The Perfect Storm of Campaign 2008:
War, Depression, and Turning-Point Elections
by Steve Fraser
Will the presidential election of 2008 mark a turning point in American political history? Will it terminate with extreme prejudice the conservative ascendancy that has dominated the country for the last generation? No matter the haplessness of the Democratic opposition, the answer is yes.
With Richard Nixon's victory in the 1968 presidential election, a new political order first triumphed over New Deal liberalism. It was an historic victory that one-time Republican strategist and now political critic Kevin Phillips memorably anointed the "emerging Republican majority." Now, that Republican "majority" finds itself in a systemic crisis from which there is no escape.
Tomgram: Steve Fraser, Concocting the Perfect Electoral Storm
Back
in February of this year, writing about the history of turning-point
elections, Steve Fraser asked a question, but didn't answer it: Would
campaign 2008, he wondered, turn out to be a rare presidential election
of historic proportions? After all, the Democrats had recaptured the
House and Senate only months before -- and mightn't that have been "a
signal" on the horizon of such an upcoming electoral turning point?
Just ten months later, in a new economic moment, he's ready to answer
his question, definitively.
Even in an American culture
notorious for its loss of memory, there are certain happenings no one
forgets, and the Great Depression of the 1930s is one of those. Yet, in
the media, just about no one dares to utter the "D" word because of its
terrifying and toxic associations. And yet, Fraser argues, the
onrushing economic crisis, now apparent to all, could indeed be
hightailing in exactly that direction, while the Bush administration
and leading Republican presidential candidates say virtually nothing
about the economic storm clouds gathering. At the same time -- as the
recent headlines about the new National Intelligence Estimate on the
Iranian nuclear program indicate -- the politics of fear on which this
administration has maintained so much of its power, and on which
Republican presidential candidates seem to depend so completely, is
eroding all around us.
Every week, almost every day, another
clue suggests that we may be entering a new political environment. Only
last week, for instance, the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center released a
new poll, indicating that Republican gains of recent years among
Hispanic voters have been more than wiped out. In July 2006, only 49%
of such voters favored Democrats, while 28% favored Republicans, a gap
of 21%. Less than a year and a half later, that gap is 34% and
undoubtedly rising -- no small matter in potential swing states like
Colorado, New Mexico, and even Florida. So consider, with Fraser, who
has written a striking history of Wall Street, Every Man a Speculator,
just what kinds of political and economic storms may lie ahead in 2008.
Tom
War, economic collapse, and the political implosion of the Republican Party will make 2008 a year to remember.
The Politics of Fear in Reverse
Iraq
is an albatross that, all by itself, could sink the ship of state. At
this point, there's no need to rehearse the polling numbers that
register the no-looking-back abandonment of this colossal misadventure
by most Americans. No cosmetic fix, like the "surge," can, in the end,
make a difference -- because large majorities decided long ago that the
invasion was a fiasco, and because the geopolitical and geo-economic
objectives of the Bush administration leave no room for a genuine Iraqi
nationalism which would be the only way out of this mess.
The
fatal impact of the President's adventure in Iraq, however, runs far
deeper than that. It has undermined the politics of fear which, above
all else, had sustained the Bush administration. According to the
latest polls, the Democrats who rate national security a key concern
has shrunk to a percentage bordering on the statistically irrelevant.
Independents display a similar "been there, done that" attitude.
Republicans do express significantly greater levels of alarm, but far
lower than a year or two ago.
In fact, the politics of fear
may now be operating in reverse. The chronic belligerence of the Bush
administration, especially in the last year with respect to Iran, and
the cartoonish saber-rattling of Republican presidential candidates
(whether genuine or because they believe themselves captives of the
Bush legacy) is scary. Its only promise seems to be endless war for
purposes few understand or are ready to salute. To paraphrase Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, for many people now, the only thing to fear is the
politics of fear itself.
And then there is the war on the
Constitution. Randolph Bourne, a public intellectual writing around the
time of World War I, is remembered today for one trenchant observation:
that war is the health of the state. Mobilizing for war invites the
cancerous growth of the bureaucratic state apparatus and its power over
everyday life. Like some over-ripe fruit this kind of war-borne
"healthiness" is today visibly morphing into its opposite -- what we
might call the "sickness of the state."
