I was so taken in July by Robert Greene’s “Laws of Human
Nature” that I devoted a long post to it – which excluded his commentary on
a pattern of generational cycles to which a 15th
century Arab author first drew our attention.
Ibn Khaldun
noted that human beings pass through generational patterns – specifically four.
-
The first-generation revolts against the old order,
and brings fresh, new ideas.
-
The second generation, having been part of the
generation that saw change, wants to establish some form of order.
-
Then the third generation appears, they are more
pragmatic and less connected with the past. They are interested less in ideas
and more in building things. People become materialistic and individualistic during
this phase.
-
The fourth generation comes along and senses that
society has lost its vitality – that its values are wrong. People become
cynical, and this lays the foundation for the revolutionary generation to
disrupt the status quo. And the cycle repeats.
Today I want to tell the story
of how my generation basically destroyed the world -
If we apply
the generational hypothesis to our own times, by starting with
-
the silent
generation that experienced the Great Depression and the World War as
children, we notice that they were cautious, embodying a spirit that embraces
order and stability.
-
The baby
boomers, who grew up in the 60’s saw their parents as being too
conservative. They became more open, idealistic, and adventurous.
-
Then came Generation
X, they were recovering from the chaos of the 70’s. This generation
rebelled against their parent’s idealism and controversy, seeing the holes in
their philosophy, they embraced individualistic values and self-reliance (if
not downright greed – my comment).
-
Then the Millennials
emerged, distrustful of the individualism of the past after witnessing the
terrorism that took place in 9/11 and the financial disaster of 2008, and
valued security and teamwork more.
Fifty years ago, graduates like me didn’t need inviting to get involved
in politics - although 1968 was marked for me not by student protest but by getting
elected to a town council. The older generation patently needed replacing, we
thought, and we were the ones to do it. This was the period of the Penguin exposes of what was
wrong with British society – and of a whole variety of Royal Commissions
beavering away at reform of the various systems of trade unions, broadcasting,
universities, industry etc
My first taste of real power was 1971
(as a committee chairman) although I was also holding down a position as an
academic which gave me the opportunity to absorb the new thinking about
political economy and public economics which was then being articulated in the
States. Social science was still new then – and economists still few in number.
We had, sadly, a certain arrogance about the new tools at our disposal and
toward our elders…….Tony Crosland had been my hero – author of "The Future
of Socialism" (which followed James Burnham in arguing that management
rather than ownership was the issue) had been published in 1956.......
And in the States, a new generation of
politicians arrived in Washington in 1975 – “the Watergate Babes”….who
considered those who had borne the Democrat’s flag for the previous decades as
“old-fogies” who no longer deserved a place in power…..
An article in the Atlantic magazine recently
gave a wonderful sense of the intellectual mood which was around
then
In 1974, young liberals did not perceive financial power as a
threat, having grown up in a world where banks and big business were largely
kept under control. It was the government—through Vietnam, Nixon, and executive
power—that organized the political spectrum. …. suspicion of finance as a part
of liberalism had vanished.
The story starts with the
newly-elected young Democrats targeting in 1975/76 one of the great stalwarts
of the Democrat part, Wright Patman, who represented the proud tradition of American
populism-
The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how
the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and
sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump……….
In 1936, Wright Patman authored the Robinson-Patman Act, a pricing and antitrust law that prohibited price discrimination and manipulation, and that finally constrained the Walmart of its day from gobbling up the retail industry. He would go on to write the Bank Secrecy Act, which stops money-laundering; defend Glass-Steagall, which separates banks from securities dealers; write the Employment Act of 1946, which created the Council of Economic Advisors; and initiate the first investigation into the Nixon administration over Watergate.
In 1936, Wright Patman authored the Robinson-Patman Act, a pricing and antitrust law that prohibited price discrimination and manipulation, and that finally constrained the Walmart of its day from gobbling up the retail industry. He would go on to write the Bank Secrecy Act, which stops money-laundering; defend Glass-Steagall, which separates banks from securities dealers; write the Employment Act of 1946, which created the Council of Economic Advisors; and initiate the first investigation into the Nixon administration over Watergate.
Far from being the longwinded octogenarian the Watergate Babies
saw, Patman’s career reads as downright passionate, often marked by a vitality
you might see today in an Elizabeth Warren—as when, for example, he asked Fed
Chairman Arthur Burns, “Can you give me any reason why you should not be in the
penitentiary?”
