Why didn't the fear of socialism stop the New Deal or Great Society?

[Hardkill]

According to history, about a decade after the First Red Scare period in America (from 1917–1920), FDR was branded by many on the right as a socialist or communist. William Randolph Hearst, a prominent figure in American history who created the largest newspaper chain ever in the 19th century and was an influential political figure during FDR's time, was at first an ally of Roosevelt. However, conservatives like him eventually got so upset and so scared of all of FDR's New Deal policies because they later on thought or felt that all of these transformative big government intervention polices would make America into a socialist or communistic country. That's why Hearst and many other conservatives back then did everything in their power to try to convince Congress and the American public that FDR's New Deal agenda needed to be stopped at all costs.  

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/

After the Second Red Scare period, which was pretty much synonymous with McCarthyism, and in the middle of the Cold War period, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society policies was considered by the right-wing to be a massive set of extremely socialistic policies. This is of course became one of the major reasons the Democratic party lost the South, so to speak. 

The fear of socialism and communism was also highly prevalent throughout all of the US during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon in the mid to late 1900s. Each of those president's policies weren't nearly as transformative as those of the New Deal and the Great Society policies; however, they all still successfully passed and created several major big government policies that significantly contributed to the progress of America.  

So, given how much anti-socialism or anti-communism fear-mongering occurred in America from about 1917 to 1968, why weren't either the New Deal policies or the Great Society policies or even any of the new big government programs during the mid to late 1900s ever stopped from coming to fruition?

 

[DocWatts]

It's because the New Deal and Great Society were concessions from Capitalism in the face of growing social unrest channeled by an organized and active Leftist movement in America.

So rather than the New Deal and Great Society being drafted in spite of fears of Socialism, they were drafted precisely because of the threat that Socialist movements would continue to gain traction in America and potentially challenge the legitimacy of the State.

Every Right that you enjoy was bought by people using the threat of force to challenge power structures. Note that force is not synonymous with violence, as general strikes and boycotts are non-violent ways that force can be projected.

Governments don't tend to give people Rights out of the kindness of their hearts, they are usually coerced in to doing so by a portion of the population using force the enact policy concessions.

This was as true for the Bill of Rights that was only made possible after a Revolutionary War, as it was for expansions of Civil Rights being drafted amidst race riots occuring in cities all across America in the 60s.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, DocWatts said:

It's because the New Deal and Great Society were concessions from Capitalism in the face of growing social unrest channeled by an organized and active Leftist movement in America.

So rather than the New Deal and Great Society being drafted in spite of fears of Socialism, they were drafted precisely because of the threat that Socialist movements would continue to gain traction in America and potentially challenge the legitimacy of the State.

Every Right that you enjoy was bought by people using the threat of force to challenge power structures. Note that force is not synonymous with violence, as general strikes and boycotts are non-violent ways that force can be projected.

Governments don't tend to give people Rights out of the kindness of their hearts, they are usually coerced in to doing so by a portion of the population using force the enact policy concessions.

This was as true for the Bill of Rights that was only made possible after a Revolutionary War, as it was for expansions of Civil Rights being drafted amidst race riots occuring in cities all across America in the 60s.

You mean that during those times, there were strong leftist movements that successfully advocated for saving capitalism?

Edited May 9, 2022 by Hardkill

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

You mean that during those times, there were strong leftist movements that successfully advocated for saving capitalism?

It would be more accurate to say that organized labor activism advocating for socialism was able to extract policy concessions from Capitalism. Labor advocacy wasn't trying to save capitalism, it's members were largely concerned with trying to improve things that had a direct impact on ordinary Americans, such as pay and working conditions for laborers, the Right to form a Union, etc. Not to mention avoiding homeless and starvation during the Great Depression.

Forward thinking liberals such as Roosevelt and LBJ understood that the alternative to the Social Democratic policies they proposed was growing social unrest that could grow to challenge the stability of the entire system.

Keep in mind that at this time Capitalism was competing with Communist ideologies for 'customers' so to speak, and if conditions got bad enough in Capitalist counties there was a competing ideology that people could turn to. This actually served to moderate Capitalism because it didn't yet have an ideological monopoly, so it had to compete with more egalitarian systems.

Edited May 9, 2022 by DocWatts

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

It would be more accurate to say that organized labor activism advocating for socialism was able to extract policy concessions from Capitalism. Labor advocacy wasn't trying to save capitalism, it's members were largely concerned with trying to improve things that had a direct impact on ordinary Americans, such as pay and working conditions for laborers, the Right to form a Union, etc. Not to mention avoiding homeless and starvation during the Great Depression.

Forward thinking liberals such as Roosevelt and LBJ understood that the alternative to the Social Democratic policies they proposed was growing social unrest that could grow to challenge the stability of the entire system.

