Group items tagged

It was a revolutionary power that wanted to end capitalism everywhere, not just in the Soviet Union but all over Asia and Africa, North America, South America. They were gaining a lot of support in the decolonizing societies of Africa and Asia. America was not confident in the ability of its economy to have a permanent recovery from the Great Depression.

When I teach young people today, it’s hard for them to grasp the magnitude and the seriousness of the Cold War and how it shaped every aspect of American life. And the Soviet Union represented an existential threat to the United States.

What coheres to the New Deal is that the Republicans eventually submit to it. And that happens when Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower beats Senator Robert A. Taft. So tell me a bit about the counterfactual there that you think almost happened. What led to Taft losing prominence in the Republican Party, and what might have happened if he hadn’t?

he was slow to get on the bandwagon in terms of the threat of China, the threat of Communist expansion, and that opened up an opportunity for another candidate, by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower, to enter the presidential race in 1952 and to present a very different vision.

He was a Republican in a classical sense — small central government, devolved power to the states, suspicious of foreign entanglements — believing that America was protected by the two vast oceans and thus did not need a strong standing army, did not have to be involved in world affairs. And he was opposed to the New Deal.

He thought it was a form of tyranny. It was going to lead to collectivism, Soviet style. And he was poised in the 1940s to roll back the New Deal, and he was looking forward to the postwar period after the war emergency had passed. Of course, the war emergency would require a very strong state to mobilize armed forces, to mobilize the economy for the sake of fighting a world war.

They needed foreign markets. America wasn’t sure whether it would have them. And the capitalist class in America was scared to death by the Communist threat, and it had to be met everywhere, and America mobilizes for the Cold War to contain Communism everywhere where it appeared. And that required a standing army in quasi-peacetime of a sort that America had never experienced before, and Taft was profoundly uncomfortable with this.

my counterfactual is that, absent the Cold War, the New Deal, which we now regard as such a juggernaut, would be seen as a momentary blip like so many other progressive moments in American politics. And we would see it as a blip and not for what it became, which was a political order that dominated politics for 30 years.

So there’s been this conventional story of the New Deal era, which is that the fear of Communism, the fear of being painted as soft on Communism or soft on socialism, leads progressives to trim their sails, moderates the sort of left flank of New Dealism. You argue that that story misses what’s happening on the right.

the imperative of fighting the Communists caused Republicans to make even larger concessions than the Democrats did.” What were those concessions?

Well, the biggest concession was agreeing to an extraordinary system of progressive taxation.

The highest marginal tax rate in the 1940s during World War II reached 91 percent, a level that is inconceivable in America of the 21st century. Eisenhower wins the election in 1952. He has both houses of Congress. And quite extraordinarily, Eisenhower maintains the 91 percent taxation rate

I think what mattered to him was the Cold War. The Cold War had to be fought on two fronts: It had to be fought militarily — international containment of Communism — and that required enormous expenditures on national defense, which meant not simply a conventional army but the nuclear arms race.

Eisenhower understood that in order to win the ideological struggle of the Cold War — which was not simply an American-Soviet struggle, but it was a global struggle to convince all the peoples of what was then called the Third World to come with the capitalist way, to come with the American way. In order for that to happen, America had to demonstrate that it could give its ordinary citizens a good life.

America had to prove that it had the better system, and that meant you could not return to unrestrained American capitalism — you had to regulate it in the public interest.

And the other aspect of that, which he appreciated, was that in the 1950s, it was not clear whether the Soviet Union or the United States could provide a better life for its average citizen. The Soviet Union was still doing quite well in the 1950s.

And that meant taking money from the rich and redistributing it, narrowing the inequality between rich and poor. It meant supporting powerful labor movement and not trying to roll back the Wagner Act, which the labor movement regarded as its Magna Carta, a very strong piece of federal legislation that gave it unambiguous rights to organize and obligated employers to bargain collectively with them.

He felt that this had to be the way that America went. Maintenance of Social Security — really all the key New Deal reforms — he ended up maintaining because he thought this would be a critically important instrument for convincing not just ordinary Americans but people around the world that this would prove the superiority of the American way.

That is why he acquiesced to the New Deal order.

It’s a pervasive recognition among America’s business class. You say, “The fear of Communism made possible the class compromise between capital and labor that underwrote the New Deal order.”

And you say it wasn’t just here; this was also true in many of the social democracies in Europe after World War II. Tell me a bit about that class compromise and the role the Cold War played in it.

It is often said that socialism was weaker in America than it was elsewhere. And in many respects, that has been true.

The corollary of that is that the American business class historically has been bigger, more powerful, more unencumbered than the business classes of other nations, especially in Western Europe among America’s industrial rivals. There was no shortage of labor protest in America, but rarely could labor achieve what it wanted to achieve because the resistance was extraordinary, the resistance was legal, it was extralegal.

The national security argument is crucial to getting large segments of the Republican Party on board. For them, the greatest threat, both internationally and domestically, was the Communist threat. And thus, they were willing to extend themselves beyond a point where they otherwise would have gone

I argue that it was the fear of the Soviet Union. And what did the fear of the Soviet Union represent? The expropriation of all corporate capital in the world. That was the Communist dream. And that was deeply felt. And it was felt not simply in a global setting. It was felt within the United States itself,

The history of industrial relations in America was very violent. The business class in America had a reputation of being very powerful and aggressive and unwilling to share its power with its antagonists. So what was it that got them to share that power?

it’s really remarkable to look at how closely the R. and D. state was designed and sold, in terms of its ability to keep America ahead for national defense. It has its roots in World War II, and it continues building much off that rhetoric.

so there’s this interesting way, I think we think of the New Deal in terms of Social Security. We think of it in terms of some of these individual programs. But it is this thoroughgoing expansion of the government into all kinds of areas of American life. And the thing that allows the Republican Party to get on board with a lot of that is this idea that if you don’t do that, well, the Soviets are going to do it

And the business class felt that it was in its interests to compromise with organized labor in a way that it had never done before. That was the grand compromise. It was symbolized in a treaty in Detroit between the three automobile makers, then among the biggest corporations in America, and the United Auto Workers — the Treaty of Detroit — purchasing labor peace by granting unions, good wages, good conditions, good pensions, good health care. Absent the threat of Communism, I think that grand compromise either would not have been arrived at or it would have been scuttled much sooner than it was.

they’re going to have the highways, or they’re going to have the technological or scientific superiority, they’re going to make it to the moon, etc., and then America is going to be left behind.

The vast education bills that are going to propel the tremendous growth of American universities in the 1960s and 1970s — which you mentioned about R. and D. — has a similar propulsion

the scale of this would not have reached the point that it did without getting a lot of Republicans on board. And the critical argument for them was national security, and a critical event was Sputnik, when Soviet Union shocks the United States by putting into orbit a satellite before the United States had done it.

that is a shocking moment: Oh, my God, America is falling behind. We must bend every muscle to beating the Soviet Union in every way, and that requires tremendous investments because of satellite technology and R. and D., and also that becomes the foundation of what is going to become the I.T. industry and the I.T. revolution — also a product of the Cold War.

How does that order end?

There are three factors that pull this order apart. The first is race, the second is Vietnam, and the third is the major economic recession of the 1970s.

Every political order has tensions within it in the United States. And the great contradiction in the New Deal Party of Franklin Roosevelt was the treatment of African Americans. In order to have a new political economy of a big state managing private capital in the public interest, Roosevelt had to get the South on board, and the South meant the white South.

And the entire promise of Western Europe prosperity and American university had been premised on the flow of unending supplies of very cheap Middle Eastern oil — most of them controlled by U.S. and British oil companies. And Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations in the 1970s say: No, these are our resources. We will determine how much is drawn out of the ground and the prices that they will be charged.

That was then complicated by Vietnam, a vastly unpopular war — inaugurated and presided over by Democratic presidents who were perceived by their own constituents to not be telling the truth about this awful quagmire.

It also inaugurated trade-offs between funding a war and funding Johnson’s beloved Great Society. Inflation began to take off.

the third element was profound changes in the international political economy. One of the reasons why America was able to enter its grand compromise between capital and labor and pay labor very high wages was that America had no serious industrial competition in the world from the ’40s to the ’60s.

Most of the industrialized world had been destroyed. The U.S. is actively helping the recovery of Western European economies, Japan, promoting development in Southeast Asia, and in the 1970s, these economies begin to challenge American supremacy economically. The symbol of that is the rise of Japanese car manufacturers

Roosevelt assented to that. But this was also a time, especially in the 1940s, when African Americans were migrating in huge numbers to the North, and they were becoming a constituency in the Democratic Party. This was the first point of crisis, and the Democratic Party found itself unable to contain the racial conflicts that exploded in the 1960s.

The quadrupling of oil prices leads to a profound economic crisis, along with competition from European nations against the United States. And this plunges the United States into a very unexpected and profound — and long — economic crisis known as stagflation. Inflation and unemployment are going up at the same time

None of the textbooks say this should be happening. The tools are no longer working. And it’s in this moment of crisis, the Democratic Party — this is the third strike against it — opens up an opportunity for alternative politics, an alternative party, an alternative plan for American political economy.

that sort of leaves out something that is happening among Democrats at this time. There’s a movement inside of liberalism. There’s the New Deal Democratic order, but you develop this New Left, and there is a movement of liberals against big government — young liberals for reasons of self-expression, for reasons of civil rights, for reasons of this feeling that they’re being fed into a bureaucracy and giant soulless organizations and eventually into the meat grinder of Vietnam

older liberals who are angry about the sort of reckless growth and the poisoning of streams and the building of highways through their communities and the sort of ticky-tacky rise of these suburbs. And this predates Reagan

Yes, the New Left erupts on university campuses in the 1960s, and the two primary issues in the beginning are race and Vietnam. But they also quite quickly develop a critique of the established order.

What was called at the time the system

what was the system? The system was large American corporations who were no longer under control. And one reason they were no longer under control is they were being aided and abetted by a large federal state that was supposed to manage them in the public interest

the system was meant to identify not just the corporations who were doing ill in America, but it was meant to identify a federal state that was birthed in the optimism of the New Deal and had been corrupted. So you have this fissure within the Democratic Party itself.

The other element of this is this profound search for personal freedom and autonomy that was intensely felt by members of the New Left.

