Referred to as a liberal consensus of the 19 forties and 19 fifties. And try to work through it actually is happening in terms of the kind of main fear of american politics. The possibilities, the political actions and in the way people are thinking about politics and the american forties and fifties. Yet three readings, all of which, in different ways, deal with the kind of idea of political ideology, and all of which share a set of assumptions about the way that ideas matter to politics. So, we will sort of be thinking, today, about how the kind of from those ideas, and this is a kind of transition classes were removed from discussing the geopolitics of the cold war, and the red scare, into discussing sort of, what else is happening in america in the 1940s, and 19 fifties. So, should we start with daniel bell . Everybodys favorite reading from today. I assume there are very few questions about this one . Yeah . So, is he, essentially, saying that, like, the political ideologies you could have an imperial age are just kind of not worth it anymore and this new kind of, like, focusing on economic issues, and focusing on the government and just taking that one country the best it could possibly be, the best way to go . Yeah. Hes basically its a nice summary of a complicated argument. He saying the big political ideologies of the 19th century in particular have kind of run their course. They are out of steam, and there is now really, politics is about management, you know, the adjustment of the kind of things with and a kind of general consensus. You know, its worth thinking about the item a little bit. You know, an argument that people have made various times in history, i dont know if youve read francis in another course, the end of history . It makes a very similar argument in the 1990s, so that argument that keeps coming back, but if you could make that type of argument, the fifties isnt a bad place to do it. Bill writes in 1960, this this style. He was born daniel polonsky, right . Child of immigrants, child of jewish immigrants in new york, what do city college, once the college was free, and because it was free, people could spend all the time sitting on the cafeterias, arguing politics, which i dont know how much time he spent, but im talking about socialism in the span of the civil war, probably in the same way bill and his friends were. He constantly frames issues in these large, sweeping historical frames. Right, so he says, as jacob pointed, out the peak ideologies of the 19th century have kind of run out of steam. Whats an ideology . The section where he the conversion of ideas on social levels. The idea of conversion of ideas on social levers. What does that mean . You dont know . Right. Thats what i had for your, so your right on that. What does that mean, is interesting question. As it was interesting when he starts talking about how to get people during the social movement, with some ideas. You cant be popular, clouds are bringing down something you cant grasp, or its going to do something. And then the established claim of troops like hey, this is my idea, not something thats, you know, an idea. Is the truth, its reality, and going into getting the commitment to action, getting people to able to get out of the philosophical and get down into reality. Trying to get people on board. Good, terrific. This is the kind of two concepts we need to flush out on ideology. Its the way you turn ideas into action, right . The kind of mechanism lever that does it. And thats the way thats in the three steps that bob pointed out. It is simplified, the kind of idea, it to make a claim about it, being truthful to the world, and using that simplified idea, providing a framework to go back to the world to make decisions about what do you prioritize, what do you synthesize, what deals you can, make what compromises are allowed, and what are not. Does this make sense . So, in this framework, and he also says it has to appeal to an emotion, married, is that kind of purely about irrational sitting in a room but has to speak to you where you live on some level to get you kind of moving in the world. On this framework, whats an example of an ideology . Any of the big isms will probably help . Communism, capitalism, fascism, environmentalism, socialism, feminism. You could run through all of us and think about where are the in the 19 fifties. For most of them, theyre not very operative in the 19 fifties, right . Communism and socialism the main landscape are not super popular in the 19 fifties for reasons weve been talking about. Fascism, and there were american fascist in the 1930s, right, the silver shirts. Theyve got typically discovered by the 1940s for obvious reasons. Feminism. Worse feminism at in the fifties . Right . Its in a kind of low, we will talk a little more in the dark losses that was actually going on, but people talk about feminism in terms of a first wave in the early 20th century, focusing on voting rights. Environmentalism is really on the scene yet in any meaningful one, so theres actually kind of a little here in some ways. What about religion . It is religion and ideology . In bells terms . Its a myth . Yeah. Hes kind of slippery on where legend fits into this whole thing, right . Some of that language is where he gets plus simple in other parts, and youve got an argument that, in some ways, and ideology, a secular, and about action in the world. Right . You take the idea and how to act in the world on the basis of them, whereas religion, in his account, what do you supposed to do with the ideas . We are supposed to change the world . What are you supposed to do with religious ideas . Prepare for the inevitable . Yes, what do you change . Yourself. For him, religion is a kind of framework that encourages adaptation of the self to kind of eternal truths rather than change the world in the vision of your kind of idea of how it should be met up. Makes sense . He, and some, ice in the, argument be against by seeing the big 19th century philosophies are what would take the place of religion when religion goes away, and then there is a kind of lingering urgent of religions, like an ideology, which is much more about changing the world and i dont think he basically canada side what to think about religion and the reason for that is the big frame markeys got, its a very secular one, right . Religion has gone away, and it will be replaced by secular ideologies, but hes confronted them with a bit of a problem in america in the 19 fifties, which is america is becoming more religious in the 19 fifties. About 14 of people in the 1940 belong to a church. Up to about 69 but 99. So, this action expansion and military aussie, trying to work your thoughts about is just a difficult question. It has an impact on politics. Most notably, and god we trust, is added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, and 90 55, and god we trust is added to the currency, and its been mobilized as a system of a new respect for religiosity at the heart of american political culture. If you had to take a sip