Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Doesn't sound like we disagree all that much--but I would remind you that in the last quarter of 2008, this financial crisis turned George W. Bush into a Keynesian! So I maintain that Obama's approach to policy is essentially pragmatic and not ideological. I'm not sure I'd agree that his foreign policy is "floppy"--but it does embrace a different reality than the "New Realism" of Condoleeza Rice, and in that sense could also be seen as a pragmatic response to the reality that U.S. influence is on the downswing in a global sense.
I see what you mean about the "American Dream"--and I agree. I'd go one step further and say that the "American Dream" (a much newer phenomenon than people realize) is fundamentally Fordist--and that may be why there is this realignment, because a long view of history suggests that the Fordist regime of accumulation waned along with Reaganomics, and people are now looking for newer, better models in this time of crisis and cyclical change. I don't pretend to know what the new American Dream will look like--but I'm pretty sure "Joe the Plumber" is on the outs!  |
Interesting. I do agree with a more pragmatic approach to philosophy. Principles should be the superstructure of any political approach, but they must be interpreted/implemented differently according to the times. Reagan's tax cuts were great when some people were being forced to give over half of their income to the government. We don't need a Reagan right now.