century variant of fascism.
Today, the majority of the Republican Party has either actively or passively signed onto this new form of 21st century fascism. CPAC and the Heritage Foundation hold joint conferences with delegations from Orban's Fidesz Party or Le Pen's National Front/Rally. Representatives from the USA serve on the editorial board of "The Hungarian Conservative", while representatives from Fidesz help influence the authors of Project 2025. They adopt the same language on immigrants as invaders. They adopt the same strategies of seeding their allies into courts at the highest levels to make themselves immune from criminal prosecution. They borrow violent threats against political opponents from 1920s and 1930s European fascist parties.
The outcome is still uncertain, but a new fascism is emerging as a global political force, and this may become the new political order in the United States as well.
Good news
This episode is great and worth a second listen.
I am just starting the second round, while also turning to the comment section.
This is all excellent information and excellent reference. The trouble is that the general population will not read or seek out these books and it does not care. The general public does not read; it acts on a very visceral agenda and responds to "strong man" tactics. Might is right, is the thinking abf food and gas prices are the main topics, with immigration thrown in. We now have locker room views of how and who government is going to operate.
I am dutifully listening. I just heard it said that in the 1940s, the highest income tax rate was 91%. I’m sure you were correct. But what everybody leaves out, 99% of the time in these discussions, lectures or speeches, is that the rate was 91% after you made something like $25,000 a year in the 1940s and believe me that was a good, high salary. So it makes it sound scarier for the grasping Capitalist to hear a word like 91%, when in fact that was the surplus after their first $25,000. In 1970 the median yearly income was $10,000. So there you go.
This dude also seems convinced the tension between labor and the financial class was only brought on by the fear of communism. While that certainly exasperated their fears, people like Ford and Rockefeller were perfectly fine using force, often lethal force, against their workers to avoid any change in power dynamic. His reading of early industrial history is *very* obtuse.
look up the phrase “marginal tax rate”
The 91% tax rate deterred the sky high salaries of today.
@@joeranadae3247it’s the opposite-he doesn’t say that the tension was due to communism, and he says that the concessions made to labor by the business class were due to fear of communism. He explicitly acknowledges that previously they did everything in their power to crush the la or movement
Whats always left out is the "effective tax rate" the amount actually paid, the effective tax rate was very similar back then as it is today.. government revenue as a percentage of GDP doesn't really change that much no matter what you set the top marginal rate at, people with means will just find ways to hide there wealth and in the end that hurts the economy more...
Outstanding show!
As someone from Gen Z, what concerns me more than America entering a post-neoliberal order is the prospect of us ending a post-liberal order entirely. That is, the post-WWII idea that by-and-large we should have a pluralistic, democratic society with rigorous civil liberties mostly blind to a dominant culture or code of morality. I'm not in anyway saying civil rights were always strong since then or that I've agreed with the social agenda of the government at all times since then, most definitely not. But I think civil liberties have always been improving since then, and even if there was a socially conservative government in power alongside a conservative political climate as was the case in the Reagan era, the idea that radically dissenting with these ideas should bring governmental oppression was never truly politically viable. Neither of those seem to be true today as LGBT rights seem on the verge of going backwards and a startling number of Americans seem fine with the government exercising its power to punish those they seem as undesirable socially or politically. The most pessimistic possible takeaway I have of Trump and Trumpism is that this era of American society and Western society as a whole is on its way out, that Americans have grown sick of it and that it may never have been as strong as it seemed.