look at why there is more in american political country in the 1920s, what would you guess the . Communism, an atheist statement . To distinguish religious american liberalism from godless atheistic communism, right . Theres a kind of clash here going. The problem of the argument, and i think thats won all of us have made, if you are someone who believes in religion, which i mean, its been talked about before, very secular, but if you are some who believes in religion, you dont think you come to a higher personal belief in god in the 19 fifties because its helping america prove a point against the communists, right . Deeply felt religious belief is something thats very personal, working out why that evolves historically in different contexts is difficult. Hes got this idea that the big ideologies have kind of gone away a little bit, and whats left is kind of a consensus around a bunch of technical managerial kind of issues. What are those . Whats the center figure . Section on 373, when he talks about the welfare state, the mixed economy, and political pluralism. I want to spend most of todays cost talking about the issue of the mixed economy. Do you know this phrase . Mixed economy . Now is a fine answer to the question, now . Not a particular . I think to ensure hes talking, about you need to think a little bit about how people thought about economics in the 19th century. Bear with me a little bit, i know that when we talk about economics, its none of your favorite part of the class. Economics is interesting, even if youre not busted and economics. So, i will try to give you a bit of a gloss of whats happening. In the 19th century, how is the economy supposed to work in whats called the classical era . How many have you done microeconomics . How does the class start in micro . When you look at first . That was years ago. Years ago . A chart that look Something Like this, that sound familiar . Yeah. What is that . Supply and demand. What is the supply and demand chart measured in . How much from because there are, and whats the relationship between the two. And when intersect, right, is where the demand and the supply work each other out in relation to each other, and that will produce the price for any good, and that will determine how things are distributed and encounter me. This makes sense . This is roughly your understanding about how supply demand works . Right. So, the idea of it is its self regulating, right . What happens is called the invisible hand of a market. Demand and supply, what kind of meet each other, thats a way to work out how the economy should work in how to balance itself. It sort of becomes sustainable and optimized the economy generally for everyone you meet. And through the 19th century, thats considered liberal economics. Blase fair economics. Free economics. The only problem is, that they repeated crashes and depressions in the late 19th and 20th century. 1873, 18 nineties, and 1929 when the great depression. A lot of economists, we think of themselves as liberals begin to question the assumption about how the economy should work. And the most significant of them for our purposes is John Maynard Keynes, right . Who in the inter war period really begins a series of explosions but how economists actually work in real terms. As opposed to focusing on microeconomics, he loves to disappoint of macroeconomics, think about this isnt as a whole and how its supposed to work. So, if you are taking an introductory economics course in the 19 fifties, 1960s, you wouldnt start with supply demand. Right . Which is how microeconomics darts. You start with the kind of, how does this mechanism work in isolation . The macroeconomic approach starts with the idea that a lot of things have to be in place before you could have a meaningful supply demand relationship. Before a price system can work. And you need to set that up before you get up capitalism operating on the traditional theory. The big intervention that John Maynard Keynes likes in 1936, a general theory of employment and money, hes to say that what matters most of the economy is demand. How much demand overall there is . Not how many individual consumer decides what the price it on, but how much purchasing power there is in the economy overall. More easily understood with 1940s air political cartoons, i think. Right . The top is an economy where there are very few wages being paid to workers. People who are selling products are taking high profits, they are not paying many wages, which means theres the type of purchasing power that slow. People dont have money to buy the products, and therefore there is a smaller market to sell, to end the entire thing slows down and produces less. And the bottom image, more wages are being paid, out so you can tip those wages with the purchasing power. More people with more money to buy, things which means you can put more money back into production and the entire economy could speed up and grow and iran can get more. This is snake sense . This was a similar representation for the same idea. You are going to spend to kind of keep things into operation, and what you are spending, it will flow back to the worker and become a virtual circle. Questions about this . Any questions . The key challenge, that, is how to make sure theres always enough purchasing power in the economy. On the one, had you to regulate the market a little bit to make sure that workers are being paid sufficient wages, and if theres a kind of non this equilibrium and the economys enough book and spend. The second they got to realize, the government can act to stimulate demand when theres in economic downturn. At moments when there is less demand, because people are getting forced out of work, the government can act to spend to create jobs, right. This is the kind of intervention that the new deal. You dont balance the books, you dont let the market fix itself, you act aggressively to spend to try to kick this process into motion again. And this will become kind of the orthodoxy of economics in the 19 forties and that he refused to the point that by 1965, Time Magazine will put keynes on the cover, and write a lead article about keynes. This is kind of the consensus. This makes sense . So, there are some reasons to think that bell its kind of odd or something, when hes focusing on the idea mixed economy. Mixed, because another state run economy, or an entirely free market economy, but a market economy in which the state integrates. How does the state get its money to then spend and intervene in the economy . Taxation. Right . This is a chart of the amount of americans who are paying federal income tax every year. Right, its a massive top line is a percentage of the workforce, the bottom line is a percentage of the population. There is a massive spike there during, what . World war ii . During world war ii. Okay. 26 of the workforce files its federal income tax in 1940, 87 files a federal income tax in 1946. And its days after the war as the kind of law. The other thing that would be surprising to, you is the top marginal tax