Keep in mind that at this time Capitalism was competing with Communist ideologies for 'customers' so to speak, and if conditions got bad enough in Capitalist counties there was a competing ideology that people could turn to. This actually served to moderate Capitalism because it didn't yet have an ideological monopoly, so it had to compete with more egalitarian systems.

I see. So back then, that socialism was actually about as equally appealing as capitalism was back then. Therefore, socialism became widely considered by Americans to be a viable alternative to try out whenever a capitalist type of economy fails the people. 

Also, you say that the left wing labor activists were successfully able to convince the people, the Congress, and the presidency that highly unchecked free market enterprise and high tariffs was not working at that time given how disastrous it became for the whole country. Hence there was such an overwhelming mandate by the people to let FDR implement the extremely sweeping social democratic policies of his New Deal agenda.

So, why do you think that Americans in the 80s and onwards became so adverse to more social democratic policies event though there was already always a strong widespread fear of left wing ideologies during the early the mid 1900s? Was is that the American people’s fears of socialism/communism became much greater than it was during the early to mid 20th century?

Edited May 9, 2022 by Hardkill

[DocWatts]

36 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I see. So back then, that socialism was actually about as equally appealing as capitalism was back then. Therefore, socialism became widely considered by Americans to be a viable alternative to try out whenever a capitalist type of economy fails the people. 

Think of it this way. In a social democracy, there's still a place for wealthy industrialists and  business owners, they're just not given free reign to do whatever the hell they want anymore.

In an imagined socialist scenario, the Capitalist owner class is likely to be abolished (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

Faced with the threat of something like that happening in the States, much of the Capitalist owner class was willing to begrudgingly accept some amount of wealth redistribution to fund social welfare programs under the New Deal and Great Society.

The New Deal and Great Society were designed to provide stability to capitalism, and to nip in the bud the potential for socialism to grow to the point where it had a chance to seriously challenge Capitalism as the predominant ideology in America.

36 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, why do you think that Americans in the 80s and onwards became so adverse to more social democratic policies event though there was already always a strong widespread fear of left wing ideologies during the early the mid 1900s? Was is that the American people’s fears of socialism/communism became much greater than it was during the early to mid 20th century?

Just my own theory, but I think a large part of it is complacency of future generations that didn't live through the Great Depression, and didn't experience firsthand just how awful unregulated Capitalism is to live under.

The living standards generated by Social Democratic policies such as the New Deal came to be taken for granted, and corporations had an easier time convincing people that it was Capitalism alone that generated prosperity, rather than a highly regulated form of Capitalism built upon social democratic policies.

Add to that the collapse of the Soviet Union removing Capitalism's only major real ideological competitor, and the situation becomes analogous to an Internet Service Provider like Comcast gaining a monopoly once it's competition goes out of business.

Then add to all that the diverging incentives structures between democracy and capitalism, and in absense of external constraints (such as a large and active Labor movement, or credible competition from another economic ideology such as Communism) Capitalism eventually eats democracy by capturing political institutions and concentrating wealth along a small group of elites.

Edited May 9, 2022 by DocWatts

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Think of it this way. In a social democracy, there's still a place for wealthy industrialists and  business owners, they're just not given free reign to do whatever the hell they want anymore.

In an imagined socialist scenario, the Capitalist owner class is likely to be abolished (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

Faced with the threat of something like that happening in the States, much of the Capitalist owner class was willing to begrudgingly accept some amount of wealth redistribution to fund social welfare programs under the New Deal and Great Society.

The New Deal and Great Society were designed to provide stability to capitalism, and to nip in the bud the potential for socialism to grow to the point where it had a chance to seriously challenge Capitalism as the predominant ideology in America.

Just my own theory, but I think a large part of it is complacency of future generations that didn't live through the Great Depression, and didn't experience firsthand just how awful unregulated Capitalism is to live under.

The living standards generated by Social Democratic policies such as the New Deal came to be taken for granted, and corporations had an easier time convincing people that it was Capitalism alone that generated prosperity, rather than a highly regulated form of Capitalism built upon social democratic policies.

Add to that the collapse of the Soviet Union removing Capitalism's only major real ideological competitor, and the situation becomes analogous to an Internet Service Provider like Comcast gaining a monopoly once it's competition goes out of business.

Then add to all that the diverging incentives structures between democracy and capitalism, and in absense of external constraints (such as a large and active Labor movement, or credible competition from another economic ideology such as Communism) Capitalism eventually eats democracy by capturing political institutions and concentrating wealth along a small group of elites.

Okay, that actually makes sense. So, a lot it also depended on what each generation of folks had went through during each of their eras. Each generation of Americans spanning all the way from the early 1900s to the late 1900s had developed different kinds of long established reactions to the different kinds of political failures that occurred during each of their respective childhood years and prime years of adulthood.