As a Gen Xer I agree entirely. But I'll add an insight here; from George McGovern on, the Democrats -- stacked with alumni from that disaster of a campaign -- took their eyes off the ball on economics and focused on civil rights and identity politics. At roughly the same time the Republicans pivoted to guns, abortion, tax cuts and over time this became more and more the culture wars side of this equation. Biden -- one of the few Dems to do really well in that 1972 cycle and never all that comfortable with the McGovern wing of the party (which included Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer for example, both of them McGovern campaign workers) -- is the first Democrat to have definitively broken with this model in the White House and I think this was a factor in him picking Harris as a running mate. And the McGovernites and those sympathetic to them (I think Galston falls into this group) don't quite understand how this works. But they are now passing from the scene and there is a new generation of Democrats, especially millennials, and we'll see about Z as more of them get elected, who get the need for government to be seen to be doing something material for the public......and of Republicans of the same age who are gravitating to the tech bro culture that is terrified of what this implies in terms of higher taxes and more proactive regulation.
I also wonder if the take away from the end to the Soviet Union was a victory due to democracy not necessarily capitalism. I know a capitalist might say “what’s the difference”; but I would argue that right now Trumpism is abandoning democracy in favor of capitalism. Hence, me wanting to highlight it was not specifically capitalism that shaped the 20th century but mainly democracy.
The idea that capitalism was the reason for the breaking of the Soviet Union allows them to justify why democracy is so easily abandoned by them. Why it might have always been easy to subvert the strength of Western Society; show that when push comes to shove, people would abandon democracy over capitalism.
Good point!
Fellow Gen Z here, I think you're missing the extent to which politics and economics are interlinked in this process. The civil rights/democratisation movement does not stand independent of the New Deal and Neoliberal eras, but is directly correlated with them. As described in the podcast, the New Left which brought about sexual liberation and LGBT rights and everything you probably see as positive shifts, was the same one that ushered in Bill Clinton and the rise of individualism.
To focus on the culture war as the main terrain of political conflict misses the forest for the trees. If politics is downstream of culture, culture is downstream of economics. The project of personal civil liberties was inexorably linked to the project of personal economic liberties.
The shifts you are seeing are the result of a failed economic doctrine, on essentially both sides of the aisle. People have grown sick of liberalism because it has failed to fulfill its own promises. To retain the current clip of liberal individualism would require a corresponding new individualistic economic system, and no such system is on the horizon.
I do not think things will go backwards. There is simply no impetus for that to occur. But I think that some of the furthest overreaches of the 2010s will be curtailed, and domestic culture war will recede, in favour of conflict with outside forces. Questions of identity, and of morality, will be insignificant in the face of climate migration and conflict with China. This will be the case regardless of Trump or Kamala winning.
The democrats created themselves a new ( for the time) voting base. As it is beginning to fade, they are importing another group via the border. Do not ever think LBJ was sympathetic to the plight of black people
Bro imagine being Francis Fukuyama right now 💀
You'd have a full professorship at Stanford.
Fukuyama meant 'The End of History' in the Hegelian sense. Specifically that, over time, societies would tend towards having democratically-organized governments. This has largely been the case so far. He did not mean that things would just stop happening.
@@colejhudson Yeah, we knew that's what he meant. And I'm not sure if you've been looking around much lately (around the world, around the US) but even that interpretation of the thesis seems to have fallen apart. Many societies seem to be drifting towards oligarchic autocracy.
@@PhilTomsonhave to agree with you: the big “emerging economies” (China, India, Russia, Turkey) are not converging to the western liberal democratic system, at least not in the short-run
He is the master of saying incorrect things with confidence.
This is the best thing I've listened to in years.
Outstanding. Smart, incisive, informative, timely. Couldn’t ask for more.
Markets will always seek to make profit. Nobody wants to destroy our country in the name of profit....except the people who make all the profit.
Democracy and unrestrained capitalism are incompatible
Great US history lesson
That 'legitimacy of the affordable care act' comment aged well
29:50: The French post-structuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze warned the left about precisely this in one of the final essays he published before his death, ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control.’ (1990) In it he warns that these changes“could at first express new freedom, but they could participate as well in mechanisms of control that are equal to the harshest of confinements”, and that “It’s up to them to discover what they’re being made to serve, just as their elders discovered, not without difficulty, the telos of the disciplines.”
Ezra, this is not individualism that implied also personal resposibility, but hedonism, enjoying the upside of freedom while ignoring the downside of individual acts.