The computers were these enormous machines, mainframes, and they were seen as stultifying to human creativity. The personal computer movement was born on — as part of the New Left. Steve Jobs, Stewart Brand imagined a personal computer that would be free of the IBM mainframe, free of big corporations, big corporate power — that it would be the authentic voice of only every individual who would be using that machine.

It was a profound expression of a desire for personal autonomy, individuality, expressiveness — unconstrained by larger structures. This cry, or cri de coeur, came from the left. It was a very powerful part of the New Lef

ne can see how it might suit the purposes of a rising neoliberal order because the rising neoliberal order was also intent on deregulating, freeing individuals from the grip of large institutions and allowing them to go their own way.

Neoliberals believe that the best economic program is one that frees capitalism from its shackles, that allows people to truck, barter and exchange goods, that gets the government out of economic life. And the only role for government is to ensure that markets can function freely and robustly. So it runs opposite to the New Deal. If the core principle of the New Deal was: Capitalism left to its own devices would destroy itself. The core principle of neoliberalism: Remove the shackles from capitalism. That will bring us the most productive and freest world we can imagine.

I have a shorthand for describing the neoliberal world that was envisioned by neoliberal thinkers and brought by policymakers into existence. It’s what I sometimes call the four freedoms of neoliberalism: freedom of movement, people; freedom of goods to move across national boundaries; the free flow of information; and the free flow of capital across all boundaries.

In a perfect neoliberal world, people, goods, information and capital are moving freely without constraint. If we can imagine a perfect world that The Wall Street Journal wants, this would be pretty close to it.

I do not want to suggest for a moment that the New Left intentionally created neoliberalism. But it turned out that the cries of freedom, personal freedom, personal autonomy that were emanating from them turned out to be very conducive to the economic philosophy of neoliberalism.

Jimmy Carter is an heir to suspicion of excessive federal power. But I also think he’s grasping at this moment a point of transition in the American economy and a sense that government policy as set forth in the New Deal was not working as well as it should have been. I think it mattered that he was an engineer and he was doing a lot of cost-benefit analysis: What kind of yield are we getting for the bucks that we’re investing?

so he’s open to this fertile moment of dissent. He’s channeling new thinkers and imagining a different Democratic Party that you are correct in saying precedes Clinton by 20 years. And the key figure in this movement is a man by the name of Ralph Nader.

I think as I evaluate the Carter presidency, I see a man really caught in the throes of a moment of transition, able to glimpse what is coming but unable to master what is coming

what defines his presidency, for me, is uncertainty, vacillation and, thus, failure. He’s a classical transitional figure, more controlled by than in charge of the moment.

Nader is a man of the left, but he doesn’t fit in the old left or the New Left.

We might call him a man of the consumer left. For him, the key figure in American society was the consumer, and he wanted to champion the consumer. And his contributions — in terms of automobile safety, occupational safety, food safety — were immens

But he also executed a profound shift in ideology, and I’m not even sure how aware he was of the consequences of what he was generating. Because in the process of making the consumer sovereign, he deflected attention, I would say, from what was and what remains the core relationship in a capitalist economy, and that is in the realm of production and the relations between employers and employees

And he was reluctant, in some respects, to challenge corporate power if corporate power was serving the consumer in a good way. He anticipates, in some respects, a profound shift in antitrust policy, and the key figure in this is going to be Robert Bork in the 1980s and 1990s.

It had been an article of faith in American history that no corporation should be allowed to get too large, because they would inevitably exercise power in an undemocratic fashion. So antitrust meant breaking up big corporations. Under Robert Bork, the question changed. Big corporate power was OK as long as it served the consumer with cheap goods.

he and his supporters and his organizations deserve a lot of credit for holding the government accountable and making vast improvements in a whole host of areas — regulating the environment and other matters, regulating food — and compelling government to do the service that it does.

But it also distracts from understanding part of that which powers the rise of large corporations and gives them the ability to control government and capture regulatory agencies. And I think the results of his attacks on government have been ambivalent, in terms of their consequences: in some respects really accelerating the process of delivering goods to the American people and American consumers that they want but, on the other hand, contributing to an atmosphere of thinking the government can’t really do much that’s right.

As you move toward Reagan, certainly part of Ronald Reagan’s appeal is his anti-Communism.So how do you describe the role of the Soviet Union in this period of political time?

The collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 is one of the most stunning events, I think, of the 20th century and arguably much longer.

What were its consequences? First, it opened up the whole globe to capitalist penetration, to a degree that had not been available to capitalism since prior to World War I. And this generates a tremendous amount of belief and excitement and expansion and a good deal of arrogance and hubris within the capitalist citadel, which is the United States. So that’s one major consequence.

The second major consequence is: What does it mean for Communism no longer to exist as a threat? And what we begin to see in the 1990s is capital in America regaining the power, assurance, authority, belief in its unilateral power that it had, across the years of the Cold War, if not sacrificed, then moderated.

hat the Soviet Union had promised, what Communism had promised, was that private enterprise could be superseded by rational planning on the part of an enlightened set of rulers who could manage the economy in a way that benefited the masses in extraordinary ways.

That whole project fails, and it fails in a spectacular fashion.

Ronald Reagan had insisted that there was a continuum between Soviet government tyranny and what he regarded as New Deal government tyranny. They were on the same spectrum. One inevitably led to another. He and other Republicans, George H.W. Bush, the party as a whole take this as a great vindication of their core beliefs: that capitalism, which, under the New Deal, was sharply constrained, should be freed from constraint; its animal spirits allowed to soar; venture capitalists encouraged to go everywhere; investments made easy; lower taxation; let capitalists and capital drive America and the world economy, unconstrained by regulation.

these were the core ideas of neoliberals, which have been incubating for decades. And now suddenly these ideas seem to be vindicated. This is the moment of free market triumph.

it intersects in a very powerful way with the ongoing I.T. revolution, which is also bound up with the Soviet Union’s collapse. Because the Soviet Union was very hostile to the personal computer because it required a degree, at that time, of personal freedom that the Soviet Union wasn’t willing to allow what the I.T. revolution represented in the 1990s. And this is one of the reasons that Democrats get on board with it. What it represented was a belief that market perfection was now within human grasp, that there may have been a need for strong government in the past, because knowledge about markets was imperfect, it was limited, it took time for information about markets to travel, a lot of it was wrong, not enough of it was available instantaneously.

Well, suddenly in the 1990s, you have this dream, this vision of all economic knowledge in the world being available at your fingertips instantaneously and with a degree of depth and a range of statistics and figures that had been unimaginable, and a techno-utopianism takes hold

it’s the intersection of these two vectors — a sense that the collapse of the Soviet Union vindicates free market thinking and the I.T. revolution — that allows people to think market perfection is within our grasp in ways it never has been before, that pours fuel on the fire of neoliberal free market thinking.

You described Bill Clinton as the Dwight D. Eisenhower of neoliberalism. What do you mean by that, and what are some of the, for you, core examples?

When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, no Democratic U.S. president had been elected since 1976. Sixteen years is an eternity in electoral politics in the United States. And the question becomes: Will he roll back the Reagan revolution of the 1980s — massive efforts at deregulation — or will he follow a path that Dwight Eisenhower followed in the early ’50s?

Clinton, in the beginning, is a little uncertain about what he is going to do. And he has some ambitious proposals in his first two years — most notably a vast program of national health insurance, which crashes spectacularly.

And then he gets punished for that venture severely in the 1994 congressional elections, which bring Newt Gingrich and a very right-wing group of Republicans to power — the first time that Republicans control both houses of Congress since 1952. It’s a huge achievement for the Republicans

Clinton reads that moment as signifying that the older Democratic Party of the New Deal, of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, really had to be reworked and revamped.

the only way for him to win re-election, and the only way for the Democrats to hold on to national power and to regain it in Congress in 1996, is for him to acquiesce to some core Reaganite beliefs. And at the center of the Reaganite project was deregulation — which is a code word for getting the government out of economic affairs or curtailing government power.

Archived clip of President Bill Clinton: We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there’s not a program for every problem. We know and we have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over.

so Clinton signs off on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which effectively deregulates the burgeoning I.T. sector of the economy, makes possible an unregulated internet. He signs off on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

The Glass-Steagall Act had divided investment from commercial banking and had imposed a kind of regulation on Wall Street that brought an end to the crazy speculation that had brought about the Great Depression in the first place. It was a core principle of the New Deal

He does not seek to revive the Fairness Doctrine, in terms of regulating public media, which had guided successive Democratic administrations: the idea that if a news outlet put out one side of a debate on a policy matter, they were obligated to give the other side equal access.

He becomes an advocate of deregulation and, in some respects, pushes deregulation further than Reagan himself had been able to do. And in that sense, he acquiesces to some of the core principles of the Reagan revolution rather than seeking to roll them back, and it is in that respect that I think it’s appropriate to think of him as a Democratic Eisenhower.

what one remembers most about those battles is how much Clinton and Newt Gingrich hated each other’s guts. And they were seen as being polar opposites.

Clinton, the representative of a New Left America: cosmopolitan, open to the liberation movements, looking for new ways of creating a new and diverse America, embracing sexual liberations — his embrace of gay rights was somewhat limited but still significant. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, representing traditional Victorian America, wanting to reassert the patriarchal, heterosexual family, men at work, women in the home, religious.

one of the surprises, to me, in working on this book, because I remember those days very well, was the degree to which they worked together — on telecommunication, on reform of Wall Street, on welfare.

Clinton would claim, and his defenders would claim, that he was triangulating. He was trying to make the best of a bad deal, that popular opinion was running with free markets, was running with the Republicans. And to some extent, that was true.

the lesson that I draw from that moment is that one must refrain from always getting sucked into the daily battles over cultural issues.

“cosmopolitanism.” Something that was fresh, to me, in your book was this argument that in neoliberalism, you’re looking at more than just what we typically think of it as, which is an economic theory. You argue that there is a moral ethic that came alongside it, that is part of it. You talk about it as, at various times, cosmopolitan, individualistic. Tell me about it.

“Neoliberalism” is often defined, as you say, simply as being about markets and freeing them up

And “neoliberalism” is also defined as something that’s profoundly elitist in orientation, and it’s a device and an ideology used by elites to implant market ideology on a society in ways that deepens economic inequality and has the ability to strangle the democratic rights of the masses.

