Has progress in US society actually been slow since the beginning of the Reagan era?

[Hardkill]

No doubt has technology, medicine, methods of treatment for all other kinds of issues, been rapidly evolving in every possible way everywhere in America since the 70s to 80s. Yes, it is true that since the 80s, the world economy has become so much more globalized, and the career/financial opportunities for women and racial minorities have been continually increasing. Yes, it is also true that historic liberal/progressive changes have occurred since the 2010s including the first US black president, first woman of color VP, first latin woman and first black woman on the SCOTUS bench, gay marriage, other lgbtq+ rights, major improvements in our healthcare system, the growing legalization and decriminalization of weed and psychedelics, major reform of the financial system after the 2008 financial crisis, Biden's major legislative achievements and big policy changes, etc. Furthermore, it is true that in recent decades the percentage of white christians has been continually shrinking significantly while the percentage of non-whites and secular people have been continuously increasing at a significant rate. 

However, the amount liberal/progressive changes made in government policy since the beginning of the Reagan era seem to have been slow compared to any other time in US history before the late 70s/early 80s. The conservative era of politics occurred during the 80s, 90s, and 00s in the US. The growing partisan gridlock since the 90s have of course caused Congress to be much less productive than it would be otherwise. Corporate lobbyists and other wealthy donors have further contributed to the blocking of many liberal policies, particularly with regard to economic policies. Obama could only make big changes just during his first two year of his presidency. Then Trump came into office and and governed as a hard-right president, especially during his first two years. Biden also could only make big changes just during his first two year of his presidency. The US government's military/foreign policy has become too aggressive on foreign nations such as China and we may closer to the threat of nuclear war than ever before.

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

6 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

No doubt has technology, medicine, methods of treatment for all other kinds of issues, been rapidly evolving in every possible way everywhere in America since the 70s to 80s. Yes, it is true that since the 80s, the world economy has become so much more globalized, and the career/financial opportunities for women and racial minorities have been continually increasing. Yes, it is also true that historic liberal/progressive changes have occurred since the 2010s including the first US black president, first woman of color VP, first latin woman and first black woman on the SCOTUS bench, gay marriage, other lgbtq+ rights, major improvements in our healthcare system, the growing legalization and decriminalization of weed and psychedelics, major reform of the financial system after the 2008 financial crisis, Biden's major legislative achievements and big policy changes, etc. Furthermore, it is true that in recent decades the percentage of white christians has been continually shrinking significantly while the percentage of non-whites and secular people have been continuously increasing at a significant rate. 

However, the amount liberal/progressive changes made in government policy since the beginning of the Reagan era seem to have been slow compared to any other time in US history before the late 70s/early 80s. The conservative era of politics occurred during the 80s, 90s, and 00s in the US. The growing partisan gridlock since the 90s have of course caused Congress to be much less productive than it would be otherwise. Corporate lobbyists and other wealthy donors have further contributed to the blocking of many liberal policies, particularly with regard to economic policies. Obama could only make big changes just during his first two year of his presidency. Then Trump came into office and and governed as a hard-right president, especially during his first two years. Biden also could only make big changes just during his first two year of his presidency. The US government's military/foreign policy has become too aggressive on foreign nations such as China and we may closer to the threat of nuclear war than ever before.

What do you guys think?

 

 

   Neo liberalism and capitalism.

[Hardkill]

On 10/5/2023 at 6:53 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@Hardkill

   Neo liberalism and capitalism.

I hope one day that the everyday people will one march over to properties of the 1% of rich people in this country and steal all of their money.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

Social progress always comes slower than you'd like. Especially when it comes to structural changes to the economy and the like.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Social progress always comes slower than you'd like. Especially when it comes to structural changes to the economy and the like.

Arguably in the grand scheme of things, but do you think that the 40+ years of neoliberalism and conservative politics our country has been experiencing has significantly slowed down much needed progress in structural changes to the economy and civil rights in the US compared to say during the early 1900s progressive era or the 40 years of the extended new deal era/modern liberalism during the mid 1900s?

Edited October 8, 2023 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

compared to say during the early 1900s progressive era or the 40 years of the extended new deal era during the mid 1900s?

It's hard to compare to those eras because I don't have a sense of how much things changed back then.

[Hardkill]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's hard to compare to those eras because I don't have a sense of how much things changed back then.

Well you know how progressives love to say that Democrats since the 80s to 90s haven't done as much as FDR or LBJ. Teddy Roosevelt and and Woodrow Wilson also made dramatic historic changes on the order of the New Deal or the Great Society. I get now that TR, WW, FDR were able to transform the country to degree that they were able to because of the profound crises combined with the overwhelming liberal/progressive movements that occurred during their presidencies. Plus they each had a much more bipartisan and functional government.

However, LBJ was able to push though all his Great Society programs even during a period when there was no crisis and the Dixiecrats along with the rest of the conservative coalition did everything in their power to get in the way of his programs. Progressives say it's because he was so skilled at playing hardball. Then again, Congress back during his presidency was at its most functional level and had the greatest amount of bipartisan consensus in arguably all of US history. Plus, Democrats I guessed back then weren't as deep into the pockets of corporations and wealthy donors as they have been since the era of neoliberalism first emerged.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

That requires a deep historical knowledge which I don't have.

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That requires a deep historical knowledge which I don't have.

Alright, well fair enough.

I assume that you believe that progressives tend to overestimate their understanding of US history.

[Leo Gura]

Even if they don't, you can't assume that progress is linear. So it doesn't really matter what the history was. Today is unique.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Even if they don't, you can't assume that progress is linear. So it doesn't really matter what the history was. Today is unique.

Yeah, recent times in US history has been corrupted by the right-wing media and corporate donors who need to be held accountable for jeopardizing the fabric of our country's democracy and freedoms.

[sholomar]

The large problem I've seen post 2008 is quantitative easing... it has driven wealth concentration and put pricing pressure on the middle class as all this extra liquidity floats around the hands of the top 5% who have largely used it to invest in assets. This has led to some of the most expensive housing prices in the history of many country's entire histories as far as home price to income ratios go. Many times these properties sit vacant as the investors sit on them. This is reckless policy done on a global level, using real estate as part of an "investment portfolio" where private equity buys them like stocks.

Central banks respond by printing more, providing bailouts, and these entities know the central banks are going to print to oblivion, and that only gives them more incentive to keep buying real estate. If they knew central banks would tighten, allowing a great deleveraging event to occur, they might change their behavior. I'm still hoping we get a great deleveraging event in the US the next 24 months.... meaning no central bank QE which will lead to a drastic rise in interest rates and bankruptcies.... a healthy event compared to this perpetual printing and bailout mentality.

The real problem came (and I didn't see this until recently) when they lowered the top income tax rate in the US during Reagan. From 1920-1980 we had a top income tax rate in the 60-75% range which acted as a liquidity mop, keeping wealth from concentrating at the very top end. That was removed, and it only worsened society overall.

I consider myself a capitalist, but even capitalism needs checks and balances to keep wealth and power from concentrating. When wealth and power concentrate, you end up with an oligarchy, or an authoritarian dictatorship, and it's not an optimal system for the advancement of society, when the corrupt start to implement all policy. What do the US and China have in common? They both have rather corrupt systems that are very top heavy. They are basically societies by the rich, for the rich, and the ruling class.

Part of that is to be expected though, since society's producers should have a greater piece of the pie than a mindless consumer. They add more value to the system, but again, within reason. Corruption must be kept in check.

Edited October 9, 2023 by sholomar