I do not understand why these are not viewed 300 million times, a free Ivy League education.
Stuff of this quality & intellectual plane is probably viewed by the twelve million or so who regularly watch C-Span and other material on the net at this level. Like a "pre-requisit" for a difficult college class, a lot of Americans do not have the intellectual horsepower to obtain the intended benefit from such a talk. I can hear comments similar to the one's I receive back from those on the net like "word salad" and "in obscurity lies security" -- all admittedly unfair.
Because Ezra is just too much a part of the establishment, people want more authenticity.
Because its under control by the same people
@@lonepantalones8284 Exactly.
@JAGRAFX i am a PhD mathematician.... i am super smart like u guys. And I find all this nonsense.
I'm not sure where Gary got his learning from, but the washing machine debate was about women's equality not who could build the better appliances for women to slave over. Soviet Union sent women to space decades before the US bothered, to me that signifies the heart of the debate. Should the goverment play an active role in gender equality or should the market figure it out?
Wasn't it about laundering used coats in order to cleanse society?
Incredible discussion
Wow might have to listen to this a couple times. So much info to take in
yes its quite dense and, honestly, some of the ulterior intentions undeneath some of these big terms seem to swivel and reverse themselves like eddies in a polymorphous current. which economic activity oftens, empirically
@coolwhip89. Indeed. Senior here. I can't remember the last time I recalled Uri Gregarin😮
Discussed on a timeline that uses words like Neoliberalism used in context, I truly learned something in this episode. It all made sense. Good job.
Missing from this conversation are the names Musk, Bezos, Zuck and Murdoch and their unaccountability. America is one election away from becoming a Russian style Oligarchy. Hair on blazing fire time.
Without these types of people who will pay your wages, what are these people accountable for other than keeping their businesses solvent?
The most normies billionairs names ever😂😂
Now do the Adelsons Allen Barber etc
Some great analysis here.
Disagree a bit about Newt and Clinton (And I was there as well). Newt was actually spellbound by Clinton. He reminisced about how he and Clinton would meet and talk policies like grad students "..and it was all terrific." Newt also fell victim to Clinton's superhuman charisma in a room (a real thing, btw) and asked his aides to keep him from sitting close to him in meetings. Now..could he have hated Clinton simultaneously? Sure.
Love this episode.
Would love to hear more modern American history.
Learning about Eisenhower makes me double down on my feelings that competition with China is why America needs to win at the hugely profitable transition to electric power and solar.
With my current level of dread, it was hard to listen to all of this, but it was worth it.
You suggest nyt to me??? F the NYT
Many of ya’ ll may not have been born when in the 1970s-1980s when ABC’s Good Morning America was the go-to show in the morning. Re: Jimmy Carter as President. My memory is long, but flawed, so help me recall this memory correctly. The congenial and kind host on ABC was John Hartman. President Carter was the guest that day, with the goal: To demonstrate the burdens on society that regulations or tax filings, I cannot at age 70 now recall, can impose. His display was of stacks and stacks of paperwork he was freeing us from, that was my general impression. The President of the United States of America walked unescorted onto that TV stage to address an issue of importance for all Americans, face front, answering Hartman’s questions, no nonsense. I was young and unequipped to evaluate how unique that moment was. Looking back over my consistency in observing politics since I was 17, however unwillingly ignorant I was, leaves me flummoxed at the willing ignorance of young folks I encounter these days. Even in high school we were more acutely concerned with our government at state and federal levels, and Wars.😢
Hi Anna, I think this is a very good insight. I am only in my early 20s myself, and many people my age do not know that it was Carter, not Reagan, who was the first Neoliberal president.
Carter's mistake was that he was all stick, no carrot. He deregulated, cut, and gutted the federal government, but did not compensate voters with tax cuts and low interest rates. It is why he was punished so harshly in 1980.
Basing entire Healthcare on profit is insane and will bring us DOWN, all parties.
