For nearly 100 years, since the economic crisis of the 1930s, American society and much of the world’s society have been grappling with the question of what role the state should play. To what extent should it regulate capitalism and private enterprise? It has given the impression of a binary struggle between government and the private sector.
On one side, a left advocating an expansion of the size of the state at the expense of big business; on the other, a right seeking to dismantle public services and cut taxes. It seemed like a zero-sum game. What if both had triumphed?
The presidential dynamics in the United States make it seem as if we are facing a watershed moment. Democrats have generally promoted a government presence to ensure the functioning of systems like Medicare and Social Security while valuing the role of the free market.
Moreover, presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have allowed the financial sector to develop without too many restrictions, despite the risks this can pose to the country’s economic stability. These centrist positions continue to be defended by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
For their part, Republicans have spent the past few decades advocating the dismantling of many government programs, but they have mostly run up against the popularity of those programs and their benefits.
Today, Donald Trump marks a significant break from recent Republican leaders, such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In the name of an almost enlightened populism, Trump no longer seeks to destroy the American social safety net with the same vigor as his predecessors. However, he continues to praise big business, and this still leads to tax policies that favor the wealthy.
The Roosevelt era
Several historians note two major presidential eras since the 1930s. The era of Franklin Roosevelt (1932-1980) was characterized by an expansion of the size of the state, particularly in the context of the economic crisis. In many ways, Roosevelt understood that capitalism had to be regulated to ensure its survival.
The New Deal was being implemented. It was by creating government programs that we could intervene and correct the injustices of the free market without questioning the virtues of this system that encouraged innovation and responsibility while conferring a sense of freedom. For almost 50 years, all presidents governed in a culture marked by Roosevelt, until the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1980.
He and some of his successors have given the impression of wanting to dismantle the state, but most of the programs and agencies they sought to end are still very much in place. Reagan promoted a libertarian ideal that was never realized.
Roosevelt and Reagan have been held up as the spiritual fathers of the two great currents of American political economy of the last hundred years. But ultimately, they both believed in a more or less regulated free market. It is not so ironic that a young Ronald Reagan voted for Franklin Roosevelt four times in the 1930s and 1940s.
Breakup
Today we live in a world where the government subsidizes companies like General Motors to stimulate job creation. This seems to confirm the continued existence of government and private enterprise.
Republicans and Democrats maintain a financial system that favors the elite while trying to ensure the long-term survival of most government programs. Union leaders speak at the Republican National Convention. The notions of right and left are clearly in need of re-definition.
The state and business are now undisputed institutions of American political and social life. While we used to think they were in conflict, they have long supported each other.
However, Republicans and Democrats are today in marked disagreement on many social and moral values (think of immigration and abortion).
Foreign policy has long been a source of some consensus in the United States. The wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were fought by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and even the Iraq War was supported by a significant number of Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry. Moreover, all presidents have supported international organizations such as NATO.
The rise of a debate between isolationism and intervention is likely to mark the 2024 presidential election. This new presidential era will also be dominated by debates about reality and truth, while a large part of Donald Trump’s voters admit to not paying attention to the veracity of the statements of their candidate of choice.
And, of course, the proper functioning of democratic institutions and the population’s confidence in them will also need to be monitored and defended.
The 25 years leading up to the Civil War (1861-1865) were marked by a series of dismal presidents who never managed to get re-elected. Trump and Biden both had single terms, whereas in recent decades we had become accustomed to re-elections (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama).
I actually believe that Reagan, Clinton and Obama were all so popular after two terms that they could have won another one if they had been allowed to run again. The American people felt strongly enough about their choices that they felt comfortable sticking with them.
The debate over the role of the state has been a healthy source of conflict that has dominated the last 100 years. Today, the American population is undecided and particularly fragmented.
Leaders, and very possibly the next president, Kamala Harris, will need to demonstrate almost unprecedented courage and innovation.