I also say that in America, it had a profound popular base. Reagan was an enormously successful president, and by “success,” I mean he was able to excite the imagination of majorities of American voters, and his core message was freedom.

half the time he meant freedom in terms of a free enterprise economy, but the other half of the time he meant freedom in terms of giving individuals the autonomy to go their own way.

he was not a fan of the liberation movements of the ’60s. But when Clinton becomes president in the 1990s, he has a profound connection to those liberation movements of the 1960s — to feminism, to sexual liberation, to civil rights.

he detects in a world in which everyone can travel to wherever they want to go. He valorizes immigrants. He valorizes diversity. These are all values that are profoundly compatible with the neoliberal vision. The opportunity to travel anywhere, to seek out personal adventure, to seek out different cultures.

This is a world that neoliberalism makes possible, and it’s a thrilling moment for many people who have the opportunity either to mix in the world of American cities, which have filled up with immigrants, or to travel abroad and experience other cultures.

A single global marketplace enables and encourages the kind of cosmopolitanism that people on the left-center side of the political spectrum in America have so deeply valued.

you locate the end of this era in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Why?

The promise of neoliberalism was that it would lift all boats. There was an acknowledgment about those who were freeing the energies of the market economy that it would probably increase inequality, the distance between the rich and the poor, but that the increase in inequality wouldn’t matter because the forces of production that would be unleashed on a global scale would be so powerful and so profound that everybody would have more and everybody would have a better life.

And what the 2008-9 financial crisis exposed was first a lot of the market freedom that neoliberalism had unleashed had led to corrupt banking and financial practices that had brought the world to the edge of financial abyss of unimaginable proportions. We ended up skirting that abyss — but not by a lot.

on the other hand, it brought into view a sense of how profoundly unequal the access to power was under the neoliberal regime. And here it’s not so much the financial crash itself but the nature of what governments did to promote recovery from the financial crash.

The object in the U.S. and also in Europe became to save the banks first. The culprits of this financial crisis were the ones who were bailed out first. If you were an American in 2009, 2010, 2011, who had assets in the stock market, you had pretty much recovered your position by 2011, 2012. If you were not one of those fortunate Americans and you were living week to week on a paycheck, your recovery did not occur.

You didn’t reach pre-2008 levels until 2016, 2017, 2018, and people understood, profoundly, the inequality of recovery, and it caused them to look with a much more scrutinizing gaze at the inequalities that neoliberalism had generated and how those inequalities have become so embedded in government policy toward the rich and the poor.

one of the identity crises in the Republican Party — one reason the Republican Party is not held together better — is that the Soviet Union was fundamental to what made its various factions stay in place. And it was also, I think, fundamental to what kept the Republican Party, which at its core has a real anti-government streak, committed in any way to real government.

hen I think there’s a sort of casting about for another enemy. I think they end up finding it after 9/11, or think they have, in what they try to turn into global jihadism, and then it falls apart — both as the antagonist and as a project and just feels to me like another part of the sort of wreckage of this period that opens a way for something new.

That new thing, I think, is more Donald Trump than it is anything else.

I think it discredits what had been a core project of the Republican Party, which was to spread market freedom everywhere. When I teach the Iraq war, I tell my 20-year-old students that this is the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history, that it’s going to take the U.S. and the world 50 years to recover from. And it’s imbued with a neoliberal hubris that everyone in the world is simply waiting for the wonders of a market economy to unleash, to be unleashed upon them.

OK, if that era ended, what is being born?

there’s also new zones of agreement that have emerged. When I think about the way I covered politics in 2010, the legitimacy of elections could be taken for granted, and the legitimacy of the Affordable Care Act could not.

I think it’s useful in this moment of acute polarization to look at some of what lies beneath the polarization.

you’re right: On a series of issues there are intriguing conversations going on between Democrats and Republicans. China and tariffs are one area of agreement.

Ironically, immigration is becoming another area of agreement, regardless of who wins the election. One can imagine that the bill agreed to in the Senate late in 2023 could easily be implemented in some form.

here is an area of convergence on antitrust. Josh Hawley and Lena Khan seem to like each other and are finding some common ground on that. And the national security hawks in the G.O.P., people like Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell, have converged with what we might call the industrial policy doves in the Democratic Party — people like Bernie Sanders — on the importance of reshoring critical sectors of manufacturing and on improving in dramatic ways the nation’s infrastructure.

we can see here a new political economy taking shape, one that breaks with the central principle of neoliberalism, which is that markets must lead and the only role for a state is to facilitate markets.

another element of that, which has been crucial to the ideological reorientation, is a new understanding of the relationship of free markets to democracy.

for the longest period of time, Americans and Europeans were willing to give China a blank check on their democracy, or on their violations of democracy, because of the belief that if market freedom and capitalist practices set down deep enough roots in China that people with economic freedom would want to add to that political freedom and that democracy would begin to flourish and that the Communist Party that rules China would either have to profoundly reform itself or see itself ushered from the political stage.

It’s hard to convince people now of how deeply rooted that belief was. No one in the Democratic or Republican Parties believes that anymore, and that has intensified the fear along with this “Oh, my God” sense that China is not simply producing ordinary goods. It’s producing very sophisticated goods. It’s cornering markets on electrical vehicles and batteries and solar panels that seemed unimaginable 15 or 20 years ago. And it has had the effect of profoundly shocking both parties.

that has completely transformed and the word “protectionism” is not being used because it’s such a negative term, but the sentiments that lie behind protectionism, which might be described more positively as fair trade, are profoundly with us and shape conversation about U.S. economic relations with China every day of the week.

So the change has been profound in both parties, and one of the surprises of the Biden administration, although in retrospect, it’s not so surprising, given the Biden administration’s commitment to industrial policy, is the continuity we see between Trump tariffs and Biden tariffs.

hey’ve also come, in many cases, to the view that we should have much more industrial policy: the sense that if you leave it to the market, China might, by using the government to foster and supercharge certain kinds of market pursuits in China, just lap us. I think it’s become the dominant view in both parties.

I would agree with that, although I think the Republican Party is probably more deeply split on this than the Democratic Party is. The Democratic Party arranged another kind of grand compromise between the left, represented by Bernie Sanders, and the center, represented by Joe Biden, which led to a profound commitment symbolized by Build Back Better, a $5 trillion project that was going to insert industrial policy into the heart of government economic relations in a way that marks the Biden administration as profoundly different from his Democratic predecessors, both Obama and Clinton.

I think the Republican Party does not have agreement on that to the same degree. And one of the interesting things to watch if Trump wins is how that internal fight in the Republican Party works itself out.

So the sort of ideological strain in the Republican Party that JD Vance is part of, this sort of more populist dimension of it: What they see markets and, particularly, free trade and trade with China and immigration as having violated is the strength of communities and families. They look around, and they see broken communities, hollowed-out communities.They see families where the male breadwinners have lost their jobs and lost their earning power, and so they’re not getting married, and there are divorces, and there are too many single-parent families

on the Democratic side, I think there’s some of the same views. There’s a lot of broken communities.

a huge part participant in this ideologically is climate change: the sense that markets would happily make people rich by cooking the planet. The market doesn’t know if the money is coming from, the profit is coming from, burning oil or laying down solar panels. And so once again, that some goal actually does need to be set. Markets can maybe serve our goals. They can serve our vision, but they can’t be assumed to get what we want right in the world.

And so the sense on both parties that you actually do need to define goals and define vision and that, ultimately, that is going to have to happen through government setting policy and making decisions — the primacy of that kind of dialogue now, the degree to which the first conversation is: What are we trying to achieve? That does feel different.

that speaks to the decisive nature of the election of 2016, which we will see the longer we get from it as a decisive inflection point, as really marking the end of the neoliberal order

It doesn’t mean that suddenly there are no more advocates of strong free markets. I think one of the questions now and one of the key questions for the Republican Party is: Can they get serious about this?

It requires them to have a serious program of political economy in a party that has lacked direction on political economy for quite some time.

You describe the sort of neoliberal era as bringing this much more cosmopolitan view of ethics, of morals and of America’s relationship with the world — a more sort of urbanist view. There’s a lot of connections between what it means to live in New York and to live in London and to live in Tokyo and to live in Hong Kong.

JD Vance is a good example of this — are much more skeptical of the individualistic moral structure that dominated here and that Republicans, for all the influence of the Christian right, largely left untouched.

it’s actually very complicated in both parties because Donald Trump is himself such a poor vehicle for a return of traditionalist virtue. But there is something happening here, a sort of questioning of not just government policy and industrial policy but: Did all this individualism work? Is a world where kids are on their smartphones all the time and families are having this much trouble — and did we get something more fundamental, almost spiritual, wrong?

he concern about the moral fiber of the American people is not new in the Republican Party. That goes back to Jerry Falwell, to some of the ministers who became popular in the 1990s and calling America back to moral virtue and identifying enemies of God.

The new element is a sense that one has to connect that concern for this kind of morality to a serious program of political economy, that it’s not enough simply to call on people to be virtuous.

t serious conservatives have to find a way to rebuild the economic foundation that lies at the root of so much immorality and so much despair in American life.

If that develops enough of a base in the Republican Party, then there becomes an opportunity to talk with Democrats about that, about family welfare, about the welfare of children, about creating institutions, both economic and social, that have the capacity to sustain communities in ways in which they have not been sustained.

There are some issues that run so deeply on questions of morality between Republicans and Democrats, it’s hard to see how they can find common ground. And probably the most important of these is on the question of abortion and reproductive rights. And to the extent to which JD Vance and his associates take their stand on this issue, the possibilities for developing a conversation about morality with liberals and Democrats are going to be very, very slim, indeed.

the things that I think would have once been framed in terms of Christianity are now framed in terms of classical virtue. There’s a sort of rediscovery of the Stoics, not the early Christians.

there’s something here where — obviously, efforts to remoralize America are not new — but this idea that we have gone wrong in modernity by becoming so individualistic seems to be gathering a fair amount of force.

My read of it is that the Christian right is just too weak and not sufficiently appealing to be the vehicle for it. And so these other aesthetic and ancient containers are being searched for, but there is some kind of pushback happening

I think you see a lot of interest among people in both parties around some of these tech regulations. But I think of that as sort of fundamentally moralistic.

he Christian right has become somewhat contaminated by its blind adherence to Trump and by its too great a willingness to plunge into politics with any messenger, no matter what moral qualities they’re exhibiting.

That there is a movement among conservatives to step back from that and to ground their morality in something deeper, more widespread, something that can appeal to a greater cross-section of Americans, regardless of whether they go to church or not

If there is a moral awakening underway that is not tied to instrumentalizing churches for strictly partisan purposes, which is one way of describing evangelicalism in the last 20, 25 years, then that would be new.