The book of evidence from the last 12 months has told the world what the US meant by the "rules based order". I shudder to think what the next political order will entail.
💔
100% right
Wow, you actually didn’t listen to this episode AT ALL
So agree that families need support, good schools, day cares, phones need to be abandoned while in school and limited at home.
Ezra, I am pondering military service. Wealthy, both right and left generally see military service as something "lower" castes do. Not them or their generations. The right wants a strong military, but... many minorities and working whites serve. Whether right or left or independent, do you think these groups may choose to forego serving this country if they don't see a country that respects/serves them? I am thinking, when THIS happens, our country will have the actual tipping point in our standing in the world community. I am thinkingn the refusal to serve may be on the horizon. How about a show considering whether this backlash is a possibility?
The elites despise the common people, while they themselves gobble so much power and wealth from people’s hard work and tax dollars. There was a time when military service was greatly appreciated, and 31 former presidents did serve in the military. But Clinton, Trump, and Biden all found ways to dodge and defer their enlistments. I would say this is not a good trend, and I think the people should not have elected them to the presidency in the first place.
Some enlist due to "patriotism, etc"; others for post benefits such as GI Bill as well as VA benefits (minimal health care for life, possible VHA mortgage assist and the like.) Which service may depend on your interests. Air Force: more selective if you have had any legal issues. Not certain your locale - one person who rec'd a low lottery number during Vietnam, enlisted in Coast Guard which counted. It is currently under Homeland Security but I believe still qualifies for VA/GI benefits. You may also investigate Reserves.
@flea10x6 I know, my family members served for all the above reasons and I see them becoming anti-serving. Whether they came from the left or right. I hear, "No Thank you." Would like to here some intelligent conversation/reporting on this.
Hear
Excellent comment and that would be a great discussion. However, I was an engineer and I worked with many veterans of the Navy and AF who, during their service, got trained in highly technical fields, and they came out the other side with full-blown lifelong careers working for military contractors. So they did their service AND worked themselves into a career. There is much to be said for going military if you can get into a technical field.
Ezra you do not disappoint - Gary Gerstle is a historian I now want to follow and gleam insight from. Your discussions are so real, current, and balanced. It is absolute refreshing. Thank you
You sound very erudite, but you're afraid to say the quiet part out loud. Absence the morality of the kind we were brought up with (and antisceptically absent from discussion here) what is threatening/ happening is simply a brutal push to a kind of chaotic reshuffling that does indeed work for a lucky few. It's called Fascism. It's called cold blooded imperialism.
Leftists not being able to call anything facism impossible challenge
What makes me think that the notion of free market perfection is an illusion is it’s bumping up against reality of human greed. Ideas crash against human imperfection.
Keep it up, Frank. We need your voice.
54:16 Strong disagree. Regan manipulated the religious conservatives and simmering racial tensions to maintain a strong concensus. His popularity had very little to do with his economic policy. I remember hearing a friend of mine say unironically that they chose politicians solely on their position towards abortion. Do you honestly believe a majority of voters are deeply invested in a politician's practical policy goals for the economy, let alone the theories behind that policy? Most people can't even explain how income tax works, let alone prescribe an alternative. I hate to say it; I hope I'm wrong. I want to believe that people pay attention and care about these things, but my experience is otherwise. People say they care about the economy, but few have macroeconomic theories of any kind, nor are they looking for any.
1:18:45 The ecomomic component of morality? Strongly agree.
Wow. You are so wrong about Reagan and his motives. You probably weren’t old enough in 1980 to have voted
Neo liberalism isn't just about economic policy
The point about young conservatives starting to move away from evangelical churches as the arbiters of morality and toward more classical sources was really interesting. One thought that occurs to me is that it might be a way of diversifying their membership, given the pivotal role White evangelical churches have played in maintaining racial segregation. According to some accounts, the pro-life movement only became a thing once Christian segregation academies lost their tax-exempt status, since opposing abortion was a good substitute for segregation as a moral issue that could be used to mobilize people. The attraction of the Catholic Church among adult converts like J. D. Vance and Newt Gingrich might support this explanation, as that denomination has historically been more inclusive, but still very conservative in its morality. An alternative explanation for the move to classical morality is that Jesus was just too damn woke (some conservatives have actually made this complaint). Trump’s world view is more representative of a lot of pre-Christian morality, actually.
