Confronting market fundamentalism
Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism -- by Ruth Rosen
Allison Stevens, a contributor to Women’s enews, a news service which too few good men bother to read, has just reported that the hugely expanded bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues now has the power to put women’s issues on the national agenda. The caucus, which Stevens says may end up outnumbering the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of 44 fiscally conservative Democrats, and the New Democrat Coalition, a group of 63 pro-business Democrats,” also has access to, and probably the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was a member of the caucus, which was founded in 1977.
Among the issues on their “wish list” according to Women’s enews, are women’s health, educational equity and sex trafficking, women in prison, and international domestic violence.
All are important but will go nowhere if they don’t challenge Market Fundamentalism, the exaggerated and quite irrational belief in the ability of markets to solve all problems, an economic fundamentalism that has dominated our national political debate for a generation. Without directly challenging Market Fundamentalism, they will ultimately fail to improve the lives of ordinary American women and their families.
Put it this way: What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our society’s lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private magic and that government action would create more problems than it would solve. These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by invoking the arguments of Market Fundamentalism: privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect nothing from your government.
Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the unquestioned assumption that we all embrace Market Fundamentalism. Like religious fundamentalism, it is based more on faith than on reason. Through constant repetition, however, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational and efficient while public spending is always wasteful and unproductive. (Tell that to people in New Orleans.)
Progressives and liberals have assumed that Americans would eventually turn against these ideas, much as they become disillusioned with the Iraq War. But the truth is, neither the women in Congress nor progressives outside of D.C challenge Market Fundamentalism directly. Two decades of the reign of Market Fundamentalism have impoverished both the language and aspirations of progressive Democrats.
Instead, they dance around Market Fundamentalism; they try to gain support for their cause without directly attacking the 800 pound gorilla that sits in Congress, in our deteriorating schools, and at the bottom of the gulf between those who hold stocks and those who wait for their next minimum-wage paycheck.
Ideas that are not challenged or questioned become even more deeply entrenched. We have private “security guards” who are doing the work of soldiers in Iraq, but who are not accountable to the military. When Hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans, many of us imagined that the Bush Administration’s callous and incompetent failure to rescue the people of New Orleans and to provide the leadership to rebuild the city would lead to massive disillusionment with the Administration’s market-oriented rhetoric.
But has it? I’m not sure. Many people saw Bush’s incompetence, but they also viewed it as one more example of the government’s incapacity to solve problems.
This is a huge problem for liberals and progressives. Even if a decent Democrat wins the White House in 2008, his or her ability to offer compelling leadership and to propose new progressive solutions will be limited if Market Fundamentalist ideas remain unquestioned. Ditto for the women in Congress who think they will push women’s issues on to the national agenda.
So, it’s necessaryno,urgentthat we immediately challenge Market Fundamentalism every chance we get. Between now and the 2008 election, we need take every opportunityon blogs, among political progressive---to explain to others why this exaggerated faith in markets is so dangerous and misplaced.
Fortunately, there is now a resource to help us make these arguments. The Longview Institute, a progressive think tank with which I am affiliated, has just launched a Market Fundamentalism resource page, designed to help people recognize and refute these arguments. Longview’s Fred Block, a sociologist at the University of California at Davis, has long been articulating the dangers of Market Fundamentalism. Take a look: www.longviewinstitute.org The plan is to steadily add new arguments and new material, but what is already there provides plenty of fodder for a collective assault on the irrational ideas that support Market Fundamentalism.
Market Fundamentalism is what prevents us from having universal health care, mass transit, affordable housing, trains that cross the nation, subsidized care for the young and elderly, and government efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The list, of course, is endless.
Aside from ending the war in Iraq, there is nothing more important we can do to improve our domestic future. Ending the reign of Market Fundamentalism is a precondition for every kind of progressive cause. For a quarter of a century, Conservatives have tried to convince us that we, rather than the government, should be responsible for what is know in other industrialized nation as the “common good.” If we don’t attack the effort to privatize every public service that belongs to this common good, we will ultimately fail to move this nation in any progressive direction.
(Ruth Rosen is a journalist and historian. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute in Berkeley and a professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis. She is currently a visiting professor of public policy and history at U.C. Berkeley.)