Sarah Igo, “The Known Citizen” — very different kind of book — “A History of Privacy in Modern America.” We’re talking about morality, we’re talking about community, and of course, social media has put the question of privacy and what constitutes privacy and what’s private and what’s public — such an urgent question in understanding America. And she gives us a wonderful hundred-year overview of how Americans in almost every generation have redefined the boundary between private and public, and I found that extremely useful in thinking about where America is at in the 21st century.

A eso se suma un factor importante: su caudillo y parte de la dirigencia del proyecto masista, vienen de la marginalidad social (a diferencia de los conductores políticos de la revolución nacional del 52 que eran parte de una clase media intelectual), que se han abierto a empellones un espacio político y no entienden otro modo de hacer política que no sea confrontando y doblegando al adversario.

le preguntó a Evo Morales por qué confrontaba tanto, la repuesta de Evo fue categórica: “mira dónde he llegado confrontando”.     La hegemonía y la confrontación son parte de la esencia y están en medula espinal del masismo.

El MAS se identifica mejor con la postulación de Abimael Guzmán de que “al margen del poder todo es ilusión” O con el planteamiento de Carlos Mariátegui que afirma: “La primera tarea del revolucionario es tomar el poder, la segunda, no dejarlo jamás”:

El MNR después del triunfo de la revolución del 9 de abril fue implacable con sus detractores, no dudó en crear campos de concentración y violar derechos humanos. Paz Estenssoro hizo suyo aquel dicho popular que dice: “que para hacer una torta hay que romper muchos huevos” y no le tembló la mano a la hora de ser duro.

Lo propio ocurre el año 2006 cuando el MAS captura el poder. Solo podía instalar el “proceso de cambio” desde la óptica del hegemonismo político y la confrontación.

La Asamblea Constituyente que motivó el cambio de la Constitución Política, la nacionalización de los hidrocarburos, el control por parte del Estado de empresas como YPFB, Entel y otras, el nacimiento del Estado Plurinacional en vez de la República, el empoderamiento de sectores indígenas, el ingreso de sectores sociales al manejo del aparato del Estado, eran imposibles de lograr si un MAS hegemónico y confrontacional.

Es cierto que lo hegemónico y confrontacional trae aparejado el abuso, el atropello, la violación a derechos humanos y otras consecuencias que van contra la esencia de la democracia occidental. Pero al MAS no le interesa eso, porque no se identifica con la democracia occidental.

En nuestro país, la revolución nacional de 1952 fue hegemónica y confrontacional. Es imposible pensar la implementación de la Nacionalización de las minas, la Reforma Agraria, la Reforma Educativa, el Voto Universal y todas las medidas de la Revolución Nacional sin un partido hegemónico, como era en ese momento era el MNR y sin una confrontación abierta con todos los exponentes y defensores del Estado Minero-Feudal pre 52.

Solo el cambio de correlación de fuerzas y de realidad social y económica harán que el MAS tenga otra actitud.

Puede ceder espacios al adversario cuando éstos se someten o son funcionales. También respeta al rival cuando tiene fuerza propia, pero trabaja para debilitarlo y arrinconarlo.

Por eso causa hilaridad cuando la oposición le reclama al MAS conductas democráticas occidentales.

El MAS entrará en un escenario democrático cuando su subsistencia política dependa de ser parte de una democracia de pactos. Tal como lo entendió el MNR el año 1985 cuando supo que ya no era hegemónico y su única forma de gobernar era en con pactos y alianzas. Igual ocurrió con Banzer que entendió que en democracia no podía gobernar sin acuerdos políticos, como lo hizo cuando fue dictador y su poder se basaba en las bayonetas.

desde caída de Evo Morales y del retorno al poder de del MAS de la mano de Luis Arce y David Choquehuanca sea han y se están desarrollando una serie de contradicciones dentro del bloque nacional-popular.

La primera constatación que el triunfo de Arce y Choquehuanca establece es que el bloque nacional popular distingue claramente lo que es el denominado “proceso de cambio” y el rol dentro el mismo de Evo Morales.

Está claro que para la mayoría de las bases de lo nacional- popular el proceso de cambio se encuentra encima de Evo Morales.

En todo caso, las fricciones, divisiones o desgajes del bloque nacional –popular no van a reforzar a tiendas políticas que estén en una visión “neoliberal” o forman parte de lo que las bases populares denominen la derecha. Se quedan dentro la narrativa popular- nacional y dentro el movimiento del “proceso de cambio.”

Durante la campaña electoral presidencial es donde se consolida el hecho de que MAS puede hacer política y ganar sin Evo La campaña también sirve para la irrupción de lideratos como Eva Copa, Choquehuanca, Andrónico y el propio Lucho Arce.

Ya en los últimos años del gobierno de Evo se desataron fuertes críticas al entorno del entonces presidente y a la forma vertical del manejo del instrumento político que hacía Morales.

A esto se suma, el rechazo que tiene en la actualidad la figura de Evo Morales en sectores de clase media, no solo en el sector profesional o en sus capas altas, sino en gente de clase media que sigue viendo con simpatía y es querendona del “proceso de cambio”. Y que reconoce que el mismo obtuvo resultados positivos para el país.

La elección subnacional confirmó el rechazo a Evo sobre todo en la mayoría de las ciudades capitales. La cosa se agrava cuando fuerzas políticas como Jallalla y MTS son los verdugos electorales del MAS, derrotándolo en lugares importantes y estratégicos.

Este cuadro interno del bloque de la Nacional- Popular, en concordancia con el resultado electoral de las últimas elecciones de gobernaciones y alcaldías han motivado que el masismo se lance a ejecutar y tomar la iniciativa bajo la siguiente estrategia: Introdujo en el ajedrez político el tema de convalidar la tesis del “golpe de Estado” para desarrollar los siguientes puntos:

a) El enemigo común

La explicación es muy simple, a todos los adscritos a la narrativa nacional-popular les conviene que se aniquile o cuando menos se arrincone a la oposición que dice representar “la modernidad y el neoliberalismo” para que la definición política y sobre todo el futuro de la misma se desarrolle dentro sus filas.

Una vez conseguido el objetivo de lograr la unidad contra el enemigo común se produce el segundo paso:

b) El escarmiento, la amenaza y el aislamiento

nmediatamente el MAS comienza con el escarmiento, metiendo a la cárcel a la ex presidenta, a sus ministros, a militares y policías. Se trata de una medida de fuerza donde el partido de gobierno demuestra no tener piedad con sus adversarios. Con la detención de la ex presidenta y sus colaboradores se busca demostrar la ilegitimidad e ilegalidad del régimen de Jeanine Añez, pero ante todo establecer que es un acto de “justicia” y reivindicación con la ciudad de El Alto por los hechos de Senkata, que quiere transmitir el mensaje que ya nadie podrá atacar impunemente a los habitantes de la principal ciudad Aymara del país, porque ellos son los únicos dueños de su territorio.

Sobre estos dos movimientos de ajedrez que el MAS realizó: el primero la táctica del enemigo a común y segundo la política del escarmiento, la amenaza y el aislamiento, el MAS trabaja la posibilidad de tres desemboques que son los siguientes:

La amenaza es contra los demás jefes políticos que tienen que saber que sobre ellos está la espada de Damocles, que en cualquier momento pueden ser judicializados e ir presos.

El aislamiento es dirigido: aislar y dividir a las autoridades electas para que por su cuenta busquen salvar sus espacios de poder ya sea sometiéndose o negociando con el poder central.

Pero el aislamiento está focalizado contra Camacho para aislarlo del resto del país y debilitarlo poco a poco. Lo sugestivo es que, globalmente, estas acciones han funcionado.

Nadie se ha roto las vestiduras por el apresamiento de la ex presidenta y sus colaboradores, la indignación que causó el hecho fue muy focalizada en ciertos sectores sociales y una lluvia de tres días. Esto debido al poco peso y representatividad que tiene la expresidenta Añez en la sociedad boliviana.

Respecto a los militares presos, pasa lo mismo, ya ni siquiera en su institución generan solidaridad de cuerpo, porque hoy en la cabeza de los militares bolivianos está la preocupación de ascender al grado superior y terminar la carrera militar con una buena jubilación que defender a un camarada caído. En la policía sucede lo mismo

Es evidente que la presión internacional juega su rol, pero gobiernos de corte hegemónico y confrontacional, siempre ignoran esta presión, incluso actúan contra ella.

El apresamiento de militares y policías es el decirles a ambos que el poder civil y constitucional está encima y quien se atreva a violar tal situación, solo tendrá como destino la cárcel. Con ello se quiere desechar cualquier intento de subversión y de amotinamiento en el futuro.

1.- El retorno al poder del “comandante” Evo Morales

Se trata de una línea política de los sectores duros del Evismo, que quieren el retorno inmediato de Evo al poder porque, según ellos, fue derrocado por un “golpe de Estado” después, desde su visión, de haber “ganado” la elección del 2019. Y por lo tanto se le debería devolver el poder.

Este ha sido y es la razón primaria de imponer en el escenario político la temática del “golpe de Estado”.

Evidentemente, tal estrategia del sector duro solo podrá ser victoriosa en un escenario ya no de confrontación, sino de enfrentamiento entre bolivianos. Pero los duros del Evismo creen que ese el mejor camino porque así se adelantaría la eliminación de los adversarios del “proceso de cambio” y de Evo, asegurando el poder para el próximo decenio.

Objetivamente no hay condiciones para que esta línea política, llamada por propios y extraños la vía venezolana, pueda tener éxito. Pero a veces el fanatismo y la violencia consiguen objetivos que la racionalidad se niega admitir.

Sin embargo, hay factores subjetivos que quieren que se desarrolle la vía denominada Venezuela.

Para nadie es un secreto que la obsesión que tiene por el poder Evo Morales es casi patológica. Para él es un difícil imaginar una vida fuera de la presidencia.

Otro factor es su círculo íntimo que saben que no volverán a gozar las mieles del poder que durante 14 años disfrutaron si Evo no vuelve a la casa grande del pueblo, porque las propias bases sociales del “proceso de cambio “los ha vetado.

los cocaleros del Chapare que tienen interés políticos y económicos casados con el Evismo.

Todo eso hace que dentro el MAS haya una tendencia que quiere el inmediato retorno de su “Comandante” Evo a la casa grande del pueblo.