T has no morality
@ “might makes right”? 🤷🏻♀️
Jewish woman calls Churches white supremacy
How many non Jews are there in a synagoge?
Ooh right none
This is a fantastic review of the last 90 years of US domestic and foreign policy and its reaction to and shaping of US cultural values. Thank you
I remember Bill Maher saying something like --- Americans love socialism, they just do not like calling it socialism. Also, he once said something like, when you go somewhere in your car, you do not have to bring your own street or highway.
Conclusion? Any system can work -- but requires inspiring leadership, competent technocracy, and buy-in on the part of the populace. Where any one of these three is absent, things fall apart...
“Any system can work”
@@haz4dc394 One with inspiring leadership, a competent technocracy and the buy-in of the citizenry -- maybe Zeta Reticuli?
My take is that the forever search for the cheapest means of production eventually lays waste to everyone. With time there is always a cheaper place to move to.
I hope this is a growth spurt. Feels like one. Great post. Thank you!
Ezra, I HOPE YOU'LL BRING ON THIS SCHOLAR AGAIN AND AGAIN!
“A little corruption” … you go Kim!! I am with you on that one and Nancy here!!!
wow, what a fantastic conversation-- I feel like I understand the past century and the events that led to our current volatile situation so much better now
Ezra you are to blame
28:31 remove the shackles from capitalism...& put them on everyone else...
Thanks for bringing all of this together in a way that makes sense to me. I've lived through a lot of what you've been discussing and this was excellent. I just wonder what's coming next...I really wonder.
this was great. actually broadened my understanding of American politics.
Correction Al Gore lost on his own.
Thanks for recommending Tim Alberta
Ezra, Nixon was a move too the right? He was one of the most progressive presidents in the history of the country. EPA, OSHA, and much more. Wage and price control, closing the gold window. So much more which I will not list since I assume that you know.
Yeah, he was more like an Eisenhower Republican. He had to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, and his fierce anti-communism made him more amenable to broad government power in the service of “containment”. And I believe it was he who said, “we are all Keynesians now.”
So the collapse of passenger trains which Nixon implemented was a progressive move?
Very intriguing podcast. I feel that the author is presenting a view that contrasts nicely vis a vis Fukuyama's "The End of History..." I would like to see the author respond to Fukuyama - - who (while a thoughtful analyst) has, IMO, vastly oversimplified the history of western thought.
My point is that Gerstle's analysis goes far beyond Fukuyama's, which attempted (but failed, IMO) to sketch out a history of the absolute "triumph" of Western democracy. We can now understand how flawed Fukuyama's analysis of history actually was (even though Fukuyama deserves some credit for his attempt at an historical neo-Hegelian dialectic).
Great book
I think the point that a kind of proto-neoliberalism began under Carter is under-appreciated, and it’s refreshing to hear someone say so. I reached voting age in 1980, and I did not like Carter at all by that time because in his rhetoric, he seemed to be turning his back on the New Deal priorities that my FDR-loving mom had raised me with. After the bitter primary battle, in which I supported Ted Kennedy, I forced myself to vote for Carter out of concern about the Supreme Court and certainty that Reagan would be far worse (which, in my opinion, he was). I’m sure that a lot of Kennedy supporters opted for the couch. Carter ended up being defeated handily, but, for me, the swan song of the New Deal Democrats came three months earlier, when Kennedy conceded with his stirring “The Dreams Shall Never Die” speech. Mario Cuomo gave an equally stirring keynote at the 1984 DNC, but by then, a young Governor Bill Clinton would react by saying, “I don’t see anything new here.”