breaks in the period, right. The top earners in the 19 fifties are paying 90 cents on the dollar, right. Its not that many people, but thats a higher tax, great right . Three disputes, to take the wealth and put it back into the general circulation. The big drop that happens in two steps comes in, which decade . Eighties . In the eighties. Thats the reagan tax cuts that really drop the top rate below. The top marginal tax rate, if youre taking history courses the chances of you being in the top tax rate more important this is hard to read i want you to focus on the details, the middle. If you look at the kind of 5000, 8000 10,000 dollar range in the middle income these years, it spikes as well as 1942 up from eight or 9 tax to 40 tax. So the top is getting taxed a lot more, but the middle is getting taxed a lot more. The amount of tax thats being gathered is one key indicator that its more of a mixed a common economy in the u. S. In the 19 fifties. The second, is that in many ways weve had a long period of working class education, that weve talked about in the course already, violent strikes leading through the 1930s. In the 1946 theres actually another wave of strikes, so not so that militancy, looks like its going to continue. My favorite example of this is actually the tugboat workers go on strike in 1946. Which suits the city down no fuel can get into new york. The subway has to get stopped kind of image of new york almost dependent on tugboat workers. By the early 19 fifties, the working class are pretty happy. Theyre not going on strike anymore theyve kind of calm down. If anyone, people who are angry and want to change things are the intellectuals, not the working class anymore. It changes labor law that we have talked already, a set of agreements are made in the late 1940s in the late 19 fifties, the working class are often better terms for work. The key example for this is called the treaty of the troy in 1950, which is an agreement between general mortars that will apply across the automobile sector a leading sector of the economy. And the deal is basically, in exchange for guarantees to go on strike less frequently to recognize the need for production, the union will get cost of living adjustments so that the wages will increase with inflation look at Pension Plans and health insurance. And will be kind of looked after as part of the middle class, and at that point labor militancy kind of calms down, and the workers have a Consumer Power base that they needed in order to keep the economy rolling. The ideas lets have a bigger pie for everybody and then will have less conflict. The third example, ill give you show you there is an emerging consensus around this idea of a mixed economy, is the fact that Political Parties are really confusing to people in the 19 fifties. This is a cartoon from 1957 the joke is what . How are you supposed to tell the difference between a republican or democrat, which i imagine feels like it came to outer space to you. Given polarization. But actually the parties are very public aided in the 1940s, each party really has an internal Division Within it, the democrats have a kind of northern wig urban based on working class votes African American votes. In the south the Democratic Party of the very oppose on a lot of issues. The republicans are also divided what people call liberal republicans, progressive recover republicans in the northeast and more conservative republicans in the southwest. And so, voting doesnt happen in the way you you think of, weird coalitions forming. The key sign that politics is a lot closer together and the parties are locked closer together, is that in 1952, both the democrats and the republicans go to eisenhower and ask him to be the president ial candidate. With the partial exception of bloomberg today, its hard to imagine a candidate that both parties want, fighting a real difference here. Eisenhower continues a lot of new deal programs around Government Spending and the economy, and get some slack from conservatives on his right flank, and he writes a famous letter back to them and says. Should any Political Party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, or eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you will not hear about that party again in our political history. The idea that the new norm is the mixed economy you have to continue some of these program does make sense. Theres actually a famous article written in 1950 that says, the american political system is really falling apart because the parties are not polarized enough. Like we need to make the parties more polarized so voters have a clear in the indication when they go to the polling booth. Which i guess be careful what you wish for the answer to that. Any questions all about this . Youre doing all right . A lot more money, i mean during the war with these extra people working a lot of taxes coming in, will a lot of that govern money government money is being spent on ships and tanks and so forth. As soon as that was over they had a it was easier for government to intervene when they had all that money . Yeah i mean something i want to develop in the next part of the class, the key question is all weve done so far is talk about that the government should intervene in the economy. Weve said nothing in what forms that should intervene, theres a lot of different ways and different places that the government can spend money to stimulate the economy, in the war it was in wartime. One of the reasons military purposes. One is really good during the word to kind of spending you cant produce too much, the thing about producing bombs and planes that they keep on getting themselves broken and you have to keep producing them. What thats going to look at in peace time is more difficult. Will turn to that now its a good question where is the money . Going the way to do that is to turn to slush although you did well with bell. So slashing there is writing in 1948 and hes arguing there is a consensus forming in the middle of american politics he calls it the vital signed off. Thats where we need to be not too left not too right. He makes a kind of helpful argument i think, we normally think of politics on a left right spectrum. He actually tells us where that comes from, where does the idea of calling more Progressive Left parties and more conservative parties right come from . The French Parliament. The French Parliament during the revolution, just where the people were sitting during those discussions, thats given us the left to right spectrum that weve capital this day. Schlesinger says he doesnt really were very well to make sense of politics. How come . He argues its more of a circle. You cant really define communism and fascism on a traditional left right scale. It kind of works more works more to the center, non communist left and non fascist right. If you keep going too far to the left, you end up you end up taking away Property Rights and stepping on individual liberties. If you go too far to the right you do the same thing, so you also end up if you go