Die FINANCIAL TIMES (FT) veröffentlichte vor einigen Wochen einen interessanten Kommentar zur Entwicklung der amerikanischen Rechten. Interessant deshalb, weil es um eine Positionierungsänderung geht:
- „Nearly forty years ago, US President Ronald Reagan summed up the Republican party mindset with his proclamation that ‚the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.‘ Markets, not politicians, knew best, and the more power the private sector had relative to the public one, the better.“ – bto: Mit Blick auf das, was ich in Deutschland gerade erlebe, würde ich sagen, dass wir dieses Problem ebenfalls haben.
- „Some Republicans are talking as much about market failures as solutions these days. Consider the on-again, off-again Trump-supporting conservative columnist Sohrab Ahmari, whose recent book, Tyranny, Inc: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty — and What To Do About It, has been praised by progressives.Like the former president and other conservatives, Ahmari is against the sort of ‚woke‘ capitalism that puts companies in the crosshairs of social justice issues. But he also sounds positively Marxist in his critique of how the owners of capital oppress labour.“ – bto: Das ist in der Tat eine interessante Entwicklung. Denn, wenn man sich mehr auf die Seite der Arbeitnehmer stellt, ändert das die gesamte Dynamik.
- „And the issues he raises about what should and shouldn’t be off-limits in capitalism — he’s against, for example, the commercialisation of child-bearing via interventions like paid surrogacy — aren’t so very different from the moral limits of markets explored by Harvard professor Michael Sandel, a prominent critic of free market orthodoxy, in his book What Money Can’t Buy.“ – bto: Vor allem muss man aber die Frage stellen, wie die Geldpolitik der letzten Jahrzehnte zu den Problemen beigetragen hat.
- „Former Trump US trade representative Robert Lighthizer, for example, has often criticised neoliberal trade policy (by which he means the unfettered flow of capital and goods to the cheapest and most profitable manufacturing locales) as ‚trading the future control of our country, the wealth of our children and grandchildren, for current consumption — cheaper TV sets and sneakers. This is madness.‘“ – bto: … und bedeutet natürlich mehr Protektionismus und damit höhere Preise/Inflation.
- „(…) it also hearkens back to a less extreme kind of capitalism common a few decades ago. At that point many US communities were more economically diverse, focusing on both production and consumption, with less concentration of power within specific industries. There was also far less of the wealth inequalitythat has risen hand in hand with unchecked markets and greater private sector power.“ – bto: And greater leverage! Das sollten wir nicht vergessen!!
- „This is important, because it means that trustbusting could now become a more bipartisan issue. The idea that private sector ‚tyranny‘ — in the form of outsized corporate economic and political control — is threatening individual liberty in America is an issue that is being taken up as a rallying point by conservatives and progressives alike.“ – bto: Hier haben wir die Brücke von der Podcast-Episode dieser Woche zu der der kommenden Woche. Es geht darum, die Macht von Unternehmen zu beschränken.
- „The point here is that Republicans, like Democrats, have begun to see that the next election — indeed the next few elections — are likely to revolve more around economics and class than divisive social issues.“ – bto: Naja, ich denke, dass diese Themen der Kultur durchaus auf der Agenda bleiben.
- „So far, the nascent, post-Reagan right has no solid political figure to coalesce around. Still, I think we will look back and see this primary season as a pivot point. Reaganomics set the frame for economic policy, on both the right and the left, for decades. The fact that Republicans are now turning away from trickle down economics is something business should pay close attention to.“ – bto: Das wird auf die Welt ausstrahlen.