Involvement in the market. All right. The last couple of classes we have been talking about the red scare and the impact of the red scare in policing the edges of american politics. We will be looking at kind of the rest of the political landscape, beginning to look at what people refer to as the liberal consensus of the 1930s and 1950s and work through what is happening in terms of the main thoroughfare of american politics, possibilities and the way people are thinking about politics in america in the 1930s. Have had different readings, all of which deal with the idea of political ideology and which share assumptions about the way ideas matter to politics. Will be thinking about how they kind of framed those ideas and this is a transition class where we move from discussing the geopolitics of the cold war and the red scare into sort of what else is happening in america in the 1940s and 1950s. Shall 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 ideology the political like him about not worth it anymore and the new kind of like focusing on Economic Issues and the government and taking that one country that could possibly be the best way to go . Summary ce sam that is a nice summary. He said it has run their course for their out of steam and really politics is about management, the adjustment of other things within a kind of general consensus. You know, thinking about the argument little bit, it is an argument people have made at various times in history. He makes aad similar argument in the 1990s it is an argument that keeps coming back. The 50s is not a bad place to do it. This is written in 1960. This is bell. A was born daniel polonsky, child of jewish immigrants in new york. Went to city college back when city college was free. People could spend a lot of times time sitting in the cafeterias are doing politics. Your not talking about socialism and the spanish civil war like they were. He constantly frames issues in these large sweeping historical frames. He said the big ideologies of the 19th century had run out of steam. What is ideology for him . Remember the section where yes . [indiscernible] sam social levers. Great. What the hell does that mean . You dont know. That is exactly the point i have for you. It is an interesting question. I thought it was interesting social movements, have to simplify your ideas. Cant be up in the clouds. It has to be real, cant even cross what they like and then he established the truth, not just something that is an idea. It is reality. Going into the action, getting people [indiscernible] philosophical and get them into reality to get people on board. Sam these are the concepts we need to flesh out what ideology is. It is turning ideas into action. The way you do it is in the three steps he pointed out. You have to simplify, make a claim about it being truthful to the world and then using that simple five idea, provide your framework to act in the world and make decisions about what to prioritize, what deals you can make, what compromises are allowed and what not. So this framework which he said has to appeal to emotion unit is not just just sitting in a room. Emotion. It is not just sitting in a room. Of ramework was an idea example of ideology. Isms will help. Communism, capitalism. Fascism. Environmentalism, socialism, feminism. If you run through all of those and think about where they are in the 1950s, most of them are not operative. Communism and socialism are not popular in the american landscape. Ashes of there were american fascists like the silver shirts. They had been discredited by the 1940s. Where is feminism at in the 1950s . It is in a kind of lull. We will talk later, but people talk about it in terms of a first wave in the early 20th century focused on Voting Rights and the second wave in the 1960s and 1970s. Environmentalism isnt really on the scene. Leather so there is really kind of a lull. What about religion . Is that an ideology in bills terms . Bells terms . He is kind of slippery with that language. He has got an argument that in some ways ideology is secular and about action in the world. You take ideas and act on the basis of them whereas religion, what are you supposed to do with the ideas . Are you supposed to change the world . What are you supposed to do with religious ideas . Prepare for the inevitable. Who do you change . Yourself. Sam it encourages adaptation of the self rather than changing the world in the vision of how it should be better. So he begins by saying the big 19thcentury philosophies are what take the place of religion when religion goes away. And there is a kind of lingering version of religiosity which is like ideology because it is about changing the world. I dont think he can decide what to think about religion. The reason is the framework is very secular religion has gone away very secular. Religion has gone away. He is confronted with a problem in the 1950s which is america is becoming more religious in the 1953 40 1950s. 40 . They are trying to work out what that is about. It is a difficult question. It has an impact on politics, notably in god we trust is added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and in 1955 it is added to the currency. It had not previously been in the currency but now it is a symbol of a new respect for the heart of american political culture. If you had to take a simple guess why there is more of religion, what would you think . Right, to distinguish religious american liberalism from godless atheistic communism. There is a kind of flash clash going on. The problem with the argument is if you are someone who believes which i am very secular, but if you believe in religion, you dont believe you come to a Higher Police for some believe in god because it is helping america prove a point. It is something very personal, working out why that evolves historically at different times is difficult. They have the idea the big ideology has gone away a little bit. What is left is kind of a consensus is managerial issues. What are those . Talksn on 373, when he about the welfare state, the mixed economy and political pluralism. I want to spend most of todays class talking about economy. Mixed economy. Do you know