too far on the spectrum it forms a circle this makes sense . This is an argument you should be familiar with like a lot of people have compared hitler installing over the years, saying theyre basically the same type apology even though they understand themselves to be opposite ends of the political spectrum. He argues, given this better understanding of politics, where do you need to be. You need to stay in the center, because if you move too far to the left of the right you end up creating deep problems. When you read this, how many of you had heard of schlesinger before beating this piece . So this of you havent heard of schlesinger, did you think that he was a conservative or a liberal . Or were you not sure . Im guessing liberal. How come . Part because in a time period if you are conservative you wouldnt be afraid to complain that everyone on the left as a communist. Sam . Given that hes advocating for whats essentially i dont think he was too far out of the place either. So somewhat liberal but he obviously makes a strong case for the center is the place to be. He fancies himself a safe if you read closely, as a person of the liberal left for the non communist left. Hes a model looking to europe, looking at are a non communist socialist. His idea about where we should be, he actually was very involved in Democratic Politics for his entire life. He set up the americans for democratic action, one of the soup super pacs of the Democratic Party. He was the Court Historian for the jfk, where the candidates are. He was a harvard historian, the son of a harvard historian. But hes making a case for the center is actually the right place for the liberal democrats to be, and that where that is if you go too far further to the left from their you basically run the risk of communism and a slippery slope down the road to stepping on Property Rights. If you go too far to the right, you also have a problem. Its kind of an interesting lee conservative argument and its form before we get into details, but its assumption is its one thing its one thing to say you know if youre here you can go to the left or the right, with experimentation. Its another thing to say that actually the circle starts going like that the minute you moved from the center, its unclear how much wiggle room schlesinger thinks you have. Theres an alarmist domino theory to the peach which reminds you perhaps of the geopolitics weve been reading, those theories a slippery slope. But hes very vague about where he is, in that sense its kind of conservative of itself. Imagines were at the very top of the circle, kind of like the best place you could be in the circle every step you take begins a slippery slope, where more the top is a plateau and you have more room doing what you need. The argument i want to make and the next part of the class, is actually the key form of the mixed economy what actually is centrist liberalism in the 1940s is pretty conservative. For very particular reasons for the cold war. You have a consensus that the government should spend some money should be involved and regulate the economy, schlesinger things that were in the realist left framework. Remind you of signal hook from last class, realism. Daniel bells article is dedicated to sydney hook, this came they were all talking to each other in the 19 forties and 19 fifties. I want to argue that center, is defined by the cold war in two important ways. So that what is seen as a left the most edge of liberalism that you could really go to, without risking communism, that that edge is defined by a couple of features of the cold war that weve been talking about. The first is what weve spent the last four class is talking about, which is what . The red scare. So we just spend classes talking about the way that any left associations in the 19 forties and 19 fifties runs the risk of having you accused of communism, with huge personal costs to your role in politics. And this will shape the kind of possibilities for what policies are proposal and able to be put into place in the 1940s. Trumans Domestic Program, is referred to as a fair deal, for how he packages himself in this in other ways hes desperately trying to harriet fdrs mantle. If fdr had a new deal ill have a fair deal. Something he proposes and his fair deal, full employment, if theres going the government will spend money if people are unemployed to create work, so that everyone can have a job. What happens to that proposal . His legislation drafted to the senate in 1946, and then it goes to the house. The house is more conservative, in the house, a substitute bill is proposed written by the chamber of commerce that says no full employment, what we should do is encourage maximum employment and no Government Spending. We should just to fact finding to work out the what is the best way to encourage maximum employment in the private sector. To get rid of the Senate Version . They argue it is not greatly distance from neomarks and thinking, and is tainted by the the keynes hands of school is done in the government. So an attack here that is kind of left intervention is too close to communism. A second example all gave you from a Domestic Program is familiar to you, today, which is truman proposes that there should be Government Health care. Second payoff. And there is massive lobbying campaign from the medical association and the private firms that spend about two and a half Million Dollars on propaganda, the group in favor of single payoff spends about 50,000 dollars, doesnt really have the kind of money to advertised that, and part of the Advertising Campaign against single payoff is built around the idea that this is worryingly communist and implication, and one of the pamphlets quotes london as saying, socialized medicine is the key stone of the arch of the socialist state. The only problem is that leonard never said anything like that, but it is one of the ways that government funded health care is presented as being to radically communist for the u. S. And thats created a very unusual situation in the u. S. For an advanced industrial democracy in the second half of the 20th century, which is all husker has been private until medicare in the 1960s, which is very limited, and as you see today, thats an ongoing problem, right . Medicare, medical aid, insurance, its tied to employment in the United States in a way its not tight necessarily in other countries. Sam . Im just going to bring up how almost certainly relevant, not just just in terms of modern politics issues. Yeah. It definitely rhymes with contemporary concerns, right, and the debates being had in the 19 forties the same being had today, which is why the American People support Single Payer Health care, or is it too radical a proposal and will it get tainted as looking like a communist . In the 19 forties, thats what happened. Right . The limits of whats proposal as part of Government Intervention in the economy are defined in part by fears and accusations of communism. Right . On the other hand, the type of spending as jim was exposed justifiable is