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
2014 Senate blocked Obama nominations recess appointments. One member held proforma sessios.. 5-minutes no business conducted. Close session until next day.
the problem with all of that is that we do not live in a vacuum . and the public knows next to nothing about economics ,foreign policy , science , even our policy ideas come out of business class not out of engineering class .( development of real ideas and solutions ) things like batteries and other problem solving ideas . we left it to the Chinese .
We missed the lesson at the end of the Cold War, that you cannot choose between "left" (cooperation, socialism) and "right" (competition, capitalism). Humans cooperate and compete all the time, at the same time, but not consciously. Politics (community, civilization) has always been the challenge to balance competition and cooperation thoughtfully and with purpose. Then we will have common ground and can solve the problems of living together. America practices socialism, but mostly to benefit the wealthy. Now that the rich and poor are so far apart, we can be divided and destroyed from the inside by fascism. Most of us are fighting over the crumbs, unable to afford to raise and educate their children. The wealthy are miserable, too, as they never truly feel they have enough.
How can your subscribers access a complete transcript in proper paragraph form of your programs?
Regardless of the outcome of the Election tomorrow; the United States is heading for a period of individual State self-realization which will include the worst of the religious objectives being legislated into existance presently in those minority States; thanks to the assistance of the Supreme Court. By the time of the mid-century in 25 years; America will look quite like Western and Warsaw Pact Nations in 1947 Europe, complete with "checkpoint Charlies" and "papers please" border guards keeping people both in and out. Deterioation of epimistic systems and quality of information will continue down the road of what we currently think is "freedom of the press" to turn half the country against the other half --- and then sub-divide those halves against each other.
This is a valuable discussion. I got his audio book after the episode. I worked for William Leuchtenberg (New Deal and FDR Historian) at Columbia University years ago. Did not know that FDR let the Southern politicos have a pass on voting rights in favor of his New Deal initiatives.
I recommend reading Gerstle's book. Along the same lines, I also recommend reading Immanuel Wallerstein's "After Liberalism" and "Utopistics."
It's pretty simple...read Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate about the enshittification of democracy by the right (and citizens united I would argue).
Yep I am surprised people don't cite citizens united...apparently institutions can withstand legalized corruption for about 15 yrs before things really start cracking up
@@patrickdaly3628good institutions can.
You can find historical accounts of especially bad forms of corruption tanking entire states rather quickly.
The U.S had* alot of checks and balances, and we still have more than previous Republics, which, in my opinion, is why we have survived in this situation for so long.
The country has been limping along on it's emergency systems since 2000 when we had to use an emergency system to give Bush the election.
Since then, its been kicking the can down the road and hoping that the system stays afloat long enough for another FDR or George Washington to come along.
Fascinating !
It was interesting until the end when it came to talking about both current and future political order, definitely lost me there with a lot of "ivory tower" takes that don't feel grounded in the reality of everyday Americans, but the historical topics were interesting.
Much ado has been made about "the end of neoliberalism". As Klein says, it's a slippery term. Gerstle's concept of a "political order" helps by separating the US partisan political consensus from the world economic order. The global economic order which is also called "neoliberalism" is not over. The dollar remains dominant and China's rise presupposed the US-dominated economic order.
One point on China during the Obama administration, he was instrumental in crafting the Transpacific Partnership which would have acted as a bulwark against Chinese economic hegemony, I read the excellent proposal, Trump killed it of course.
Thank you for mentioning this. I don’t know why no one discusses this! Obama was harder on the Chinese than Trump was through the TPP alone. Biden’s policy is not a continuation
@@jamesphelps1958because thats the game in MAGA land.
Dont admit that the other side has done anything good, take all the credit for your side, and try to get everyone to forget about the good Obama did.
After all, if we do admit that Obama did some good things, then it diminishes the narrative around Trump's presidency.