2.- Recomposición del cuadro político vía adelanto de elecciones. –

Otra de las estrategias que está puesta en el ajedrez político es hacer que haya un desemboque político que termine en el adelantamiento de elecciones. Hecho que, según los promotores de este planteamiento, abriría el camino del retorno de Evo Morales al poder.

La ruta a seguir para lograr tal objetivo parece muy simple y posible de lograr. Se requiere promover una cadena de renuncias en el poder ejecutivo, que comience con la renuncia del presidente, continúe con la de David Choquehuanca y termine en con la asunción de Andrónico a la presidencia, quien por constitución tendría que convocar a nuevos comicios electorales, donde Evo ya pueda candidatear.

hay aspectos más profundos que ponen trabas a esta estrategia, veamos lo más importante:

En primera instancia, no se puede asegurar que Evo sea el candidato de unidad del bloque nacional-popular. Lo más probable es que la emergencia aymara y generacional del bloque nacional-popular se exprese en una formula distinta cuya cabeza no sea Evo Morales, lo que adelantaría la competencia interna por el liderato.

Un segundo aspecto es que en las actuales condiciones una victoria electoral de Evo está en duda. Indudablemente éste es el peor momento electoral de Evo Morales, porque tiene una fuerte ruptura con sectores de la clase media. No se puede afirmar que ese quiebre de Evo con la clase media sea irreversible, pero hoy por hoy es muy fuerte.

3.- Arce, factor de equilibrio coyuntural

Una tercera posibilidad de llegada de la última arremetida política  del MAS es buscar fortalecer la actual presidencia de Luis Arce, sacándola de parsimonia y lentitud.

En esta coyuntura el MAS tendría que cerrar filas en torno al gobierno para encarar con cierta coherencia el tema económico, la pandemia y la cuestión política.

Con un bloque nacional- popular unido Luis Arce puede viabilizar en la sociedad un plan de medidas económicas para lograr la reactivación de la economía y controlar el desarrollo de la pandemia.

Pero la más importante es que, en la interna del bloque nacional-popular, el presidente Arce, en este momento, es un factor equilibrio y unidad de las diferentes visiones e intereses que tienen todas las corrientes que se encuentran disputando el liderato y la conducción de la misma.

Por ello, sin tener claros patrocinadores puede ser la tendencia que se acabe de imponer.

Pero lo que debe quedar claro es que en ningún escenario los actores de lo nacional –popular buscan acuerdo o concertación con las fuerzas que son del polo político denominado neoliberal y anti masista. Sino todos coinciden en someterlos o arrinconarlos.

El triste vía crucis de la oposición

¿En qué momento las cúpulas de los partidos que fueron actores del ciclo neoliberal entre 1895-2006 perdieron el rumbo para ser abatidos y derrotados por las masas populares que rescataban el discurso de la nacional-popular? ¿Qué les paso? ¿Qué errores cometieron? ¿Qué fue lo que no entendieron?

Veamos algunos factores que explican y ayudan a comprender tal situación:

a) Perder el poder y perder la oposición

Uno de los síntomas más fuertes de la crisis del ciclo neoliberal se develó el 26 de junio del 2002, cuatro días antes de la elección presidencial, el entonces embajador de EEUU en Bolivia, Rocha, lanzó una amenaza en el Chapare, con Tuto Quiroga al lado (Tuto entonces presidente de Bolivia) advirtiendo que el mercado del gas a California estaba abierto a una Bolivia que salga del circuito coca-cocaína. En una clara intromisión, el entonces embajador norteamericano en Bolivia pedía que los bolivianos abrieran los ojos, pensaran en sus hijos y nietos y no votaran por Evo Morales, pero como sucede en estos casos el efecto fue un bumerang.

Pero lo más trágico vino después, cuando todas las tendencias políticas importantes del ciclo neoliberal entraron en bloque al gobierno de Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada.

Durante el tiempo que duró el ciclo neoliberal, el sistema político controló ambos espacios y aún cuando eran parte de una misma visión “neoliberal y de modernización”, tenían percepciones y matices diferentes. Y aun cuando eran rivales políticos, en algunos casos profundamente antagónicos, crearon un mecanismo de alternancia política donde los roles se intercambian.

Entonces, se tenía la sensación de una democracia moderna y estable, con alternancia. Pero, el error de ingresar todos al último gobierno de Goni demostró que el “sistema de partidos” era tan frágil como una cáscara de huevo.

Indudablemente, no se puede negar el aporte de los lideres del ciclo “neoliberal”. Sin el coraje y la valentía de Siles Suazo, no se habría reconquistado la democracia. Sin el 21060 de Víctor Paz no se habría estabilizado la economía nacional. Sin la conversión democrática de Banzer no se habría desterrado el golpismo como opción. Sin la participación popular de Goni no se habría fortalecido el poder de los municipios. Sin los acuerdos políticos que promovió y se firmó en la presidencia de Jaime Paz no se habría afianzado la democracia boliviana. También en la gestión de Paz Zamora se encontró el pozo San Alberto, Reserva gasífera sobre la cual se ha sustentando económicamente el “proceso de cambio”.

Pero todos estos aciertos no los exime de no haber entendido lo principal: la irrupción de la Bolivia profunda, que no sólo quería inclusión social, sino ser el sujeto histórico que cumpliera su rol protagónico. Es decir, lo nacional-popular quería ser el actor de su propio destino.

Carlos escribió un libro titulado “Presidencia Sitiada”, libro donde evalúa su presidencia y narra todas las presiones que tuvo que encarar su paso por el gobierno desde diferentes frentes que hicieron de su presidencia sea una presidencia “sitiada”. Pero si alguien conspiró contra la gestión de Carlos Mesa, fue el propio Carlos Mesa. Indeciso y vacilante, nunca le dio un rumbo a su gobierno. Se negó a gobernar con la coalición parlamentaria que había armado Goni. No aprobó la ley de hidrocarburos, ni se atrevió a nacionalizar los mismos, cuando tal exigencia ya era una demanda nacional.

Lo evidente es que el gobierno de Carlos Mesa cerró el ciclo neoliberal en Bolivia. Mesa se encargó de sepultarlo y de empedrar el camino del ascenso de Evo Morales.

Pero los desaciertos continuaron. Tuto Quiroga, por decisión propia, liquidó ADN. El MNR se despedazó con la caída de Goni. En el la MIR, la cúpula máxima se negó a viabilizar la candidatura presidencial Hormando Vaca, en un momento en que Hormando Vaca era la mayor referencia política de Santa Cruz y que el dirigente cruceño se perfilaba como un factor de recambio y oxigenación del mirismo.

la persistencia de los “segundones” en la vitrina de política solo es la tranca que atrasa la conformación de una opción que, desde la visión “neoliberal moderna”, tenga posibilidad de generar una política renovada que dispute el poder. Y no es que un cambio generacional de actores políticos resuelva el tema de un día a otro, pero es el primer paso que inevitablemente se debe seguir. El país demanda la instauración de un nuevo ciclo político con nuevos protagonistas.

Jeaninne: cuando las ambiciones matan

hay responsables detrás las sombras del encarcelamiento de Añez. Son todos aquellos que aprovechando de su ingenuidad y poca formación política la utilizaron.

la presidencia Añez se perdió en su laberinto, cuando si hubiese cumplido con el objetivo para el cual fue elegida, habría tenido una gestión decorosa y salido de palacio por la puerta grande.

a la ex mandataria la mató políticamente su propia ambición.

Oposición con complejo y sin discurso ideológico-político

Pero el más grande error de la actual oposición es no haber asimilado, que el proceso cambio, fue una transformación que cambió la realidad del país y los dejó sin discurso político. Ante esta realidad les vino un complejo:

Tienen miedo decir que son neoliberales, que proponen la economía de libre mercado y que están contra el “populismo”.

No saben qué hacer ante la emergencia indígena, quechua y aymara.

No han diseñado en 14 años de Masismo una propuesta alternativa.

Lo demostraron cuando se instauró el gobierno de transición, sin saber qué hacer, solo pavimentaron el retorno del MAS.

no tienen estrategia para tomar el poder, ni siquiera para derrotar a lo que denominan autoritarismo.

Incapaces de crear una opción política solida que canalice el voto del eje anti masista, a la hora de verdad se fragmentan y optan por la vía del sálvese quien pueda, negociando cada quien por su cuenta.

La economía, la madre del cordero

Todos vuelcan los ojos sobre la economía y dicen que al estamos entrando en el periodo de las vacas flacas, que el actual gobierno ya no dispone ni dispondrá de recursos financieros para derrochar y que el país entrará en una crisis económica que será su tumba porque se sumará la crisis de salud y otros temas.

Prefiero explicarlo en términos más sencillos.

El país está en este momento en la necesidad de conseguir dinero “cash” para reactivar su economía y no comerse sus reservas En tanto consigue dinero se deberá, como en cualquier hogar, amarrarse el cinturón y tomar algunas medidas de acuerdo a una escala de prioridades, buscando cubrir el bienestar de cada uno de sus miembros.

No se puede realizar una adecuada política económica si no se consideran las variables de orden social.

Me preguntarán: ¿cómo lo hicieron antes?

La respuesta es muy simple, lo hicieron en un escenario político de reflujo del movimiento popular y por la fuerza, como lo hizo Banzer en el año 1972 que era una dictadura militar que había derrotado el 21 de agosto de 1971 al gobierno de Torres y al movimiento popular. Lo hizo Víctor Paz con el 21060, a partir de una fuerte coalición política con la ADN, movilizando al ejercito, pero sobre la derrota política y social de lo nacional-popular expresado en la UDP.

Pero hoy es diferente, hay un empoderamiento de los sectores marginados del país que ni siquiera a Evo Morales le permitieron devaluar la moneda.

Lo mismo sucede con la idea de liberarizar la economía, porque simplemente la actual Constitución ha blindado el manejo de los recursos naturales y que las empresas estratégicas sean solo de carácter estatal. Esto conspira contra la atracción libre de capitales a nuestra economía.

Esto lleva a que el actual gobierno, por su legalidad y legitimidad política, es el que tiene más posibilidades que cualquier opositor de encarar la crisis. Esto debido a que es la única fuerza política que puede lograr un consenso social y político

Lo triste de la oposición es que no solo no tiene propuesta económica, sino que carece de credibilidad en los grandes sectores sociales que opinan que no pueden conducir con éxito una crisis económica.