no military national defenceman isms. Right . Eisenhower is attacked in the 19 fifties by some conservative republicans rely, choir becoming taxes like republicans have always wanted to cut taxes . Eisenhower gives a National Television address where he justifies why its important for there to be a high tax rate, which is not like republican politics in our generation, but part of his case, he says, is that 70 cents on the dollar that you are being taxed is being spent for National Security. So we are not just doing this to make peoples lives but, are we doing to protect the nation and the public good, and what you then get in the period is massive expansion of federal Government Spending, if it can be justified as tied to National Security and some form. Not if its tied to other social benefits. Phil bright, the senator, actually looks into this in the late 1960s, and the calculus that between 1945 and 1967, the federal government spent some like 904 billion dollars on military related expenses, and 94 billion dollars on all other functions. So, that money is tied directly to military expenditure, and this takes on surprising forms. What it means, politically, is if you want to get something funded by the federal government, your case is helped massively if you can tie it to defense spending. So, one of the big bob . Wasnt that accusation and that article because people would be as inquisitive about National Security, or in the fence, i can tell you, you know, not going to do as much into where the money is being spent, versus, lets say, against health care or employee insurance. There is a secrecy element to things like particular defense budgets, right, but there is a public side of this as well, that they have a political logic that is just, people stand up in public and say, we are willing to spend taxpayer dollars on National Defense issues. Are not willing to spend taxpayer dollars on social benefit, right, because the market to determine those things, the market can provide public goods of the sort of National Defense requirements. For instance, one of the big public spending projects in the 19 fifties is the highway act. Right . Massive expenditure to expand the highway system. This is the era of the car, obviously. But this is how its defined. This is a 1970s pamphlet. Right, the National System is interstate and defense highways. Part of a logic for highway spending is it provides for mobility of logistics, right, you can keep some of the nukes on the road so, that you know, you can move them around from facility facility, and its important to the National Defense to have a strong infrastructure of transportation. This evening happens with the university and educational spending. There is not a lot of federal spending on high schools for a variety of reasons. One of which is directly tied to segregation, which we will talk about in a couple of classes, but its also not the kind of think but want to justify in america, spending money on, until soviets look like theyre winning the space race. Sputnik goes up, the americans equivalent doesnt go very far. The joke is its called kaputnik not sputnik. Itll start putting money into science and math in the u. S. Theres also debates about that science grant funding. The creation of the funding to seize money for scientifically and mathematical to benefit the nation. That never has much money. By 90 50, to its but it is about three and a half Million Dollars a year. Meanwhile, the Naval Research alone is spending 120 Million Dollars a year, providing Research Money to universities to do weapons related developments. So in all of these waves, the type of money you can spend is best justified if its tied to military or National Defense purposes. I actually think that these two factors go together to limit the range of possibilities in america in the 19 forties and 19 fifties. On the one hand, if you propose anything thats too radical, looking you could be accused of being a communist, on the other hand, no one will question federal spending if you say you are doing it for National Security. I want to give you an example to kind of suggest how these two things work in practice. This is leon, who i dont think and if you have probably heard of. Maybe one exception. He is very involved in politics in the 1930s, he comes out of socialist politics in new york in the 1930s. He drops the water, actually burton issues back in 1935, he is very committed to increasing working class wages, to make for a greater aggregate demand of the economy. His wife, is very involved in summarize politics in the 1930s, focused on making sure people have enough money to spend so the economy can work. And then it 1930s and early 1940s days spent 45 years being investigated for communism in loyalty hearings that we talked with the last few classes. What happens . They keep their jobs, she develops a series of summit also as a result of distress, they keep their jobs, but they adjust their arguments. They continue to believe that the federal government has a big role in spending to make the economy work, but they stop making the case in terms of consumer demand and working class riots. He will become one of the key advisers on the council for economic advisers, and she will continue to argue it is that you fifties for big Government Spending, but he will make the argument and National Security spending. He actually really Economic Consultant to nsc68 which we read a few weeks ago. Where he argues that actually, two in the cold war, we need a massive defense establishment. He keeps the same commitment to keynesian economics, but terms it away from its connection to kind of working class radicalism, and retarget said around National Security interests. This makes sense . So, bell as an argument, we talked about earlier, the and ideology comes about, in part, because the ideas have kind of run out of steam. Right . The big ideas have gone away. You could make a case that, in some ways, they just havent just gone away, but the history of mccarthyism and the red scare, and the cold war confrontation shapes what keynesian looks like in the u. S. So its focused much more of a National Security then expenditure. When he moves away from social spending, does he have a dribble down theory, that if we spend all this money on the fence, some of it will go into the workers . Yeah. He just figured out a tougher way to do it . I mean, in some sense. That would be an argument. I mean, what we are at some level, and ive read more books, i mean you are trying to get into the psychology of an individual, and he read some books about it where they say this is a cynical sellout, others words the best in bad times. Right, what version of that, how you want to pass that, but the move is kind of the broader pattern, its what matters, and if you start saying the money goes to one route, not another. And then you justify that in various ways. You know, how effective the trickle down is, thats the question. You know, but, im sure there are multiple ways that you can make your piece with that kind of, move