CLINTON ST. QUARTERLY Ida Left, Yaude. Eight, and. WdL Streetls Just Behind The Capitalist Conspiracy By David A. Horowitz You’ve got to serve somebody. —Bob Dylan The 1980presidential campaign, if it’s remembered at all, will probably be seen as one of the dullest in history. Yet, in spite of the major candidates’ remarkable efforts to avoid exposure rather than cultivate it, there is much to learn from the 1980 Contest of the Low Profile. This year’s presidential aspirants are promising the American people less than in any election in memory. The theme of sacrifice permeates campaign rhetoric. Which groups of Americans will wind up with the burden of sacrifice still is not clear. Whatever the result, this year’s campaign is redefining old ideas about “ liberal” and “ conservative” and American politics may never be the same. Victorious over Ted Kennedy’s appeal to the decaying industrial cities, President Carter finds himself torn between historical Democratic ties to urban welfare and the energy-fiscal requirements of the international economy. Carter pays lip service to the needs of Kennedy’s minorities and working people while taking his cues from the Federal Reserve. His problem is an image of incompetence in an era when American global influence is on the decline. The president’s public relations difficulties have prompted some liberals in both political parties to pay heed to John Anderson. Anderson’s political attitudes are similar to Carter’s, but the Illinois congressman contends that he can lead the nation to the necessary energy and fiscal sacrifices more effectively than the President. Anderson’s measured internationalism, his call for energy planning and budgetary restraint, suggest an approach familiar to the most future- oriented of the multinational corporations. Liberal internationalists such as Milton Eisenhower and former CIA legal counsel Mitchell Rogovin grace the faltering Anderson effort. The congressman best communicates to students and professional folk of the middle class who cherish efficiency and believe themselves to be political rationalists. Ronald Reagan represents a mild retreat from the fusion of governcentralized authority. “ ment activism and internationalism which has marked mainstream politics since the turn of the century. But his militant nationalism raises justifiable fears of militarism and reaction. Furthermore, Reagan’s insistence on entrepreneurial freedom and his appeal to nineteenth century values speaks to local elites least sensitive to the needs of poor people and social and racial minorities. Reagan is using the traumas of inflation to convert working people to his twentyyear old call for economic freedom for the sunbelt industries and domestic energy interests. While all three candidates condemn government flabbiness, each is promising an unprecedented cut in corporate taxes through changes in business depreciation procedures. Each continues to insist that profits from an expanding market economy lead to prosperity and benefits for the people. But how the candidates approach the market and the country’s international responsibilities is a matter deeply embedded in the twentieth century history of the United States. Corporate vs. Anticorporate Long before Chrysler and Lockheed, major industries and corporations have frequently turned to the federal government for assistance. Ever since 1900, reformers in both parties have created a political evolution and international I c i S finance are not at all inconsistent, ” concluded one Wall Street Banker, “i f the result o f revolution is to establish more bureaucracy designed to manage an economy dominated by large corporations. This “ corporate” order has sponsored liberal social welfare, benign trade unions, deficit spending, and a host of government regulations and selected subsidies. The goal has been a profit-expanding economy which offers elements of social and economic security to the American people. Overseas, corporate liberals have opened the door to private investment and provided access to markets and vital resources through free trade. This combination of “ statism” at home and “ internationalism” abroad has been advanced by sophisticated industrialists, bankers, and corporate farmers in coalition with working people and middle-class folk in the industrial cities. Its political strength rested in the northern Democratic party and among managerial professionals and Wall Street strategists in the eastern wing of the Republican part/. “ Corporate liberalism” has brought us the New Deal welfare state, faim subsidies, new opportunities for vorkers and racial minorities, World War Two, the Cold War, Vietnam, and withdrawal from southeast Asia. Although corporate liberalism and internationalism have been the dominant forces in American polizical life since 1900, Reagan partisans draw their sustenance from another tradition. Represented by the rural Democratic party and non-urban and noneastern sectors of the Republican party, regionally-based conservatives have attempted to resist the internationalism of the corporate liberals. Their appeal has been strongest among small businesspeople, independent farmers, entrepreneurs in domestic industries, and local elites. This “ anticorporate” conservatism seeks protection from overseas competition, freedom from government regulation and taxes, and a military policy geared specifically to American — rather than international — priorities. Its entrepreneurial thirst and militant nationalism brought us the America First movement preceding World War Two, Taft-Hartley restrictions on labor unions, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan. While corporate liberals have been successful in defeating local elites and establishing a regulated national marketplace, anticorporate conservatives have opposed the centralized cooperation between big business and big government. By the 1960s, internationalist liberals had become the “ establishment” defenders of a lucrative status-quo and nationalist conservatives the “ radical” dissenters from the twentieth century state. The 1980 presidential campaign presents a watered-down version of these longstanding animosities. One of the best ways to understand the conflict between “ corporate” and Illustration by Alan Brewster 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz