No, Kevin, Things Are Worse than the 70’s

 

On the member feed, Dave Sussman has a link to an interview with Kevin Williamson, in which Williamson makes the case that things aren’t all that bad right now and were much worse in the late 60’s and 70’s. Kevin is so wrong about this that I couldn’t make the case within the confines of the comments, so I’ve made it my own conversation.

Kevin’s case that the 70’s were worse than now is based on the following points:

  1. High interest and inflation rates in the 70’s. Kevin uses the figure of a 20% interest rate.
  2. The impeachment and removal of a President in the 70’s (Nixon).
  3. Relative disengagement of citizens today vs. the 70’s. Golf Digest, for instance, has many times the readership of NR, and very few people watch political commentary or events.

My counter case is based on the assertion that a crucial difference between the 70’s and now is that things were much more honest in the 70’s – and by that I mean, straightforward and transparent. Problems weren’t hidden like they are now but were exposed and we were forced to deal with them.

Let’s start with #2, the impeachment of a President. Nixon was impeached because he was ultimately rejected by both Republicans and Democrats. And if you look at the articles of impeachment – lying to Congress, obstructing justice, misusing the FBI and IRS – these are things that are now routine matters in the Obama Administration that hardly anyone blinks an eye at. Hillary Clinton at the very least was “extremely careless” with national security secrets, and obviously set up a private email server to circumvent federal laws on transparency, yet we are about to elect her President. In 1980, Ted Kennedy’s bid for the Democratic nomination was fatally hobbled by the Chappaquiddick incident. Hillary’s leaving men to die in an embassy annex in Benghazi has proven no impediment.

So the fact that no one has been recently impeached, or is likely to be impeached, is not a reflection of the better integrity of politicians today. It is a reflection of the fact that we have given up holding politicians to any standard of integrity. This is the only way we could end up with a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Turning to interest rates and inflation, Kevin’s history is a little off. The 20% interest rates did not occur until the early 1980’s when Ronald Reagan gave Paul Volcker the green light to raise rates to whatever levels were necessary to tame inflation. This was possible because the national debt was less than $1 trillion in the late 70’s and was actually decreasing as a percentage of GDP (less than 40%). Our national debt is now 18 times what it was in the late 70’s, is more than 100% of GDP, and is rising as a percentage of GDP. This makes our financial situation far less robust than the 70’s, and gives policymakers far fewer options than then – an interest rate hike to a Volcker like 20%, for instance, is an impossibility. Even an interest rate hike of a few percent would likely throw us into an immediate depression. Janet Yellen just has to hint that interest rates might rise and the stock market plunges – as happened last August.

The fact that central banks, led by the Federal Reserve, have held interest rates near zero for the last 6 years should be a huge red flag. The 5 to 10% interest rates of “normal” times – like the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s – are no longer possible for us given our overwhelming debt burdens. Yet those miniscule rates only encourage the creation of more debt, an obviously unsustainable system that appears to about have run its course. It amazes me that intelligent observers like Williamson can be so blasé about this, and think that things are OK only because the system hasn’t actually imploded yet.  Anyone in the 1970’s – not just economists, but anyone – would find our world insane, a world of civilizationally unprecedented debt in which we take on ever more debt with little concern. In the 1970’s that crisis would have been honestly faced, not papered over with cheap money and ignored until catastrophe struck.

That brings me to Williamson’s last point. Memories of the Depression and WW2 were still strong in the 1970’s. A large percentage of the population had experienced catastrophe in one form or another and wanted no part of another one. So they paid attention to what was going on and were not as easily sold on snake oil. It made them amenable to tolerating the pain of Reagan’s high interest rates in the early 80’s. Most voters today have only experience of the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s. For them, catastrophe is only something that happens in the movies and not to them. $18 trillion of debt? Eh, they’ll figure it out. Nothing bad ever really happens. The government check will keep coming in any case. Why do I need to pay attention?

That lack of attention is why we now have the levels of debt we do and our criminal class of politicians. Instead of dealing honestly with these problems as they’ve grown, we’ve hid them and kicked them down the road, only making them worse in the long run – something people in the ’70s understood. We will now have a President Hillary immune to any check or balance: If we couldn’t do anything about her cavalier attitude toward national secrets as Sec. of State, we surely can’t do anything about it when she is President. She’ll be a Nixon immune from impeachment. And it will be just in time to deal with the implosion of the financial system as global debt finally overwhelms us.

Oh, and one more thing. Unlike the Depression or WW2, or even the 1970’s, where the family unit was intact and worked as a fundamental bulwark in times of crisis, the family is now largely shattered and, for many people, the Federal Government is effectively their family. What happens when that Government itself is in crisis as its finances implode?

1977 looked a lot better in comparison to this.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 30 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    You are right he is wrong.   There is no comparison.  Even the bad stuff reflected well on the basics.  The interest rates were part of the cure.  The inflation was because  small investors still existed and borrowed money giving rise to monetary expansion.  Now stagnation allows central bank reserves to just sit there periodically enriching key financial institutions but we still practice Keynesian economics showing we’ve learned nothing except how to sell the basic rip off.   We got rid of Nixon who was a liberal the progressives hated for his previous anti communist positions.  Even Carter deregulated and the inflation he suffered was Nixon/Burns gift.  Internationally Carter was a dangerous fool like almost all Democrats now, but we had sense enough to get rid of him.    In the 70’s we were killing kids in a dumb war fought dumbly, part of the Hubris of the lessons we mis learned in the war and post war world. But we were also cleaning away Jim Crow and other Democrat party created evils.  And we  held the Soviet Union in check in spite of the Viet Nam war caused erosion of the post war bi partisan foreign policy consensus.   It looked like we had figured out a lot and with the election of RR it seemed we were on a role.  But the empire struck back and won.

    • #1
  2. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Kevin is wrong in more ways that these:  Obama moved in to an economic house that had been at least mitigated by some portions of the W administration.  Reagan inherited the Carter administration’s mess.  While the domestic death toll is lower so far (ignoring ISIS, etc.), we’re just getting started.  It’s the same with our economy, this on top of what J Climacus outlines.

    The most common destructive device in the 60’s and 70’s was a bomb.  There’s something impersonal about a bomb – even if it’s planned to kill or injure humans, the perpetrator doesn’t have to stay there and watch it.  Today, however, it’s firearms.  Shooting somebody requires a much higher level of commitment and hate.

    No, there are statistics out there today that can be pointed to that make things look better now than then.  Just wait.  As Darrell Huff – and Mark Twain – said, “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.”

    • #2
  3. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Some good points and I don’t think KDW would necessarily disagree with all of them. KDW article was comparing 1968 to now, and more about societal strife than political strife or health of the country.

    Points I would make are that America is much richer now than we were in 1968 or even the 1980. While our public debt is very concerning private debts are actually shrinking relative to GDP. American businesses and American households despite low interest rates are deleveraging not leveraging. In fact, one of the main reasons why growth is so sluggish is that businesses are not borrowing to invest in their businesses.

    We are in the same situation that Japan was in in 1998. We have at least another decade or two of slow growth and increasing public debts. Japan’s government debt is over 200% of GDP and haven’t suffered a crisis. We will be in the same situation in about 8 years (each President tends to double the national debt), with I believe much the same result. Deflation.

    • #3
  4. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Also, don’t take my blase attitude as an endorsement of Fed policy. George Gilder’s latest book: The Scandal of Money has changed a lot of my thinking on Fed policy and the gold standard.

    • #4
  5. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    Z in MT:…each President tends to double the national debt…

    I was going to riff on some of Z’s salient commentary, but it’s way too early for me to be riffing on anything. Is it possible to delete this?

    • #5
  6. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Plus the single-mom-raised kids are at an all time high, creating a huge seemingly permanent pissed off underclass. This will not get better now without lots of violence first.  It didn’t have to be this way.

    • #6
  7. KC Mulville Inactive
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    J Climacus: And if you look at the articles of impeachment – lying to Congress, obstructing justice, misusing the FBI and IRS – these are things that are now routine matters in the Obama Administration that hardly anyone blinks an eye at.

    Excellent point.

    The climate is also different because of the media. The media approve of the same political corruption and opposition suppression that they railed against Nixon for. You still hear some commentators blurt out that the Obama Administration has been remarkably free of scandal. Never mind IRS, Beghazi, Fast & Furious, etc., because the media haven’t reported these scandals as scandals.

    If a man shoots someone and gets arrested, it’s reported as a crime. But if that same man shoots someone and no one reports it, is it a crime? (Yes in reality, no in perception.)