Por ello, jugar a la crisis económica es dar un salto al vacío. Desear que la crisis económica derroque al MAS es una estupidez, porque no sólo arrastrará al MAS, sino a toda la oposición y creará un caos nacional de imprevisibles consecuencias.

Por ello, nadie quiere que se agrave la crisis económica.

Por ello, es que todos pondrán su esfuerzo para que eso no ocurra.

De ahí que la economía es la madre del cordero que como siempre, será el escenario sobre el cual se desarrollarán las distintas estrategias políticas.

A manera de conclusión.

1.-Lo primero que observo es que la sociedad en general está demandando la conformación de un nuevo ciclo político, con nuevos actores. Este es un fenómeno común tanto dentro del campo nacional-popular (la izquierda) como al interior de quienes se afilian en el campo neoliberal moderno (derecha).

La diferencia está que en el campo nacional-popular este fenómeno se está generando desde las bases, con gran ímpetu democrático. Mientras que en la vereda del campo neoliberal y anti -masista es más el reclamo espontáneo des sus militantes y simpatizantes  Y esto tiene una explicación, el campo nacional tuvo y todavía tiene un partido político de expansión nacional, como es el MAS

Mientras que las fuerzas anti-mas nunca lograron estructurar un partido de alcance nacional. Sus expresiones políticas como sus lideratos siempre han sido regionales o expresiones de ciertos segmentos específicos.

No pudieron generar un verdadero movimiento nacional que tengan una solida expresión partidaria, esta ausencia es su gran debilidad. Por eso no es locura, ni irracionalidad que algunos miembros de esta tendencia hagan vigilia en la puerta de cuarteles y pidan que los militares tomen el poder. Es simplemente la constatación de que no confían en .Y no los ven con la suficiente fuerzas para derrotar al masismo democráticamente en una elección presidencial, y ante esa evidencia prefieren el retorno al poder de los militares.

Pero lo más grave de esta conducción, que son remanentes del viejo sistema político, aprovecharon la rebelión de las pititas y se pusieron en la ola política, instaurando y siendo parte de manera directa o indirecta del gobierno de Jeanine, hicieron tan mal cosas que de un plumazo los barrió el bloque nacional-popular. Por ello, quien más renovación política necesita es el campo “neoliberal-moderno”.

2.-La renovación requiere política, requiere la jubilación de todos los actores del viejo sistema político y esto llega también a Evo Morales.

Esta situación creará un conflicto en el campo-nacional-popular porque Evo no cederá espacio, dará pelea y buscará la forma de volver a ser la cabeza del eje nacional-popular. Pero a diferencia de coyunturas pasadas, Evo ya tiene interpelación y rivales que le quieren disputar la conducción y el liderato del proceso de cambio.

3.-Considero que, en las actuales condiciones el nuevo liderato de lo “neoliberal –moderno” debe tener las siguientes características:

A.-) Tiene que ser un liderato transversal que tenga aceptación en clases sociales y regiones

B.-) Tiene que saber a lo que se enfrenta, por ejemplo, cuando se habla de autoritarismo tiene que saber de dónde proviene y cuáles las causas de ese autoritarismo.

Desde mi punto de vista hay dos tipos de autoritarismo, el que emerge de la acción militar o golpista, a los que es fácil enfrentarlos porque tienen la ola social en contra. Y hay autoritarismos que emergen con base social y apoyo popular porque encarnan las aspiraciones de las mayorías nacionales y, generalmente, las identifican con un caudillo.

Lo que quiero significar es que para vencer el “autoritarismo “del MAS hay que vencer las causas que lo generaron.  En otras palabras, hay que derrotar el racismo, la exclusión social, el regionalismo, etc. En resumen, todo lo que la democracia de pactos no encaró y dio origen al masismo.

C.-) Tiene que tener una propuesta clara que pueda demostrar a los sectores populares afines a lo nacional-popular, que el camino del libre mercado, de la inversión privada, la concertación, la democracia de pactos etc., les dará mejores días que el camino del Estatismo.

4.- En el campo nacional –popular se está produciendo la emergencia de una línea Aymara, que quiere ponerse a la cabeza del proceso de cambio, porque cree que ha llegado su momento. Y que seguramente dará una fuerte pelea interna. Dirigentes como Eva Copa, David Choquehuanca, el propio Patzi y Santos Quispe son expresión de ello.

Muchos pueden pensar que ahí empieza un periodo de división, pero en mi criterio eso es hilar muy fino y no entender que los aymaras y quechuas se han dado cuenta que en su unidad está su fuerza y que incluso con variantes ideológicas dentro de ellos pueden gobernar el país por muchos años

Ya es muy difícil pensar, por no decir imposible, que los Aymaras y Quechuas voten para presidente por un “blanquito” clasemediero con aires de aristócrata

Pero hay algo más, los aymaras y quechuas no sólo quieren conducir el proceso de cambio y el poder, quieren tener el control territorial del país.

Y han iniciado su larga marcha, para decirlo en palabras de Mao, sobre las tierras bajas Ya tienen una gran presencia en Pando y Beni y una creciente presencia en Santa Cruz.

Se estima que el 2035 el 45% de la población boliviana vivirá en Santa Cruz y de ese 45% la mitad será colla o de ascendencia colla. Y es un proceso que parece irreversible, fruto del desarrollo antropológico y sociológico del país.

Por otro lado, desde la visión Aymara y Quechua solo cuando ellos tengan el control total de nuestro territorio se podrá construir una identidad nacional

5.- Sin embargo, todo el desarrollo del tema va e irá de modo paralelo al tema económico. La economía marcará el ritmo de la política. Regulará las marchas y contramarchas de las intenciones políticas de uno lado y del otro.

Por otro lado, los recién electos gobernadores y alcaldes están desesperadamente buscando tener relación con el gobierno para viabilizar su gestión y contar para ello con recursos económicos.

Ente sentido, resulta infantil y de poca creatividad decir que el presidente Arce es un vulgar títere de Evo, quienes han estado en los altos niveles del aparato del Estado, saben que el presidente tiene el poder del bolígrafo.

Que Evo tiene influencia en el actual gobierno es natural, es el líder y el caudillo del partido de gobierno. Pero de ahí a afirmar que tiene el mismo poder que cuando era presidente es absurdo.

Arias, Fernández, Copa, Manfred, Camacho y todas las demás autoridades electas en la subnacionales están obligadas a sentarse a negociar con el gobierno para tener recursos financieros en su gestión. Una gestión sin plata acaba en corto tiempo siendo cuestionada. Por eso, a nadie con poder local o regional le conviene que la crisis económica se agrave.

Mucho más a lideratos como el de Eva Copa o Fernando Camacho que son lideratos emergentes que desean tener proyección nacional.

Del triunfalismo al pánico

Los resultados de la última contienda electoral sub-nacional dibujarán un cuadro político interesante que todavía motiva una serie de lecturas e interpretaciones

Si bien es cierto que, con respecto a las últimas elecciones nacionales y subnacionales, en las que el MAS participó, su votación bajó considerablemente, no es menos cierto que el MAS es la primera y única fuerza política organizada con presencia nacional a lo largo y ancho del país.

Su victoria en más de 240 municipios y el hecho de que casi en todos los lugares donde hubo elecciones subnacionales si no ganó obtuvo el segundo lugar. Sumado al hecho que, aún cuando, no se comparta con sus ideas, es un partido que tiene un proyecto político, una realidad que trae como consecuencia un equilibrio en la balanza electoral.

Después de la euforia comenzó a imperar la sensatez Emergieron voces contrarias al núcleo duro antimasista. Eva Copa fue la primera en señalar que agradecía a Evo por darle la oportunidad de hacer política destacaba su adhesión a la narrativa nacional –popular y al denominado “proceso de cambio” y reiteraba que jamás pactaría con la derecha.

El propio Camacho planteó estar dispuesto a trabajar con todos en función del desarrollo de Santa Cruz y del país.

Todo estaba muy claro: la oposición reconocía el poder y la autoridad del gobierno central, a cambio que éste también reconociera y respetará los espacios de poder regional que los adversarios del MAS habían logrado a través del voto popular conseguido en las urnas.

Se podía prever, en ese contexto, que estaban sentadas las bases para generar un acuerdo político de concertación y convivencia. Acuerdo político del que estarían excluidos figuras como Doria Medina, Tuto Quiroga, Rubén Costas, Luis Revilla, Jeanine Añez y el propio Carlos Mesa no solo por su baja incidencia en la sociedad boliviana, sino porque padecen de Covid político y se encuentran en terapia intensiva entre la muerte o la sobrevivencia política.

in embargo, sorprendentemente, el MAS patea el tablero.  

De manera inesperada introduce en el escenario político el tema del “golpe de Estado” y ordena el apresamiento de ex ministros de Estado y de la ex presidenta Jeanine Añez, desatando así una artillería de procesos y acusaciones judiciales contra la oposición por conspiración y sedición, debido a su supuesta participación en el “golpe” que habría derrocado a Evo Morales. En ese momento, sectores de oposición pasan del triunfalismo al pánico.

Pero ¿por qué el MAS reaccionó así? Cabe preguntarse ¿Lo hizo por debilidad? ¿Cometió un error político? ¿Quiso mostrar su musculatura social y política? O ¿es una jugada política planificada?

Estas interrogantes trataremos de responder.

Desde nuestra óptica, el accionar del MAS tiene dos vertientes: la primera de concepción político-ideológica y la segunda de estrategia política que tiene que ver más que ver con lo que se denomina la real política

Cuando el poder se entiende como la hegemonía y la confrontación

This assumption shapes our politics so deeply that it’s almost invisible. But the idea that modern life is a story of constant economic and technological progress steadily making the world a better place has stopped lining up with how Americans feel.

no statistics really capture the feeling, shared by growing numbers of Americans, that the world is just getting worse.

It’s a “metaphysical” problem, as Mr. Murphy put it. And he began to think that the economic metrics used by economists and presidents to capture the state of the nation were masking a vast “spiritual crisis.”

he was homing in on a problem that Democrats have yet to figure out how to address. Donald Trump and the movement around him have tapped into a sense of deep alienation and national malaise. Democrats often have trouble even acknowledging those feelings are real.

Mr. Murphy has been warning for years that by failing to offer a clear vision of the future, Democrats risk losing to a “postdemocracy” Republican Party that might rig the electoral system “in order to make sure Democrats never win again.”

he is far from the only Democrat raising these concerns. Just a few days before the convention, Mr. Murphy’s good friend Ben Rhodes, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama, told me that in the age of Mr. Trump, Democrats have found themselves in a “trap”: How can they present themselves as the party of fundamental change when they spent the past eight years arguing that America’s institutions need to be shored up against the urgent threat of Trumpism?