when what youre talking about is an ideological change happens over 12 years, right . You know, he gets older, hes attitude to the world changes, hes like a run, else really knows about whats happening in europe, and getting concerned about communist on his own. Its a complicated change and dont want to present to simply, but the shift i think is interesting. Its also the case that a lot of arguments about spending will say it is a matter where the money goes, its just important you put it into the economy, and it wouldnt have consequences later. I think that that, and im not an economist, but just acting simply logically, i think it kind of matters where the money goes in the first instance. If its going to have downstream consequences the matter where it goes, well, then, what matters slice is its long term consequences, but what are the short term benefits of promoting particular parts of the Economic Activity . Right, and putting it into defense spending, it promotes that part of activity. I mean, its a problem and universities today. That grant money goes to certain types of projects, not to others, which produces certain types of social benefits. We are just thinking about the dollar, its all going into the economy, but it goes into the economy in particular pockets that have an impact. Make sense . The argument against military spending, that its a dead end, i mean, the one that you build does nothing to build the economy. Its great for defense as opposed to building a house, or building your car, or building machinery that can then be used to build more. And that was the economists argument to against all of this military spending. I have one to have had century ago who argue, you must just shovel sad. If all youre trying to do is pump money to the economy, shoveling sand is as productive as military spending, leaving aside that the defense, you know, protecting us because you are not creating enough goods. I wouldnt necessarily agree with that. You know, you could make a military aircraft and turn around and make jetliners or everyone else. Even if the products, you know, the fighter planes are producing, they do contribute to two companies that can go on and reduce but for a building on top of the forties and fifties. And, what youre talking about is a complicated debate, its worth having about this trickle effect and the flow on effects of where the spending goes. Working out there, with the aggregate but if it is to the society versus the particular benefit. One of the arguments say, the space, raise the kind of colossal waste of public money around prestigious, but yet there are a lot of Technological Development sort of come out of that they have downstream benefits overall. The flip side of that, is to say who reaps most of the benefit of those social improvements in the first instance, its the companies that can have the patents, right, to deploy them in the commercial marketplace, having it underwritten by public spending, and so some people talk about this as the socialization of risk, but not of profit. Right, so, you know, theres a complicated set of arguments that we could talk about more for the rest of the semester. Theres something i want to move on to today. Is there anything else we have . Any other questions about the kind of big picture pattern that im trying to show . Seem moderately clear . When you make a comment on eisenhowers warning about the military Industrial Complex . He ends, right, by giving a warning about the Industrial Complex, right, but she argues that there is too much spending going into military industrial activity, right, and theyve kind of captured the public spending process. What, to me, is most interesting about, it is the first half of the speech. Its called the military Industrial Complex because he is realized that, actually, what defense spending does is it compartmentalizes production, so that every district has one part of the blame that is being made, so that there is a Congress Person who is invested in voting up as kind of through their constituents, and he realizes, unless you break that, Congress Wont make real decisions in the public good, it will have too many incentives to kind of do service to the industry. I think he decides, im not exactly sure why, but he decides that calling it the military industrial congressional speech and his farewell address would be too much of a shot across the bow of his fellow congresspeople, and so he drops it. About the intersection between military Industrial Power and congressional politics and the distorting it has on electrical democracy we have the senator from Washington State people who are seen on advocates on particular interests. Okay, so the general argument here that weve been developing as bell says theres an end of ideology, theres a move to the center theres some evidence for that that weve talked about that feels kind of right. And then the question was, where is actually the center . Whats being called the center is its sort of more to the left or the right . How should we understand. It i have argued that the cold war moves that center more along the conservative spectrum than we might have anticipated from the way someone like schlesinger understands himself. Both because of ideological pressure and the way he can justify defend spending. The one grand irony in American History, not the only one, the grand irony of todays class is that the exact moment that were talking about the emergence of a fairly conservative center, that has purge the left from american politics under the banner mccarthyism, William Buckley comes along and starts the National Review. And you read the kind of Mission Statement of National Review for todays class, whats buckley so upset about in this piece . Was it that the media in his time wasnt really doing what it was supposed to do. It was kind of from what i understood it wasnt supporting the government when it should have been. From which perspective . Was it that, from whatever off is it side political spectrum the government was. And he thinks theres too much of something and nothing not enough of Something Else alex . Small government less interference in his life,. Its more government libertarianism onyx. He wants to inaudible whether someone enter the other more of the conservative side, dont take middle ground because its not taking anything. Good on page one 96 it says, the middle of the road is republic, why are we all in the middle of the road were all too centrists, were all kind of believe in too much Government Spending. Hes arguing the medias part of this problem as well, libertarian conservatives thought. Theres no way for us to kind of get our ideas out. Its kind of an interesting how much he emphasizes in this piece small magazines, and also education. The idea that through education you spread your ideas, and that gives you political power down the road. Who was William Buckley . The father of conservatism. And kind of the spiritual genesis of the leader reagan era. Why exactly. The firing line inaudible . Well watch a little bit