For some reason (probably a lack of any historical memory whatsoever), conservatives love and liberals hate the 1950's. A dynamic decade, far removed from the somnambulant decade of Eisenhowerian drift, the fifties were, in many ways, the staging ground for the upheavals of the following decade. The Civil Rights era began in the 1950's; the beats, rock and roll, the space age, Holden Caufield - all products of that time. One of the things that made that decade such a robust period in American history was the underlying economic stability made possible through the on-going New Deal regulations that some Republicans even then sought to roll back. Eisenhower, showing far more wisdom than any Republican since, refused. The main economic engine, however, was the progressive income tax and strong unions.
There are two things you can rely on contemporary Republican politicians to talk about whenever they talk about the 1950's - taxes and unions. Yet, if they actually knew anything at all about either subject, they would realize that the 1950's do not endorse any conservative approach to national economic policy, but rather endorse high taxes - during the 1950's, the marginal tax rate on those earning (in adjusted dollars) $3 million, was 91%.
Think about that for a moment.
At the moment, there are proposals to return the top marginal tax rate (which is different from the top rate altogether; since the advent of supply-side economics, discussion has always been on the marginal tax rate) to what it was during the Clinton Administration, roughly 31%, and this is seen as creeping socialism. Under Republican Presidents and a (very brief) Republican Congress fifty years ago, the top rate wasn't touched and we had robust economic growth.
Another log on the fire of economic growth, and social and cultural expansion, was robust unionism in the manufacturing sector. As the soldiers who fought in the Second World War came home and went to college on the GI Bill, they went to work in factories where the unions had won important victories during the Depression (with the help of the Fair Labor Standards Act). These men and women not only constituted what William Manchester has called "the best educated generation in American history"; they were also among the wealthiest. The booming suburbs, aided by policies that sought to attract white working and middle-class families away from cities, were helped by unionized workers being able to afford the homes and the commutes. Simply put, having a union wage drove the consumerist engine of the 1950's. With the turn away from a unionized manufacturing sector, and the rise of non-unionized service industries, that important social and economic engine stalled, then stopped completely.
When you read in various posts how the Republican Party has pretty much destroyed our infrastructure, these changes in our tax and labor policies are not just part of the equation, but at its very heart. Somehow we managed for decades to have high marginal tax rates on the very wealthy along with robust economic activity. We had a healthy organized labor movement and a strong manufacturing sector. Republicans insisted, however, that we needed to reduce taxes on the wealthy and stop unions in their tracks, and things would improve. Instead, the whole thing pretty much collapsed, and in a very short amount of time.
This argument, based on reality, rather than the fantasies of know-nothings and fake libertarians, needs to be made often and as explicitly as possible. We need higher taxes and stronger unions if we really want a healthy economy.
Virtual Tin Cup