“Can you reform that system so much that it ceases to be that and starts to be something else?” Mr. Rhodes asked me. “Or does it have to be blown up?

Many on the center-left worry that, absent a liberal vision for how this reform may work, Americans will opt to blow things up.

He has worked with Republicans like Mr. Vance, who share much of his criticism of our current order, and he has pushed for Democrats to listen to, learn from and try to win over social conservatives with a “pro-family, pro-community program of economic nationalism.

It has all rapidly built him into a singular figure in the party, someone who is being whispered about as a future presidential candidate.

“The postwar neoliberal economic project is nearing its end, and the survival of American democracy relies on how we respond.”

“What I discovered, much to my chagrin,” he told me when we met last fall in his Senate office, “was that the right — some really irresponsible corners of the right — were having a conversation about the spiritual state of America that was in ways much more relevant than conversations that were happening on the left.”

I had written the piece because I was interested in critiques like those from New Right-ish thinkers like the Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen, who had been arguing that the story we often tell ourselves — of a society constantly getting better through an inexorable process of economic growth and technological advancement — was too simple and benefited the powerful corporations and political elites that profit most from the status quo.

This story, they say, suggested that there was no possible alternative to the world where technological gadgets had colonized our brains and every aspect of our existence seemed to be reduced to a set of decisions determined by corporations in a market system. We were, after all, supposed to be richer and better off than any humans who lived before us. Why would anyone complain?

He was worried that the New Right was offering two things mainstream Democrats were not: a politics that spoke directly to feelings of alienation from America as we know it today and a political vision of what a rupture with that system might look like.

I recommended David Graeber and David Wengrow’s recent best seller, “The Dawn of Everything,” which critiques the story of progress from the left, and Mr. Deneen’s book “Why Liberalism Failed.”

he began to engage with a small but increasingly influential political ecosystem of heterodox thinkers who write for magazines like the journal Compact or receive funding from networks like the Hewlett Foundation’s economy and society initiative, which advances a view that neoliberalism “has outlived its usefulness.

Julius Krein, the founder of the quarterly American Affairs, which publishes the work of many figures on the New Righ

the labor theorist Oren Cass, a former adviser to Mitt Romney, who soured on pro-business policies and who has been the key figure in pushing Republicans toward a conservative vision of worker power.

Mr. Murphy emailed me a piece he’d just written for The Atlantic, titled “The Wreckage of Neoliberalism.” He said it was going to be the start of a public push to advance his new line of thinking. He argued that Democrats, facing the possibility of a “postdemocracy” Republican Party seizing the levers of state after the 2024 election, risked political extinction if they waved away the deep sense of malaise and resentment that brought Mr. Trump to power the first time

a program of “a pro-family platform of economic nationalism salted with a bit of healthy tech skepticism” and offered it as a salve for a deeper crisis of meaning and belief in our national project.

“Talking openly about spiritualism is true to the best traditions of the left,” Mr. Murphy told me. “So there’s no reason why this conversation about the emotional state of America and the good life has to be a conversation that only the right has. Some of the left’s most inspiring leaders have talked in these terms. But I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that you first have to diagnose why people are feeling so shitty and to really understand what you need to do next.”

he started a Substack. He began to post slightly searching thoughts on his journey and often drew bafflement or outrage from liberals who knew him best as a gun control advocate

“The Reason to Care About the Plight of Men,” a piece he later told me his teenage son had warned him might be too edgy for prime time.

He also published a piece he titled “What We Can Learn From Rich Men North of Richmond,” about the Oliver Anthony hit, arguing that the song resonated with more than just conservatives and that the left was making a mistake if it ignored the vein of alienation from and anger with the “new world” that Mr. Anthony sang about.

Mr. Murphy’s program of “pro-family, pro-community economic nationalism” is less one of social welfare than an attempt to give regular people agency in the face of the supersized corporations he believes wield far too much influence today

He calls for sectorwide collective bargaining of the kind that exists in some European countries, an expansion of antimonopoly efforts and something like a reimagining of our political value system: “We’re going to have to upset this cult of efficiency,” he told me recently, “establishing a clear preference for local ownership, local industry.”

Last fall, after working on the issue with Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah, a Republican, Mr. Murphy introduced the National Strategy for Social Connection Act, a bill to fight the epidemic of loneliness that he believes has been driven by the pervasive communications technology and malignant commercialization of American life.

It’s hard to believe that even Mr. Murphy thinks that a metaphysical crisis can be meaningfully addressed with a few million dollars for research or directives to federal agencies to address loneliness.

serve a calculated purpose: to push our politics toward a national discussion of the “emotional state of America” and to show that highly placed people in both parties are coming to believe that this presents a state of real crisis.

he has tried to work with Republicans on immigration. He was the lead Democratic negotiator on the bipartisan immigration bill that came very close to passage in February

Without much fanfare, the Biden administration has already embraced many of the policies Mr. Murphy is calling for: industrial policy, tariffs, a campaign against corporate monopolies

His vision of economic nationalism can look very similar to the one offered by “America First” Republicans, but the specifics reveal very different priorities; Mr. Murphy supports far higher levels of immigration and paid family leave over the child tax credits increasingly favored by conservatives

they have a common goal: to remake the incentive structure of our economy. “The core issue is that our economy became one based on extracting rents,” Mr. Krein told me, “rather than building things.” It rewards those who invent clever ways to squeeze money out of government and regular people

This is the simple explanation for why so many jobs feel soulless and so many Americans feel harried and troubled amid the vast material wealth our country produces.

“That’s what people are really complaining about when they talk about neoliberalism,” Mr. Krein said. “But that’s tough to fit on a bumper sticker.”

“Great leaders tell stories that fit within the cultural and religious contexts of nations,” the Bay Area representative Ro Khanna told me. He helped write the CHIPS and Science Act, but he thought that the Demo

crats had failed to explain what they wanted it to achieve

“Politics is not just about policy,” he said. “It’s about the vision of a nation. It’s about signaling that we’re heading somewhere.”

Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a vision for the future. It begins with plans to fire thousands of civil servants in an attempt to unmake the so-called administrative state, which they believe promotes liberal values and has enveloped America in bureaucracy. They seek to pull back from the internationalist foreign policy and free-trade policies that have guided both parties for decades. They hope to increase America’s birthrate and cut immigration and may pursue steps like reducing the value of the dollar, which they argue would help American-produced goods compete in an international marketplace

the people there represented a decent cross-section of American political views, from people keeping the Sanders-style left-wing populist faith to centrist civil servants to more or less avowed reactionaries.

I attended a dinner hosted by Sohrab Ahmari, a co-founder of Compact,

All the attendees seemed to take for granted that the neoliberal era was nearing its endpoint — a fact notable only because it reflected a consensus that has still barely filtered into our mainstream political conversations.

The problem, for any Democrat, is to find a way to turn this understanding into winning politics

Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s onetime chief White House strategist, late last year, he was very clear that he didn’t think Mr. Murphy’s vision went far enough. Mr. Bannon has frequently praised Mr. Khanna — jocularly accusing him of stealing “our” ideas in his proposals to rebuild America’s manufacturing capacity. But Mr. Bannon was savagely and profanely dismissive of Mr. Murphy

“He has a very tough road ahead, and here’s why,” Mr. Bannon said. “There’s no audience for what he’s saying on the Democratic side. Democratic voters like the system.”

Mr. Bannon called Mr. Murphy a “neoliberal neocon,” a double epithet Mr

Unlike many on both the right and left, he has shown little desire to unmake the complex military and financial systems that critics on both sides often describe as the American Empire.

The trouble is that orienting the American economy back toward producing things and building a strong middle class may mean reassessing those old ideas and asking tough questions about whether we can afford to maintain our military might or continue financing the federal government with deb

These are now common talking points on the right, and at a time when Mr. Trump and his allies hint at ideas like withdrawing from NATO and curtailing the independence of the Federal Reserve, even a critic of the globalized economic order like Mr. Murphy can end up looking like a milquetoast defender of the status quo.

I asked Mr. Murphy if I was right that his aim really was to unmake the neoliberal system as we knew it. “You are,” he said. He anticipated my next question, about whether it would ever be possible to translate this kind of big-picture conversation to mainstream politics. I mentioned

As if anticipating the Harris/Trump race, he described an electoral landscape where Democratic candidates who won a majority of the popular vote might still lose the presidency if they couldn’t win states in the Upper Midwest. “I think that our coalition is bound to lose if we don’t find a way to reach out to some element of the folks who have been hoodwinked by Donald Trump. We don’t have to win over 25 percent of his voters

“But I do believe,” he said, “that we have to tell a story about what makes America different. To make people proud of being American. And make them believe that that identity is more important than their individual political identity.”

“We have to build a uniquely American economy,” he said. “We have to convince people that there is a uniquely American identity while understanding that there are still important moments where you have to engage the rest of the world. That’s not a bumper sticker.” He paused. “That’s what makes this project really hard.”

What Friedman believed in was capitalism, or what he called “economic freedom.” Political freedom might come — but capitalism, he said, could do just fine without it.

the corporate funders of “Free to Choose” set out to make their case.

it was still a time when capitalism’s most enthusiastic supporters evidently felt the need to win the public over to a vision of free markets and minimal government

The documentary series “Free to Choose,” which aired on public television in 1980

He and other observers are trying to make sense of what might happen next — and, befitting our current bewilderment, they offer a range of perspectives. Some, like Wolf, hope the relationship can be repaired; others argue that the pairing has always been fraught, if not impossible.

he has also read his Marx and Engels, looking askance at their solutions while commending them for how “brilliantly” they described capitalism’s relentlessness and omnivorousness. Left to its own devices, capitalism expands wherever it can, plowing its way through national boundaries and local traditions — making it marvelously dynamic or utterly ruinous, and not infrequently both.

In Wolf’s case, his anguished tone reflects the scale of his own disillusionment. Born in 1946 in postwar England, he recalls in his preface how “the world seemed solid as I grew up.” He describes the feelings of “confidence” in democracy and capitalism that flourished with the collapse of the Soviet Union

Yet the “democratic capitalism” that Wolf wants to preserve was, even by his own lights, short-lived. Democracy itself — or “liberal democracy” with universal suffrage, which Wolf says is the kind of democracy he means — is a “political mayfly.” Democratic capitalism ended, in his account, with the financial crisis of 2008

Robert Reich has offered another measure, arguing that democratic capitalism, at least in the United States, began with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and ended with Reagan, when “corporate capitalism” took over.