a bit later in the semester will have people on to debate, but he emerges a 1955 as you coach pointed out as the godfather of an emerging conservative movement. He gets money to start this magazine, the National Review, to be the center of conservatives thinking. He had written two books, the first on the left is his book at the garden man at yale, which is basically an attack on the secular propaganda that is happening in modern universities. Conservatives are being upset about Political Correctness on campus, the current round thats his first book. His second book he writes with proposal who is this front for meal, hes a guy looking stone on the left its called mccarthy and his enemies its a defensive of John Mccarthy as a patriot whos being misunderstood by the American People. Basel bosel who hear just looks like a joke actually is an incredibly important figure himself, hell be speech writer for Barrie Goldwater and will basically conscious of the conservative as kind of another figure stop showing ideological templates for a very libertarian conservative republicans. Well come back to and the 1960s. Whats happening in this piece then, the rearticulation of a libertarian philosophy, he argues the Competitive Price system is indispensable, its a return to 19th century ideas about the state needs to be out of the economy. In this regard, hes influenced by the sky frederick an austrian economist, who had formed his idea to be the center of Economic Activity, an inter war vienna where he was very upset by riots on the streets. As people were trying to kind imagine a more socialist vienna politic. He then in the 1930s leaves vienna, is brought to the London School of economics, the London School of economics really wants some big time economist to build recon department because theyre in the shadow of cambridge. Which is where keynes is. Institutional politics, we need to do Something Different to kane seeism, we need to hire some kind of in the late 1930s who then publishes the book called the road to serve them, which will then become a surprise bestseller in the United States, most University Presses pass on it at first, they dont want to publish, it they think its popular but then it gets private funding to university press. And then a business person gives the university of chicago enough money to hire hayek for ten years. Hes actually being paid for by the university by private these institutional politics are kind of amazing. George mason kind of rising in the university in the seventies and eighties, realizes you cant really compete with a lot of the Mainstream Research universities that exist and needs to find an art market niche. And will be in hiring a variety of libertarian economists, including james buchanan, and building an economy Economics Department around hayek. Including a set of hayek studies at george mason, this will position itself as a institutional home for particular vision of the economy. What i want to just briefly do give you an overview of how hayek book works. I want you to compare it to kanes. So, this is what kanes book kind of looks like when you go flip through, which is to say it looks a little bit about what you expect and economic textbook to look like a lot of figures a lot of numbers its the math. Its a fairly big heavy called the general theory. This is the road to serve them, its a lot smaller. If you flick through youll see theres almost no math. In fact there is no math whatsoever, its a work of political philosophy. I raise this as a point not because theres anything wrong with political philosophy, i stop doing math at 16. A lot of libertarian economists will argue that after the 1970s and 1980s, cain doesnt work mathematically. The numbers are not right, it does not produce the best economy, it actually if you do the math properly, you need a small government to have a really great vibrant economic growth. That not hayek argument is about. Its not about output or economic terms that all, its about the political consequences of central Government Spending. Actually the math in the 1930s and 1940s is in canes. That the road to serve them not a as bigots book, even thats a little bit too much for 1940s americans, it gets turned into Readers Digest version, which is how a lot of people actually read it. But never fear, even your colleagues in the 1940s just wanted the overhead, they didnt want to read even a short book like this. They wanted the Cartoon Version which was published in look magazine, so i can show you what the argument of the book was and basically a dozen easy steps. So this is how are the road to serve to makes its case, first during the war everybody likes planning and i want to keep planning after the war the plan is, say everything is going to be great once our plan is in place. Then they kind of agree with each other, they cant agree with each other that makes people disagree with each other as well. So then the plan is, stoke up disagreement and everyone is arguing how should we plan the economy what would be the best way to do it. Then trying to sell people on the plan with propaganda and a controlled press, and then the way that you begin to get agreement, you get some big figure come along and make the cases this is what we should all be doing. That dictatorial figure will convince everyone that they are the ones who should really run the economy. Once you get that person power over the economy, that party will then take over the country, and then theyll need to justify themselves to identifying someone to persecute. As they point out helpful, in germany the negative aim was antisemitism, the experience of nazi germanys front and center in their mind. Nobody opposes the leaders fine, as a result you get told what to do, you get told how much are going to get paid, you get told what to think, you get told how to spend a recreation time. Again, the worst possible thing you can imagine a dictatorship. The second worst thing. The worst thing is you get, shot the second worst thing is they breaker golf clubs and they make you do calisthenics. But that is the world served him, 18 steps from you want to intervene in the economy, to shooting dissidents. Hayek hates a cartoon, he has caveats in here, this is simple. But it captures a key part of the argument, which is there are political philosophical reasons not to do government planning or Government Intervention, because the risks of a growing government state or two great, not to the economy, but to liberty and Civil Liberties and freedom. Hayek understands himself to be a liberal, he will call himself a liberal his entire life. This is one of the origins of confusions we all have around the term liberal. What is the liberal . Someone on the left . A neoliberal, who is today someone on the . Right in australia, the conservative party is called the liberal party because they were the liberals in the late 19th century which is how hayek understands himself. The defender of a tradition thats gone out of fashion in the era of cain. Earlier in the class we defined an ideology, what was an