I’m at 1:08 … still no mention of The GOP Southern strategy… that is the white backlash to the 1964 Voting Rights Act …I will keep listening…
George are you in eight grade? Try to keep up buddy.
I’m so tired of people misunderstanding the culprits and “bailouts” of the financial crisis. It just feeds into the misplaced grievance that is destroying American conservatism. I hope he’s not teaching this to his students
if i undrstand your elipsis, yr saying that the banks being too big to fail and a necessary bulwark to saving the overall economy, an argument to which i must reluctantly agree
It’s really cute seeing two people taking for granted that democracy continues no matter what, and there’s two parties having a debate.
It's not even recognized.
That is not thr point of this podcast. This is providing historical perspective, which can provide comfort, especially when we are powerless in the moment.
In other words, people long before us have gone through hellish times and yet, here we are.
@@Mhantrax : claiming to provide historical perspective while avoiding the fact that this is the first time there's been a coup attempt, is rather burying the lede. There's been acrimony, there's been political rearrangements, there's been assassinations. There's never been a party that was behind a former coup leader, advocating for the end of democracy itself.
@benoithudson7235 Yes, I know all of that. But my guess is you can locate 47492938726749595837271728384 news sources and other podcasts discussing that. This one is not required.
@@Mhantrax : you could also head to your local bookstore and check out the fantasy sections if that's what you want to read.
🧡Love🧡this🧡video🧡
Well we certainly are on the cusp of something now.
Hard to stay sane with all this insanity.
It is difficult. Focus on what is true in you and other people? Go towards consensus and what is empirical, maybe.
“Everyone is crazy except for me”
@haz4dc394 I know what you mean, except I am finding that a bit problematic.
24:30 god do I wish we still had speakers like that. Even though I disagree with that sort of left wing populist indescribable attack on "the system", I still found his speaking skills amazing
My wish list for post-Trump politics: 1. A return to a progressive tax system. Not only do we need the revenue but it’s dangerous to have so much power in the hands of Elon Musk, for example, who increasingly sees himself as our God. 2. For the love Christ, deal with the simple practical problem of greenhouse gas emissions before we cook ourselves. 3. Repair our antique broken down political system. Get the dark money out of politics. End gerrymandered voting districts and voter suppression. Either get rid of or find a work-around for the slave era electoral college. 4. Top notch education and infrastructure.
Profound. Acquiesced.
We are polarized because that is how the two party system is designed. With citizens united it juat amplifies it. Every system works as designed.
At 78 here, your ambitious question I feel did get addressed. The one key explosive change is our cell phone use, from 8 year olds on up. It's profound change. Lots of changes not addressed well enough to get to what now? GLOBALIZATION honored as a new religion, now is seen with its massive ugly sides from climate changes therein and slave wages in China for the 100s if things we all own. Frankly, I do not see New Political Order in near term, 5 years plus ahead. I can see Harris emulating Clinton who brought gazillions of experts to the WH table and this tempered his successes. A Trump win has bad to horrific outcomes including Vance coming in to the WH sooner than later. Trump may be Prince Jarring, but Vance, a Catholic convert, states he is a code of personal and cultural behaviors ideologue. The title could have been here: What ball got dropped abandoning ethical pragmatism(s) in economics related to governance(s). Ethics, even pretense to it, was still at the least, self-describing profiles of Dems and Rs. After 9 years of this propaganda show, ethics is barely if ever discussed or applied to policy making. Project 2025 is a basket of amoral pet peeves getting codified in to a one party, no discussions government. Am I off?
As if we would listen to someone named Ezra Klein.
The new political order will arise from environmentalism and the demise of the two party system as we reach the limits to growth foretold in 1972 that is beginning to erode the current economic system. The bi-polar view of things is as unsustainable as the economic theories/military-industrial complex that have brought us to the brink of disaster.
No. We are on the cusp of continuing the normalization of our democracy. Calm yourself, Ezra.
Good conversation
re 46:30 What he ignores about the 1994 Republican takeover was Clinton's assault weapons ban.