this phrase . Particularly . To understand what he is talking about, you need to think about how people thought about economics in the 19th century. I know it is not your favorite part of this class. Economics is interested in you if you are not interested in it. In the 19th century, how is the economy supposed to work . How many of you have done microeconomics . How does the class start in micro . What do you look at first . Years ago. The chart that looks Something Like this . And demand. What is the supply demand chart measuring . How much, how many goods there are and the relationship between the two. It is where the demand and supply work each other in relation to each other and will reduce the price and that will determine how things are disputed in an economy. This is roughly are distributive the end and economy. The idea is it is selfregulating, what adam smith calls the invisible hand of the market. Demand and supply will meet each other. It should balance itself and become sustainable and optimize the economy generally for everybody. That is considered liberal economics. Free economics. The only problem is they have repeated crashes and depressions in the late 19th and early 20th century. 1890s, 1929. A lot of economists who think of themselves as liberals begin to question the assumption of how the economy should work. The most significant thing is John Maynard Keynes who in the beginsr period investigations. He focuses on macroeconomics, focusing on how the system should work. If you are taking this course in 1960s, you would not start with supply and demand , which is how microeconomics starts. You start with how the mechanism works in isolation for the macroeconomics starts with in isolation. Granted up you need to set that before you can have capital. Operating on the traditional theory. Thatig interventions opus isakes, his magnum saying what matters most is aggregate demand. How much demand overall there is, not any eventual deciding what price is on things but how much purchasing power there is in the economy overall. More easily understood with 1940s political cartoons. Is an economy where there are very few wages being paid to workers. People who are selling products and taking profits, not paying many wages which means there is purchasing power is locked. People dont have money to buy products so there is a smaller market to sell to and it gets to produce less. The bottom image, more wages are being paid out pretty content those into being paid out. There are more people to buy things which means you can put people into production and being kind the economy can speed up and grow. This is our representation with the same idea. You have got to spend to get things into operation. When people are spending, it will go back to the worker and become a virtual circle. Questions about this . Youkey challenge is how do make sure there is enough purchasing power in the economy . You need to regulate the market so workers are being paid efficient wages and there is not disequilibrium. And the government can actually act to stimulate demand when there is economic downturn. At the moment when there is less demand because people are getting forced out of work, the government can spend to create jobs. This is the intervention of the new deal. You dont tell us the books, you act aggressively to spend to kick this process into motion again. This will become the orthodoxy of economics in the 1940s and 1950s so that by the 1960s, Time Magazine will put keynes on the cover. This was the consensus. Make expense . Does it sense . So bell was onto something. It is a mixed economy, not entirely staterun or free, but where the state intervenes. Moneyes the state get its today . Taxation. This is the chart of the amount of americans paying federal income tax every year. The top line is a percentage of the workforce. The bottom line is a percentage of the population. There is a massive spike during what . World war ii. 26 filed income tax in 1940. 87 in 1946 and it stays after the war as a kind of norm. The other thing that will be surprising is the top article tax rates in the period. The top earners in the 1950s are paying . 90 on the dollar. That is a high tax rate to redistribute and take the wealth and put it into back back into general circulation. The 1980s is the reagan tax cuts. We talk a lot about the margin of tax rate. If you take history margins the chances of being in the top margin are not as high as i wish they were. We will focus on the details. The middle. If you look at the kind of 5000, 8000 dollars range, spikes as well in 1942, up from 8 to 40 . So the middle is being tacked taxed a lot more. So this is one indicator there is a mixed economy in the u. S. In the 1950s. The second is that in many ways we have had a long period of workingclass education agitation, violent strikes through the 1930s. Wave ofthere is another strikes at the end of the war. 4 million workers. The militancy of the labor market looks like it will continue. My favorite example is the tugboat workers in new york city go on strike, which shut the city down because no fuel can get into new york. The city is stopped. This image of new york totally dependent on tugboat workers. By the 1950s and 1960s daniel bell will comment, but the workingclass is happy. They have not gone on strike. People want to change things for intellectuals. It is not the working class anymore. Law,se of changes to labor and that because of agreements that are made in the 1940s and 1950s, the workingclass are for work. Tter turns the key example is called the treaty of detroit in 1950 which is an agreement between the united automobile workers and General Motors which will apply across the auto sector. The deal is 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 the wages will increase with inflation, Pension Plans and insurance. That is looked after. At that point labor militancy columns down. The worker militancy calms down. The workers have a bigger supply for everybody and we will need less conflict. The third example i will give you to show there is emerging consensus around this idea of mixed economy is the fact the Political Parties are really confusing to people