Reagan and The Politics of Rich and Poor

The demonic Reagan counter-revolution nullified some of the important gains of the civil rights movement, but, of course, not all of them; in a previous blog I argued that Reagan created or expanded two new systems of oppression.  One was the War on Drugs which through massive racial profiling targeted blacks and Latinos; the second was doubling the wealth gap between rich and poor with the worst impact on poor blacks.  Both systems of oppression are legal---laws were passed creating them---as slavery and segregation legal for many years.  Legalized systems of oppression---will they never end?

Now a book review of The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips, a one-time full-fledged Republican who probably voted for Reagan.  This book was written in 1990, shortly after the Reagan era ended.

Kevin Phillips is a respected, veteran political analyst with a conservative Republican perspective; he brings an historical perspective and historical parallels to his contemporary analysis of the 1980s.  Phillips states:

"The basic messages of The Politics of Rich and Poor were essentially these: that the 1980s had been a decade of fabulous wealth accumulation by the richest Americans while many others stagnated or declined; that the 1980s were, in fact, the third such capitalist and conservative heyday over the last century or so; "

Phillips cites study after study which indicates that the rich got richer and he concluded that "trickle down wasn't trickling."  Historically, the masses, even many Republicans, resent the rich getting richer.  While Americans are materialistic, they do have some sense of fairness and they react against economic extremes.

Phillips begins his book with this hard-hitting paragraph:

"The 1980s were the triumph of upper America---an ostentatious celebration of wealth, the political ascendancy of the richest third of the population and a glorification of capitalism, free markets and finance.  But while money, greed and luxury had become the stuff of popular culture, hardly anyone asked why such great wealth had concentrated at the top, and whether this was the result of public policy."

In American history, at times, public policy has assisted the rich to get richer.  At other times, public policy has to some degree redistributed the wealth of the nation thereby avoiding the need for another violent revolution.  "Since the American Revolution the distribution of American wealth has depended significantly on who controlled the federal government, for what policies, and in behalf of which constituencies."

"Excesses in one direction have always bred a countermovement in the other direction, and the Reagan era certainly had its excesses."  During the Reagan era, both billionaires and the homeless grew in numbers; and the U.S. had the greatest gap between the rich and poor of any Western nation.  In my opinion no strong countermovement has arisen; the wealth gap continues to expand and expand; the elite rich are in control politically and economically.

In NT times the era of a religious rich elite running the Temple as a "den of robbers" didn't end until Rome destroyed the Temple. Not even Jesus was able to get the religious leaders to repent.  Are we heading in the same direction?

In 1995 in an interview, Phillips said  the 1980s Republicans proposed four different budgets to balance the budget and cut the deficit.  None succeeded.  In reality they were a massive con game to achieve three other goals: 1) cut taxes for their constituents, 2) shrink the role of government and shrink the safety net for the poor, 3) help the stock market.

Robert Wuthnow did some research on faith and economics; he concluded:  "Although 92 percent of us believe that the condition of the poor is a serious social problem, our hearts are fundamentally with the rich.  What religious faith does more clearly than anything else is to add a dollop of piety to the materialistic amalgam in which we live."