The left-wing German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck stakes out a decidedly different position, suggesting that the tendency to equate “democratic capitalism” with a few decades of postwar plenty is to misinterpret a “historical compromise between a then uniquely powerful working class and an equally uniquely weakened capitalist class

In “How Will Capitalism End?” (2016), Streeck argues that it’s not compromise but the cascade of crises following the postwar boom — inflation, unemployment, market crashes — “that represents the normal condition of democratic capitalism.” Where Wolf wistfully invokes a “delicate flower,” Streeck writes contemptuously of a “shotgun marriage.”

the historian Gary Gerstle explores in his fascinating and incisive “The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order” (2022). Before the New Deal order started to falter in the late 1960s and ’70s, Gerstle writes, a majority of Americans believed that capitalism should be managed by a strong state; in the neoliberal order that followed, a majority of Americans believed that the state should be constrained by free markets. Each order began to break down when its traditional ways of solving problems didn’t seem to work

capitalism, according to Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, has obtained the status of civic religion. In “The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market,” the authors argue that industry groups and wealthy donors have engaged in a concerted campaign to promote “market fundamentalism” — “a vision of growth and innovation by unfettered markets where government just gets out of the way.”

The main implication of “The Big Myth” seems to be that “market fundamentalism” is so horrifically egregious — enriching the few and despoiling the planet — that Americans had to be plied with propaganda to believe in it.

as Gerstle’s book shows, neoliberal ideas proved so seductive because they also happened to dovetail with the stories that Americans wanted to tell about themselves, emphasizing individuality and freedom.

A new generation of swashbuckling billionaires entertain the prospect of secession, using their money to realize fantasies of escape, whether through seasteading or spaceships. The book quotes one seasteading enthusiast declaring, “Democracy is not the answer,” but merely “the current industry standard.”

Slobodian’s excellent if discomfiting new book, “Crack-Up Capitalism” (forthcoming in April), explores other neoliberal evasions of the nation-state: tax havens, special economic zones, gated communities — enclaves that are “freed from ordinary forms of regulation.

in “Globalists” (2018) the historian Quinn Slobodian argues that neoliberals have found ways not just to liberate markets but to “encase” them in international institutions, thereby shielding capitalist activities from democratic accountability. He observes that neoliberals were especially alarmed after World War II by decolonization, adopting a condescending “racialized language” that pitted “the rational West,” with its trade rules and property laws, against a postcolonial South, “with its ‘emotional’ commitment to sovereignty.”

In Ahmari’s view, social democracy (including the New Deal tradition in the United States) seeks to restore the bonds of duty, obligation, solidarity, and reciprocity, which have been under increasing stress since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

At the same time, what Ahmari calls the “class compromise” of social democracy tamed the more radical impetus toward class conflict. In this sense, at least, it is fair to say that social democracy saved capitalism

The social-democratic tradition also recognized that political equality of the kind extolled by the American founders is hard to secure in an environment of extreme economic inequality.

At the heart of Tyranny, Inc. is the idea that corporations today exert an enormous degree of coercive power, especially over workers.

of course, it didn’t last. Starting around 1980, social democracy gave way to a system we now call neoliberalism. As Ahmari shows, neoliberalism proved to be even more radical and utopian than the classical liberalism it updated

neoliberalism cannibalized government, turning it into “a mere appendage of market power” that “actively abets private tyranny.” This was revolutionary. It marked a decisive shift away from a politics focused on the common good—which is the truly “classical” approach

Ahmari notes that neoliberalism marks a sharp break with Western political thought going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. As he puts it, “neoliberalism terraforms and flattens the very landscape of our politics, bulldozing through once-familiar landmarks like ‘Class,’ ‘Solidarity,’ and ‘Common Good.’”

yranny, Inc. concludes with a call for a rebirth of social democracy. Some critics have expressed surprise at hearing this call come from someone on the Right. But it is important to remember that, historically, social democracy reflected a Left-Right consensus

Ahmari seeks a return to this kind of Left-Right consensus. Partly for this reason, he steers clear of the kind of culture-war arguments f

he does take his fellow conservatives to task for ignoring the effects of material conditions on the culture. He notes that the ancient Greeks were very clear about the relationship between material sufficiency and virtue—a link that the modern Right has forgotten.

Ahmari asks what can be done now. His answer: a return to social democracy, especially as practiced under the New Deal. His hero is President Franklin Roosevelt, who sought to protect workers from the vagaries of capitalism and to grant them a “countervailing power.”

Together, the reforms of the New Deal gave rise to a highly productive and equitable economy. Full employment was the norm, inequality was low, and financial crises were kept in check. It’s not an exaggeration to claim that, while it lasted, social democracy was the most successful economic experiment ever conducted.

As a young State Department policy planner in the 2000s, she was a lonely voice in Washington raising the alarm about the rise of China. She pushed for tariffs and against trade agreements before it was cool, and was an author of a book called “War by Other Means” about how blind faith in free markets put the United States at a geopolitical disadvantage. For years, she felt like an oddball in Washington, where both parties were still in thrall to neoliberalism.

The Hewlett Foundation hired her as the head of an initiative that has given away $140 million so far to people who are devising a new economic philosophy. Then she served a stint in the White House. Today, she’s an intellectual leader of a growing, bipartisan consensus

The thinking behind it goes like this: Unquestioning belief in the free market created a globalism that funneled money to the 1 percent, which has used its wealth to amass political power at the expense of everyone else. It produced free trade agreements that sent too many U.S. factories to China and rescue plans after the 2008 financial crisis that bailed out Wall Street instead of Main Street.

if Mr. Trump correctly identified a problem — “China is eating our lunch” — he did not solve it, beyond putting tariffs on Chinese products. His tax cut for the rich hurt rather than helped matters.

It’s the Biden administration that came in with a plan to build an economy that was good for workers, not just shareholders, using some strategies Ms. Harris had been talking about for years.

She fell in love with economics and studied it at Wake Forest. After she joined a student delegation to a NATO summit in Prague in 2002, a faculty adviser on that trip offered her a job in Washington working at the National Intelligence Council. In those early years, she believed what everyone else in Washington believed about the economy — that governments ought not meddle with it.

It was her job to track China’s use of subsidies, industrial espionage and currency manipulation to fuel its rise as a manufacturing powerhouse. Ms. Harris argued that tariffs on China were a necessary defense. Nobody agreed. “I was kind of just banging my head against this wall,” she told me. “The wall was a foreign policy establishment that saw markets as sacrosanct.”

Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, but he struck up a new trade deal instead — the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Ms. Harris argued against it. “We didn’t have the foggiest idea” of what it would do to our economy, she told me. Nobody listened.

it sent Democrats back to the intellectual drawing board. Larry Kramer, then the president of the Hewlett Foundation, recruited her in 2018 to promote alternatives to ideas that had guided U.S. policy for decades. He hoped she could do for free-market skepticism what Milton Friedman and his allies had done for free-market fundamentalism, which became policy under the Reagan administration and eventually was embraced by both parties as truth.

She has since rejoined the Hewlett Foundation, where she funds people who are proposing new solutions to economic problems. One grantee, the conservative think tank American Compass, promotes the idea of a domestic development bank to fund infrastructure — an idea with bipartisan appeal.

But the work that Ms. Harris and others in the Biden administration have done is unfinished, and poorly understood. The terms “Bidenomics” and “Build Back Better” don’t seem to resonate

Ms. Harris acknowledges that these ideas haven’t yet taken hold in the broader electorate, and that high interest rates overshadow the progress that’s been made. It’s too early for voters to feel it, she told me: “The investments Biden has pushed through aren’t going to be felt in a month, a year, two years.”

she celebrates the fact that leaders across the political spectrum are embracing the idea that Americans need to “get back to building things in this country.” This election has no candidates blindly promoting the free market. The last one didn’t either. In the battle of ideas, she has already won.

the economic security of most Americans dwindled, and the legitimacy of the system was called into question. One consequence has been the rise of the far right; another is Donald Trump.

Germany insisted that the struggling countries had to practice austerity in order to restore the confidence of private financial markets. In a deep recession, even orthodox economists at the International Monetary Fund soon recognized that austerity was a perverse recipe for economic recovery.

Europe, because of Germany’s worries that these policies would lead to inflation, had no way to extend credit to struggling nations or to raise money through the sale of bonds, which would have allowed the ECB to provide debt relief or to invest in public services.

The political result was the same on both sides of the Atlantic—declining prospects for ordinary people, animus toward elites, and the rise of ultra-nationalism

Not so in Europe. Parties such as the German Social Democratic Party, the British Labour Party, and the French Socialists disgraced themselves as co-sponsors of the neoliberal formula that brought down the economy.

In nation after nation, the main opposition to the party of Davos is neofascism.

In his masterful narrative, the economic historian Adam Tooze achieves several things that no other single author has quite accomplished. Tooze has managed to explain a hugely complex global crisis in its multiple dimensions, and his book combines cogent analysis with a fascinating history of the political and economic particulars

when the collapse came, it was “a financial crisis triggered by the humdrum market for American real estate.”

the collapse reinforced the financial supremacy of Washington and New York. “Far from withering away,” he writes, “the Fed’s response gave an entirely new dimension to the global dollar.”

When the entire structure of borrowed money collapsed, the losses more than wiped out all the capital of the banking system—not just in the US but in Europe, because of the intimate interconnection (and contagion) of American and European banks. Had the authorities just stood by, Tooze writes, the collapse would have been far more severe than the Great Depression:

While insisting to Congress that the emergency response was mainly to shore up US finance, Bernanke turned the Fed into the world’s central bank. “Through so-called liquidity swap lines, the Fed licensed a hand-picked group of core central banks to issue dollar credits on demand,” Tooze writes. In other words, the Fed simply created enough dollars, running well into the trillions, to prevent the global economy from collapsing for lack of credit.

Bernanke instigated government action on an unimagined scale to prop up a private system that supposedly did not need the state

Using deposit guarantees, loans to banks, outright capital transfers, and purchases of nearly worthless securities, the Fed and the Treasury recapitalized the banking system. To camouflage what was at work, officials invented unlimited credit pipelines with disarmingly technical names.