Do you think it also may have to do with the fact that America was much more politically united from approximately 1910 to 1970 than it has been within the last 4 to 5 decades?

Could it also be that most Americans by the very end of the 70s decade, thought that government spending on big social programs and major public works programs no longer worked for the US economy because what happened during the decade long 70s stagflation period? 

Is it also possible that most Americans no longer believed in big government intervention because of the plummeting trust in the establishment, politics, politicians, and all kinds of other government officials during the 60s and 70s after certain other events that occurred during the mid 1900s including the crimes committed by J Edgar Hoover, the more than 40 year long  Cold War, the hateful and pointless Korean War after WWII and the profound despised and truly pointless 20 year long Vietnam War, the entire Watergate Scandal, and the unsuccessful leadership of Jimmy Carter and the liberal Democrats during the late 70s?

Might another reason be that the right wing intellectual elites such as economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek during the early to mid 1900s and conservative think tanks in the mid 1900s kept pushing their neoliberal movement for several decades until they finally succeeded in the 80s?

[DocWatts]

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Could it also be that most Americans by the very end of the 70s decade, thought that government spending on big social programs and major public works programs no longer worked for the US economy because what happened during the decade long 70s stagflation period? 

Might another reason be that the right wing intellectual elites such as economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek during the early to mid 1900s and conservative think tanks in the mid 1900s kept pushing their neoliberal movement for several decades until they finally succeeded in the 80s?

I think both of these points are quite perceptive, as the stagflation of the 70s provided a good opportunity for free market ideologues to spin what was essentially an oil shock made possible by the US's lack of energy independence, into a narrative that Social Democratic policies (policies that the US middle class was built on) were the culprit.

And unfortunately, it worked. Right Wing think tanks went to extraordinary efforts to couple the free market economic reforms they wanted with lingering white resentment towards the Civil Rights movement. Which is where the myth of black welfare queens supposedly living the high life came from, which took off in the 1980s.

You can see this playing out even to this day, with hysteria over things like trans rights and critical race theory.

Edited May 10, 2022 by DocWatts

[Hardkill]

16 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

I think both of these points are quite perceptive, as the stagflation of the 70s provided a good opportunity for free market ideologues to spin what was essentially an oil shock made possible by the US's lack of energy independence, into a narrative that Social Democratic policies (policies that the US middle class was built on) were the culprit.

And unfortunately, it worked. Right Wing think tanks went to extraordinary efforts to couple the free market economic reforms they wanted with lingering white resentment towards the Civil Rights movement. Which is where the myth of black welfare queens supposedly living the high life came from, which took off in the 1980s.

You can see this playing out even to this day, with hysteria over things like trans rights and critical race theory.

Sadly, it still is true. 

Do you think that there is good reason to be optimistic that younger generations of conservatives and Republicans will be more liberal and more conciliatory with Democrats in the future than the older generations of Conservatives and Republicans?

Also, how do you think Democrats could win back the South?

Edited May 10, 2022 by Hardkill

[mostly harmless]

Socialism corrupts the majority of citizens by redistributing taxes to them. Whatever actual fear of socialism there is, that goes out the window quickly. 

When the economy is completely ruined, then also the majority lose their benefits. But then it is too late to wake up and change course.

Edited May 10, 2022 by mostly harmless

[DocWatts]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Sadly, it still is true. 

Do you think that there is good reason to be optimistic that younger generations of conservatives and Republicans will be more liberal and more conciliatory with Democrats in the future than the older generations of Conservatives and Republicans?

Also, how do you think Democrats could win back the South?

If I knew the answer to how Democrats could win back the South, I'd have a career in politics rather than as a software developer.

My gut tells me that focusing like a laser beam on issues that have a direct and easily articulable relevance to people's day to day lives would be the answer.

A Green New Deal that directly ties expanded economic opportunities to building the  infrastructure we'll need to address Climate Change on a scale comparable to the industrial mobilization for World War 2 would be a smart way of doing this.

But unfortunately, the deck is so stacked against Democrats for structural reasons that I don't see a realistic way of that actually happening in a timescale measured in anything less than decades.

Either through demographic and generational drift, or from things getting so catastrophically bad under a potential right wing authoritarian regime that the Republican Party becomes discredited for the vast majority of Americans in a similiar way to Nazism being discredited in Germany after WW 2.

As far as younger generations, I'm hopeful that on the whole a far smaller proportion of millennials and Zoomers will end up being indoctrinated into right wing ideologies than older generations.

I'm less hopeful that younger people who do end up getting indoctrinated are any less radicalized than thier Boomer parents. The alt-right, 4-chan, and incel culture are onboarding tools for younger people that are just as bad if not worse than Fox News.

Edited May 10, 2022 by DocWatts