In which Prof. DeLong is perplexed at our nation's outrage deficit:
There are lots of lessons to be drawn from the first age of globalization for the second. There are lots of lessons to be drawn from the high school-ization of America for the college-ization of America and for education elsewhere in the world. There are lots and lots of lessons to be drawn from the Great Depression for today.
But the political economy of Gilded Ages? Why the first Gilded age produces a Populist and a Progressive reaction and the second, so far, does not? There I throw up my hands and say that my economic historian training betrays me. I have no clue as to what is going on here.
Not an economic historian here, but I am guessing it is a confluence of factors:
1. We do have a social safety net now, however inadequate, which keeps millions of people (particularly seniors) out of poverty.
2. The unemployment level, while bad, is clearly not as bad as those of previous Panics/Depressions
(7.7 today < 25 in 1932).
3. Historically higher levels of homeownership are an effective buffer against homelessness/destitution.
4. Much smaller percentage of population engaged in agrarian enterprise, hence not "wedded to the land," hence a populace with greater social mobility. This is crucial as wealth has concentrated steadily in major metropolitan areas, so greater mobility affords greater opportunity to literally "follow the money" in search of gainful employment.
5. Also, a smaller agrarian workforce is less prone to seasonal employment/unemployment swings.
6. The political party that has historically provided safe haven for Progressive populist (farmer-labor) reformers has been partially captured by the forces of industry-capital.
7. The American public, arguably, is more effectively propagandized against populist reform measures by a corporate-media communications complex than at any time in our history. Granted, most 19th- and early 20th-century urban newspapers were rabid right-wing house organs, but their reach (pretty much limited to the core and inner-ring suburbs) was far smaller in scope, and their ability to impact public opinion much smaller. And prior to the 1930s, there was no radio to speak of, or TV to use as an additional propaganda tool. A cotton farmer in 1920s Arkansas, for instance, may never have read the warnings of the editors of the New York World that Bolsheviks and Wobblies were threatening his livelihood; in a simpler cash-and-carry economy, he knew from experience, and from the experiences of his neighbors, that bankers and commodities traders were his biggest threats. Today's Arkansas cotton farmer need only switch on his AM radio (in the hinterlands, still the only reliable radio signal absent satellite) and hear nothing all day but economic falsehoods and fabrications from Rush, Levin, Hannity et al. In the evening, he need only switch on CNN or ABC to hear Wolf and Cokie remind him that the reactionary rant he's listened to all day is simply one among many equally valid and competing opinions for policymakers to consider when crafting legislation. The net impact of this has been that millions of voters---particularly in rural areas---who would normally have been the most receptive to populist political appeals in the past have been scared/cajoled/persuaded/deceived into believing that redistributionist economic policies that are in their own best interests are, in fact, subversive if not downright traitorous.
So, summing up: The social safety net has helped. Unemployment is nowhere near as bad as it has been, or could be. Fewer workers stuck on the farm. A more educated workforce has more assets (real estate) to use as a hedge against destitution, as well as greater social mobility to leverage in search of employment. The former political refuge of populism (i.e., Team Democrat) has morphed into a corporatist advocacy group with a liberal social conscience. And a cable/radio media-industrial complex that most people rely on for their news and information has done the job its corporate sponsors have paid it to do, keeping Americans functionally ignorant of the principles of economics, and frightening them into opposing any attempts to alter the political status quo. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that for Progressive-style populism to ever take root again in this country, the economy will need to hit its absolute rock bottom, with 30-percent unemployment, many millions more Americans living in homeless squatters' camps, food riots in major cities, etc. And even then, I'd be inclined to wager that Francisco Franco wins out in the end over Fightin' Bob LaFollette. At least, that's how I see it as long as the old white guys are running the Republic.
---
Baron V