Republican Military Keynesianism Redux

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

Why would not young Bush be attracted to Reagan's
experiment with high military budgets and their potential
good for national military and economic security?

The Republican party may not have communism (as it
was) to unify its several political bases. But the broad
notion of America as leader, superpower, and place
where most people in need would love to go for a
better chance in life (including top candidates for high-
tech employment), appeals to chauvinist Republican
sentiments and serious Republican economic interests.

So the stage is set for government spending to reform
and modernize America's force projection arsenal and
capabilities. The spending will probably be sufficient
to make up for any loss of "wealth effect" as spur to
business to, in turn,  protect everyone but the
now-very-poor from scary harm. This can give the
Republicans a victory in 2002 if they spend enough.

(As for the now-very-poor, they are the responsibility
of Republicans and Democrats, alike. We all must
work together to provide BOTH opportunity for
those who can use it AND support for those who
may otherwise suffer. We now know that achievers,
in their millions, are not ruined by support -- they
are ruined by absence of opportunity. The few who
need more than others, to find themselves, can be
given extra time and attention with no ill effect on
others who just don't need it.)

What of some inflation, as the dollar dirfts down --
as it may? What of environmetal protection? There are
environmental needs that can be turned into opportunity
for profit -- not just the stuff of political opposition
and lawsuits.

So young Bush will have to convince Greenspan
to accept what inflation may come that Bush's
team is convinced will only do good in the long
run -- by increasing manufacturing opportunities
(and jobs) at home.

We Keynesians want capitalist governments to
accept high inflation as long as hyper-inflation is
prevented.  So our theories and Bush's needs are
the same. Too bad we don't like each other.

Clinton presided over our transformation from a
national security state to a national entertainment
state. Bush will now pull us back to a world
security state -- with allies who don't like the
Americanization of entertainment anyway.

California loves to make weapons and movies.
So Bush can win here if he does all he's got
in mind (by my lights) -- does it as well as
Reagan did his thing (this time without Volker
to muck it up).

At the height of the cold war, neo-conservatives
split off from the articulate left to champion
freedom over addiction to communist nonsense.
It would be nice to see today's articulate left
develop doctrine for the 21st century that
championed environmental Keynesianism,
educational Keynesiasm, and world security
Keynesianism over addiction to vague socialist
opposition to a political economy that no
longer exists.

    The liesure class has gone. We live today
    with the achiever class. They may not all
    be as good as we are -- but they are
    willing to learn whatever we know.

John Gelles  www.1944.org