in the 1950s. This is a cartoon from 1957. What, how are you supposed to tell what the difference is between a republican and democrat, which this sounds like it comes from out of space outer space at this point. The parties are complicated. Each party has an internal Division Within it. The democrats have a kind of northern wing, based on workingclass votes and africanamerican votes. In the south the Democratic Party is the party of white supremacy. They dont work very well together. The republicans are divided between what is called liberal republican, progressive in the northeast and conservative in the south and west. Wayng doesnt happen in the you would think of it. There are coalitions forming. Closer sign politics is together in this period than today, in 1952 the democrats and republicans go to eisenhower and r president ialthei candidate. With the exception of bloomberg actually that person is pretty good for us. And then eisenhower continues a lot of new deal programs around Government Spending in the economy and gets some slack from k fromvatives fla conservatives. He says should any political abolish attempt to Social Security or labor, you will not hear of them party in our history. The new norm is a mixed economy. We have to continue some of these programs. This is a famous american Political Science article written in 1950 that says the american political system is falling apart because the parties are not polarized enough. Voters need to have a clear indication who they are voting for, which i guess because of what you wish for is the answer. Any questions about this . Doing all right . [indiscernible] money i mean during the war with all of these extra people working, a lot of that government money is being spent on ships and tanks and so forth. As soon as it was over, they had a [indiscernible] easier for government to intervene when they had all that money . Sam the key question we have talked about his the fact the government should intervene. We have not setting what form. Said in what form. There are lots of ways government can spend money to stimulate the economy. In the war, it was in wartime. One of the reasons keynesian economics is good during a war is you cant produce too much. Planeskeep getting broken and you have to reproduce them. What that will look like in these times is more difficult. We will turn to that now, where is the money going . Can turn to solicitor esingersher schl piece. There is a consensus forming in american politics. Because of the vital center. That is where we need to be not to be, not too left and not too right. He makes a hopeful argument i think. Politics on a of leftright spectrum. He tells us where this comes from. Where does the idea of calling aggressive left and conservative the French Parliament during the revolution which is where the people were sitting here that gives us a leftright spectrum. This doesnt work anymore. How come . They argue it is more of a circle. You cant really define communism from fascism on a traditional leftright scale. And it kind of works more to the center, noncommunist left and nonfascist right. Sam if you keep going too far to the left, you and up taking away property you end up taking away Property Rights and individual liberties. To the right, you do the same thing. It forms a circle and you end up at the bottom. Argument you should be familiar with. People have compared hitler and stalin, basically the same typology even though they understand themselves to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Where do you need to be . Stay in the center. If you move too far to the left or right, you create problems. When you read this, how many of you had heard of schlesinger before . So those of you who have not, did you think he was conservative or liberal . Or were you not sure . I am guessing liberal. Sam how come . Because of the time period, if you were conservative, you would not be afraid to claim left and communist. Given he is advocating for what is i dont think he was too far to either side but i also think liberal. Sam making a strong case for the center is the place to be. He fancies himself as a person of the liberal left, the noncommunist left. He is looking at your, the noncommunist social left. It is his idea about where we should be. He was very involved in Democratic Politics his entire life, set up the americans for democratic action, one of the first super pacs. Harvard historian. But he is making a case for the center is actually the right place for the liberal democrats to be. And where that is, if you go too far further to the left, you run the risk of communism and a slippery slope down the road to stepping on Property Rights. To the right you also have a problem. It is an interestingly conservative argument. Its assumption is, it is one say if you are here, you can go to the left or the right with experimentation. It is another thing to say actually the circle starts going like that the minute you move from the center. It is unclear how much wiggle room schlesinger thinks you have. It reminds you of the geopolitics we have been reading. He is vague about where it is. So that summative sense itself, but the conservative sense itself, we are at the top of the circle. Any step you take is slippery. You can have more room to maneuver. The argument i want to make in the next part of the class is actually that the key form of the mixed economy, what is centrist liberalism in the 1940s, is pretty conservative for youve got a consensus that the government should spend some money, should be involved in regulating the economy. Schlesinger thinks this means we are in the realist left framework. This should remind you of sidney hook from last class. I dont know if you noticed, daniel bells article was dedicated to sidney hook. These people are all talking to each other in the 1940s, 1950s. Isant to argue that center defined by the cold war in two important ways. What is seen as the leftmost edge of liberalism that you can really go to without risking definedm, that edge is by a couple of pieces of the cold war we have been talking about. The first is what we spent the last four classes talk about, which is what . Scare. Red prof. L