The constitutional
transgressions of the executive branch and its abrogation of the powers
reserved to the other two branches of government are, by now,
reasonably well known. Most of this aggressive over-reaching has been
encouraged by the imperial hubris exemplified by the invasion of Iraq.
It would be short-sighted to think that this only disturbs the
equanimity of a small circle of civil libertarians. There is a
long-lived and robust tradition in American political life always
resentful of this kind of statism. In part, this helps account for
wholesale defections from the Republican Party by those who believe it
has been kidnapped by political elites masquerading as down-home, "live
free or die" conservatives.
Now, add potential economic
collapse to this witches brew. Even the soberest economy watchers,
pundits with PhDs -- whose dismal record in predicting anything tempts
me not to mention this -- are prophesying dark times ahead. Depression
-- or a slump so deep it's not worth quibbling about the difference --
is evidently on the way; indeed is already underway. The economics of
militarism have been a mainstay of business stability for more than
half century; but now, as in the Vietnam era, deficits incurred to
finance invasion only exacerbate a much more embracing dilemma.
Start
with the confidence game being run out of Wall Street; after all, the
subprime mortgage debacle now occupies newspaper front pages day after
outrageous day. Certainly, these tales of greed and financial
malfeasance are numbingly familiar. Yet, precisely that sense of déjÃ
vu all over again, of Enron revisited, of an endless cascade of
scandalous, irrational behavior affecting the central financial
institutions of our world suggests just how dire things have become.
Enronization as Normal Life
Once
upon a time, all through the nineteenth century, financial panics --
often precipitating more widespread economic slumps -- were a commonly
accepted, if dreaded, part of "normal" economic life. Then the Crash of
1929, followed by the New Deal Keynesian regulatory state called into
being to prevent its recurrence, made these cyclical extremes rare.
Beginning
with the stock market crash of 1987, however, they have become ever
more common again, most notoriously -- until now, that is -- with the
dot.com implosion of 2000 and the Enronization that followed. Enron
seems like only yesterday because, in fact, it was only yesterday,
which strongly suggests that the financial sector is now increasingly
out of control. At least three factors lurk behind this new reality.
Thanks
to the Reagan counterrevolution, there is precious little left of the
regulatory state -- and what remains is effectively run by those who
most need to be regulated. (Despite bitter complaints in the business
community, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, passed after the dot.com bubble
burst, has proven weak tea indeed when it comes to preventing financial
high jinks, as the current financial meltdown indicates.)
More
significantly, for at least the last quarter-century, the whole U.S.
economic system has lived off the speculations generated by the
financial sector -- sometimes given the acronym FIRE for finance,
insurance, and real estate). It has grown exponentially while, in the
country's industrial heartland in particular, much of the rest of the
economy has withered away. FIRE carries enormous weight and the
capacity to do great harm. Its growth, moreover, has fed a
proliferation of financial activities and assets so complex and arcane
that even their designers don't fully understand how they operate.
One
might call this the sorcerer's apprentice effect. In such an
environment, the likelihood and frequency of financial panics grows, so
much so that they become "normal accidents" -- an oxymoron first
applied to highly sophisticated technological systems like nuclear
power plants by the sociologist Charles Perrow. Such systems are
inherently subject to breakdowns for reasons those operating them can't
fully anticipate, or correctly respond to, once they're underway. This
is so precisely because they never fully understood the labyrinthine
intricacies and ramifying effects of the way they worked in the first
place.
Likening the current subprime implosion to such a
"normal accident" is more than metaphorical. Today's Wall Street
fabricators of avant-garde financial instruments are actually called
"financial engineers." They got their training in "labs," much like Dr.
Frankenstein's, located at Wharton, Princeton, Harvard, and Berkeley.
Each time one of their confections goes south, they scratch their heads
in bewilderment -- always making sure, of course, that they have
financial life-rafts handy, while investors, employees, suppliers, and
whole communities go down with the ship.
What makes Wall
Street's latest "normal accident" so portentous, however, is the way it
is interacting with, and infecting, healthier parts of the economy.
When the dot.com bubble burst many innocents were hurt, not just
denizens of the Street. Still, its impact turned out to be limited.
Now, via the subprime mortgage meltdown, Main Street is under the gun.
It
is not only a matter of mass foreclosures. It is not merely a question
of collapsing home prices. It is not simply the shutting down of large
portions of the construction industry (inspiring some of those
doom-and-gloom prognostications). It is not just the born-again
skittishness of financial institutions which have, all of sudden,
gotten religion, rediscovered the word "prudence," and won't lend to
anybody. It is all of this, taken together, which points ominously to a
general collapse of the credit structure that has shored up consumer
capitalism for decades.