……..Patman was also the beneficiary of the acumen of one of the
most influential American lawyers of the 20th century, Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis. In the 1930s, when Patman first arrived in Washington, he and
Brandeis became friends. While on the Court, Brandeis even secretly wrote
legislation about chain stores for Patman. Chain stores, like most attempts at
monopoly, could concentrate wealth and power, block equality of opportunity,
destroy smaller cities and towns, and turn “independent tradesmen into clerks.”
In 1933, Brandeis wrote that Americans should use their democracy
to keep that power in check. Patman was the workers’ and farmers’ legislative
hero; Brandeis, their judicial champion. ….Brandeis did for many New
Dealers what he did for Patman, drafting legislation and essentially
formalizing the populist social sentiment of the late 19th century into a
rigorous set of legally actionable ideas. This philosophy then guided the
20th-century Democratic Party.
Brandeis’s basic contention, built up over a lifetime of lawyering
from the Gilded Age onward, was that big business and democracy were rivals. “We
may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few,”
he said, “but we can’t have both.” Economics, identity, and politics could
not be divorced, because financial power—bankers and monopolists—threatened
local communities and self-government.
This use of legal tools to constrain big business and protect
democracy is known as anti-monopoly or pro-competition policy.…..
J.P. Morgan’s and John D. Rockefeller’s encroaching industrial
monopolies were part of the Gilded Age elite that extorted farmers with
sky-high interest rates, crushed workers seeking decent working conditions and
good pay, and threatened small-business independence—which sparked a populist
uprising of farmers, and, in parallel, sparked protest from miners and workers
confronting newfound industrial behemoths.
In the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson authored the Federal Trade
Commission Act, the Federal Reserve Act, and the anti-merger Clayton Act, and,
just before World War I intervened, he put Brandeis on the Supreme Court.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt completed what Wilson could not, restructuring the
banking system and launching antitrust investigations into
“housing, construction, tire, newsprint, steel, potash, sulphur, retail,
fertilizer, tobacco, shoe, and various agricultural industries.”
Modern liberals tend to confuse a broad social-welfare state and
redistribution of resources in the form of tax-and-spend policies with the New
Deal. In fact, the central tenet of New Deal competition policy was not big or
small government; it was distrust of concentrations of power and conflicts of
interest in the economy.
For decades, Patman had sought to hold financial power in check,
investigating corporate monopolies, high interest rates, the Federal Reserve,
and big banks. And the banking allies on the committee had had enough of
Patman’s hostility to Wall Street.
Over the years, Patman had upset these members by blocking bank mergers
and going after financial power. As famed muckraking columnist Drew Pearson put
it: Patman “committed one cardinal sin as chairman. ... He wants to investigate
the big bankers.” And so, it was the older bank allies who truly ensured that
Patman would go down. In 1975, these bank-friendly Democrats spread the rumor
that Patman was an autocratic chairman biased against junior congressmen. To
new members eager to participate in policymaking, this was a searing
indictment.
Not all on the left were swayed. Barbara Jordan, the renowned
representative from Texas, spoke eloquently in Patman’s defense. Ralph Nader
raged at the betrayal of a warrior against corporate power. And California’s
Henry Waxman, one of the few populist Watergate Babies, broke with his class,
puzzled by all the liberals who opposed Patman’s chairmanship. Still, Patman
was crushed. Of the three chairmen who fell, Patman lost by the biggest margin.
A week later, the bank-friendly members of the committee completed their
takeover. Leonor Sullivan—a Missouri populist, the only woman on the Banking
Committee, and the author of the Fair Credit Reporting Act—was
removed from her position as the subcommittee chair in revenge for her
support of Patman.
“A revolution has occurred,” noted The Washington Post.
“A revolution has occurred,” noted The Washington Post.
Over the next 40 years, this Democratic generation fundamentally altered American politics. They restructured “campaign finance, party nominations, government transparency, and congressional organization.” They took on domestic violence, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, and sexual harassment. They jettisoned many racially and culturally authoritarian traditions. They produced Bill Clinton’s presidency directly, and in many ways, they shaped President Barack Obama’s.
The result today is a paradox…… the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century.
The result today is a paradox…… the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century.
Update; Just discovered this highly relevant book The Fourth Turning – an American prophecy – what the cycles of history tell us about america’s next rendezvous with destiny by W Strauss and N Howe (1997)
No comments:
Post a Comment