"There are other safer substitutes for a mass movement. In general, any arrangement which either discourages atomistic individuality or offers chances for action and new beginnings tends to counteract the rise and spread of mass movements."
Eric Hoffer
THE TRUE BELIEVER
Franklin Roosevelt had the foresight to involve Americans in their own recovery project. The New Deal repaired the disaster caused by unchained free-enterprise without having to resort to the authoritarian collectivism endured by Russians, Italians, and Germans. Americans overcame hard times with our democratic institutions intact because Roosevelt utilized the human desire to belong to a society greater than one. The wealthy disagreed, a right they still have (unlike Russia under the Leninists), claiming no difference between higher taxes and Gulags. Roosevelt overcame that resistance by getting people involved. The elites and their advocates learned their lesson: rugged individualism is best packaged and sold in a collective wrapper. The conservative "movement" emerged. Since the Depression it has patiently acquired power.
To the astonishment of liberals and conservatives alike, the rightwing now controls the national government and most states. Its supporters, mostly from the working class, cheerfully approve their government's effort to disband itself--at least until they are personally harmed. America is in the process of dismantling not only Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, but Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal. Millions of Americans face poverty, but at least they feel united in the process. Liberals are stuck defending a century's social progress by appealing to reason and self-interest--obviously ineffective strategies against the rightwing's libertarian togetherness. To regain the initiative, the left needs to regain its togetherness, which could be done by enthusiastically advocating bold yet popular proposals, starting with universal healthcare, to counter the Republicans' push to eliminate Obamacare.
Those who truly believe America was at its best when robber barons ruled supreme and the masses were left scrounging whatever crumbs the plutocrats had not yet grabbed, rule once more. They could never have acquired this supremacy with only their numbers. They need, and have, fervent support from millions of commoners. Understanding why average working stiffs willingly vote against their economic and social self-interests is the key for those of us who, being in the same class, want to protect those interests. The "logical" argument for dismantling government social programs is that people are freed to do great things, which will bring peace and prosperity on an undreamt scale. It sounds good, but history shows that unfettered individualism leads to primacy of the most ruthlessly avaricious, to the misery of everyone else...over and again. Movement conservatism exploits the human need to belong, even though its guiding principle is every man for himself.
Once physical survival is achieved, other human needs make themselves known, and a primary need is to belong to something greater than one. The shock of the Great Depression aroused everybody's consciousness, and the practical solutions of the New Deal brought people into a sense of shared accomplishment--followed by WWII, which united Americans solidly in common, altruistic goals. Despite the misery surrounding these events, Americans were satisfied with who they were, what they were doing, and their cooperative efforts toward the greater good.
The fifties opened the way to widespread dissatisfaction. We had our needs met, and many of our wants, but the sense of shared purpose was gone. We had the Cold War, but that was a long siege, with no resolution other than mankind's obliteration. A population of well-off, atomized rugged individualists was ripe for the appeal of mass movements. Humanity's pre-historyis a long tale of clannish pot-lucks. Individualism is fairly new. These two sides of human nature often conflict. John Kennedy tried to restore the balance by adding the New Frontier to the New Deal, but he got shot. Then events moved quickly.
The hippies brought to the culture a sense of togetherness along with the individualism of "doing your own thing." But their concepts were non-traditional, and cooperative endeavors need the vision of a future anchored in the past. The hippies having no past, they never caught on in general society. Uncomfortable times were made more so by widespread civil unrest and an unending war. George Wallace was an adroit manipulator of that subconscious desire to strive together for a future like the good old days. Then he got shot. Richard Nixon gathered Wallace's supporters, bringing together workers and plutocrats, into America's current political reality.
The Democrats were left rationally defending workable, popular government programs. Rationality is fine as far as it goes, but the Republicans kept exhorting people to recover a vague, glorious past, as a sure way to bring everyone into a healthy, wealthy future. With the occasional splendid little war to keep Americans lined up behind noble causes, the rich kept getting richer. Money buys power, and now the plutocrats control just about everything. Democrats, left in the enviable position of having nothing left to lose, might as well go for broke. Now is a glowing opportunity to push single-payer healthcare, followed by other progressive plans. If Democrats cling to corporate donors, hoping for compromise to protect a cadaverous status quo, they remain irrelevant. People will move collectively to bring about progressive change without them. We already are.