Campaigning Through a Perfect Storm of Economic Disaster
The
equity built up during the long housing boom has been the main resource
for ordinary people financing their big-ticket-item expenses -- from
college educations to consumer durables, from trading-up on the housing
market to vacationing abroad. Much of that equity, that consumer
wherewithal, has suddenly vanished, and more of it soon will. So, too,
the life-lines of credit that allow all sorts of small and medium-sized
businesses to function and hire people are drying up fast. Whole
communities, industries, and regional economies are in jeopardy.
All
of that might be considered enough, but there's more. Oil, of course.
Here, the connection to Iraq is clear; but, arguably, the wild
escalation of petroleum prices might have happened anyway. Certainly,
the energy price explosion exacerbates the general economic crisis, in
part by raising the costs of production all across the economy, and so
abetting the forces of economic contraction. In the same way, each
increase in the price of oil further contributes to what most now agree
is a nearly insupportable level in the U.S. balance of payments
deficit. That, in turn, is contributing to the steady withering away of
the value of the dollar, a devaluation which then further ratchets up
the price of oil (partially to compensate holders of those petrodollars
who find themselves in possession of an increasingly worthless
currency). As strategic countries in the Middle East and Asia grow
increasingly more comfortable converting their holdings into euros or
other more reliable -- which is to say, more profitable -- currencies,
a speculative run on the dollar becomes a real, if scary, possibility
for everyone.
Finally, it is vital to recall that this tsunami
of bad business is about to wash over an already very sick economy.
While the old regime, the Reagan-Bush counterrevolution, has lived off
the heady vapors of the FIRE sector, it has left in its wake a
de-industrialized nation, full of super-exploited immigrants and
millions of families whose earnings have suffered steady erosion. Two
wage-earners, working longer hours, are now needed to (barely) sustain
a standard of living once earned by one. And that doesn't count the
melting away of health insurance, pensions, and other forms of
protection against the vicissitudes of the free market or natural
calamities. This, too, is the enduring hallmark of a political economy
about to go belly-up.
This perfect storm will be upon us just
as the election season heats up. It will inevitably hasten the already
well-advanced implosion of the Republican Party, which is the
definitive reason 2008 will indeed qualify as a turning-point election.
Reports of defections from the conservative ascendancy have been
emerging from all points on the political compass. The Congressional
elections of 2006 registered the first seismic shock of this change.
Since then, independents and moderate Republicans continue to indicate,
in growing numbers in the polls, that they are leaving the Grand Old
Party. The Wall Street Journal reports on a growing loss of faith among
important circles of business and finance. Hard core religious
right-wingers are airing their doubts in public. Libertarians delight
in the apostate candidacy of Ron Paul. Conservative populist resentment
of immigration runs head on into corporate elite determination to
enlarge a sizeable pool of cheap labor, while Hispanics head back to
the Democratic Party in droves. Even the Republican Party's own elected
officials are engaged in a mass movement to retire.
All signs
are ominous. The credibility and legitimacy of the old order operate
now at a steep discount. Most telling and fatal perhaps is the
paralysis spreading into the inner councils at the top. Faced with dire
predicaments both at home and abroad, they essentially do nothing
except rattle those sabers, captives of their own now-bankrupt
ideology. Anything, many will decide, is better than this.
Or
will they? What if the opposition is vacillating, incoherent, and
weak-willed -- labels critics have reasonably pinned on the Democrats?
Bad as that undoubtedly is, I don't think it will matter, not in the
short run at least.
Take the presidential campaign of 1932 as
an instructive example. The crisis of the Great Depression was
systemic, but the response of the Democratic Party and its candidate
Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- though few remember this now -- was hardly
daring. In many ways, it was not very different from that of Republican
President Herbert Hoover; nor was there a great deal of militant
opposition in the streets, not in 1932 anyway, hardly more than the
woeful degree of organized mass resistance we see today despite all the
Bush administration's provocations.
Yet the New Deal followed.
And not only the New Deal, but an era of social protest, including
labor, racial, and farmer insurgencies, without which there would have
been no New Deal or Great Society. May something analogous happen in
the years ahead? No one can know. But a door is about to open.
|