I sure as hell hope so
Good discussion. Gary talks like he's giving a eulogy. Might need to listen at a faster speed.
Maybe he is giving a eulogy. R.I.P. American Democracy, 1776-2025.
What makes this really bad is that The State Apparatus in real time monitors and records everything you and I share.
The private sector is doing this
Intelligent conversation
We are between orders, political and economic. Read George Friedman's "The Storm before The Calm"
Thank you that you see 0 progress with DJT, please vote blue
I am white so no fuck off
The opening premise is about polarization in current American politics. Historically, the polarization of the Cold War was formative for American politics. The one point of convergence between Democrats and Republicans today is about protectionism from China. More us versus them mentality.
The other polarization that was not mentioned was humanity versus the rest of the biosphere. Our economic as well as spiritual well being will be well served by realizing the underlying truth, We are One.
Instead of tariffs on Cinese solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles, reverse engineer their manufacturing processes, and support U.S. manufacturers to sell those products at the same low prices. The faster we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the better for everyone.
Thanks for bringing this to us Ezra. The view from above is really helpful.
This is mostly great, but I couldn't help stumbling on the idea of those four freedoms, because with services in place of information, this is literally the foundational basis of the European Union: free movement of goods, services, labor and capital. Further, myself and many others pushed in the 2010's (when the world was somewhat more simple) for free movement of information to be a fifth freedom of the EU. Obviously didn't happen, but the idea is at absolute minimum 15 years old.
The EU is not free at all it spits on the soveignty of Europeans forcing third world criminals to give housing before our own people
The country has spoken clearly and it has given Trump a MAGA mandate. He will feel compelled to rapidly deliver major results.
I study Herbert Hoover, (yeah I'm weird like that) and I definitely think we are approaching some sort of TR, FDR, REAGAN style shift in our politics but I'm not sure it's here quite yet. With Hoover specifically they could see the changes coming and if you read "American individualism" you will find lots of really cool things that are aligning with the coming tide. Hoover tried to be part of that tide but was overpowered by FDR (and the depression). I don't see democrats trying to align with this new Trumpist, protectionist, religiously led right...YET. I have been watching for the next "late regime affiliate" for a little bit now it's hard to say who it will land on.
not very often does a historian present a macro-view of recent political economy in such detail .. and explained in a way that is easily understandable and accessible .. too easy to get lost in the trees without seeing the forest ...
27:38 neoliberalism is a epithet, and an insult, but we know exactly what we're saying when we say it. Gerstle gives a purely aspirational description of neoliberalism here. I don't know if you'll cover it later, but neoliberalism never met those aspirations. For example, the NAFTA agreement of the early 90's stripped Mexican farmers of their collectively held land, and while it enabled money and goods to cross the boarder freely, the Mexican farmers were NOT allowed across (at least not freely). From the get-go neoliberalism was never really concerned about freedom for people, just freedom for money. The aspirational stuff just sounds like marketing. Maybe that's how it was sold, but I doubt it originated from a desire for more freedom for the average person.
Border.
Take a look at the manipulation of the value of purchasing power, that is, the value of money over time, especially inflation after Nixon abandoned the Breton Woods Agreement that linked dollars, all monies, to gold at $55/oz. Inflation took off largely to protect Nixon from the decisions of his administration and his Kennedy predecessors.
I wish the discussion was more categorized…example: the gutting of our economy…the fact as I see, looking back, that the Reagan Administration thru to, including Clinton, all thru mostly Republican administrations, gutted our economic leadership, gutted our human library of talented skills, placed the burden of autonomy of freedom on impoverishment of the un-empowered artisan workers who provided enduring and comfortable shoes and clothes. At a price a 22 year old young woman earring $18,000 , could afford. Can you imagine that access to designer clothes NOW?
I miss being able to buy leather shoes , clothes with created by skilled artisans,
Who exactly is using the power of the federal government to go after political enemies?