ideology what was it three steps . Its you simplify your philosophy, simplify establish a claim to the truth, demand inaudible get people moving toward something. This is an ideology under those terms. It simplifies a complicated issue around how much intervention a government can have in the economy. It makes a claim to truth, which is look what happened in europe right . Then, it says as a result you need to resist the encroachment a Government Authority into the economy and protect a market as free. This seed for this will be planted in the 19 fifties with people like buckley and hayek making the case for the ideas. It will be transmuted into the Republican Party in the 1960s, typically with the election of goldwater, eventually the reagan revolution. So one of the stories that come out of this cold war consensus period, is that americans refer to the 19 forties and 19 fifties as a liberal consensus, as a long new deal, as a centrist were liberal ideas of Big Government dominated. But actually the cold war shapes very deeply where that consensus is, its not that far to the left, particularly when you compare the country to the kind of welfare states and Government Interventions that occurred and other european states that around the same time. But ironically, the partisan convict that emerges out of the 19 fifties and sixties has set the template for today as well, which is you have figures like buckley arguing that we need to reject that fairly conservative centrism in favor of true conservatism. And that they will be true ideologues of the right, which is not a critique that buckley would be offended by, thats how he understands himself. On the other hand, the liberals will be making a case much more similar to schlesinger which is the place that we need to be is in the center, if we go too far to the rhetoric armenians. And i think that sets the template for both the major Political Parties from the 1960s, to the president will see how the Democratic Party goes today. Thats a debate that people are still having, do you go to the center and you go to the left . Whats the path to electability . The republicans, have been having that debate for a while. Theyve had an argument about a vision of the conservative philosophy of government, that stems from hayek and buckley. So the american political spectrum is kind of skewed, even though we think of the center as something that was defined in the 19 fifties. Does this make sense . Any questions before we begin to wrap up . You mentioned something about being a high philosopher quote on quote conservative libertarian movement. Thats something dimension, when or the thing is interesting about rand, i dont find it interesting is the relationship with her and buckley on the issue of religion. So rand is a secularist, really dislikes religious gossipy, buckley webbs his catalyst isnt to his libertarianism. A lot of paul ryan and these figures really like rand, i think that represents the kind of conservative consensus and less well than the figure of buckley. Its actually that fusion of conservative religious family values, with free Market Economics that defines the kind of political agenda of the Republican Party, whereas rand is idiosyncratic and vision of the world, she has her adherents. Shes not a coalition builder, one of the things about buckley is his identifying political coalition. Which is what schlesinger also thinks hes doing but his idea there is dynamic peace paragraph he says thank god we got rid of of the left of the Democratic Party. That is proof that were released centrist now. So theres just a different ideological frame on both sides of the party, last thing before we wrap up. There is that kind of interesting passage at the end of bell where he talks about theres the fact that theres kind of unfulfilled emotions, the kind of anxiety of modern life, that people want to work and how to change the world we dont know whats going to fulfill. I want you to bear that in mind as we shift in the second half of the course thinking about domestic politics. What will now do is move within the kind of politics of the quote unquote liberal consensus, and look at particular issues, housing welfare spending, education segregation, sexual politics. And there are debates there are about how those problems can be resolved, and how the world of the 19 fifties makes people seek meaning and transformation and alienates them in certain ways. So, bell is writing in 1960 there is this ongoing problem of alienation, the lack of fulfillment. The parameters there, when we move from the realm of former politics, political philosophy into the world of personal politics and personal experience will be reflected in our discussions in the second half of the semester. Some good . All right, i look forward to those conversations and a couple of weeks have a good spring break. Were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan three on friday San Diego State University Lecturers on the vietnam war, he looks at the conflicts from the u. S. Military escalation in 1965, to the fall of saigon ten years later. The competing interests of the americans, chinese and soviets in the region. Watch friday night beginning at eight eastern, enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan three. American history tv on cspan three, and sporting the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. Coming up this Labor Day Weekend, saturday at 6 pm eastern on the civil war, historians kevin and Hillary Greene discuss how we remember the civil war, and whether to remove or contextualize from confederate monuments. Then sunday at 6 pm eastern on american artifacts, will preview photographs of native americans from the Smithsonian National museum of the American Indians collection. Which includes more than a half million images, at 8 pm on the presidency a look at president ial retreats. Including Abraham Lincoln summer cottage, shawn adore stories of the kennedys, clintons and obamas in marthas vineyard. Monday night at 8 pm eastern, 75th anniversary of the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki American History tv and washington journal look back at the events that led to the bombing and their legacy. With author ian toil and president trumans grandson Clifton Truman daniel. Exploring the american story, watch American History tv this Labor Day Weekend on cspan three. Nicholas diminish teaches a class about National Intelligence during president kennedys administration he talks about the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and other covert operations during the cold war. His classes just over an hour. We are continuing our Historical Survey of american intelligence under each president ial administration, now weve come to the presidency of john f. Kennedy, january 1961 to november 1963. Kennedy was a former naval officer, so he thought he knew something about intelligence he was also a big fan of the james bond novels written by ian fleming. I pictured him with his brother
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.