    • #7
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    I like Mr. Williamson, but with all due respect, he was about one month short of his 2nd birthday when Nixon resigned.

    Yes, there were radicals in the streets in the late 60s and early 70s shouting “Burn, baby, burn!” Yes, there were riots in Watts and other cities. Yes, they were protesting against the Vietnam war. Yes, there were gas queues and inflation.

    But despite all of this stuff that made headlines America was not in a revolutionary state or even a pre-revolutionary one. Why? Because our schools were still teaching the basics of our civics, American Exceptualism and an appreciation for the history and culture of the Western world. This created a firewall.

    That firewall no longer exists. Because all of the aforementioned radicals from the 60s and 70s decided to go into education, the media and the church to bore those institutions hollow from the inside out.

    They have managed to convince young people that there is no God, convinced them to be ashamed of their country, convinced them of the evil of their cultural heritage and have radicalized them beyond anything we previously believed possible.

    They have stripped them of the hope of a better future through hard work. They look at their parents struggling with the new economy, look at their broken marriages, and fall back on their Marxist education and mock them, “Where is your God and Country now?!?”

    And because the Republican Party has done virtually nothing to expand Reagan’s vision of America and just decided to ride the old man’s legacy as long as they could, the party is now a shell of itself, with a neo-fascist corporatist at its head who’s left to do battle against the born again totalitarian Left.

    It’s like Williamson went to sleep in America and woke up in Legoland. Everything is awesome.

    • #8
  9. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    EJHill:

    “…They have managed to convince young people that there is no God, convinced them to be ashamed of their country, convinced them of the evil of their cultural heritage and have radicalized them beyond anything we previously believed possible.

    They have stripped them of the hope of a better future through hard work. They look at their parents struggling with the new economy, look at their broken marriages, and fall back on their Marxist education and mock them, “Where is your God and Country now?!?”….”

    I regret that I have but one like to give!

    • #9
  10. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    KC Mulville: The media approve of the same political corruption and opposition suppression that they railed against Nixon for.

    Not exactly. Some of the opprobrium Nixon faced was rooted in anti-anti-Communism, but not all. Many if not most Republicans and some Democrats were genuinely offended by his misconduct.

    The media approve of the corruption because they are, as Robert Stacy McCain put it, Democrats with bylines – and Alinskyite BAMN is now standard for the Democrats.

    • #10
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The media hated Richard Nixon ever since the late 40s. That’s the only reason he was impeached and others weren’t. Well, that and the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress.

    Otherwise, I agree immensely with this article.  However, it does not take into consideration the fact that I was younger in the 70s, so life was better then for that reason.

    • #11
  12. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Also, Nixon was NOT impeached.  You’re thinking about Clinton.  Or maybe Andrew Johnson. They were the only two.

    Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

    • #12
  13. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    The Scarecrow:Also, Nixon was NOT impeached. You’re thinking about Clinton. Or maybe Andrew Johnson. They were the only two.

    Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

    Yes, that is strictly correct. I should have said “forced from office” rather than “impeached.”

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I appreciate countering Williamson with specifics.  From a more general perspective,the left was considerably less entrenched culturally and politically then.  That, to me, is the large issue.  Would, for example, a major sports league have moved it’s All-Star game over transgender “rights” in the 70’s?

    • #14
  15. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    An excellent post.

    • #15
  16. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    Hoyacon:I appreciate countering Williamson with specifics. From a more general perspective,the left was considerably less entrenched culturally and politically then. That, to me, is the large issue. Would, for example, a major sports league have moved it’s All-Star game over transgender “rights” in the 70’s?

    No, but the NFL denied Phoenix the opportunity to host the 1993 Super Bowl over Arizona’s vote against the MLK holiday in 1990. Turns out Arizona voters don’t like that sort of emotional blackmail. I’m willing to venture that NBA commish Adam Silver just handed NC Gov. Pat McCrory a second term as governor over that silly decision.

    • #16
  17. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Probably Williamson’s most salient point is that most people don’t pay attention to politics the way we do.

    And I like his point that there are a lot of self-important people in politics, and he included journalist/pundits.

    I have to agree.  With all the acrimony I see in the political scene and in the news, I don’t see it in my day to day life.  That was his central point, and what seems to inform his other arguments on how things aren’t as bad as people say.

    • #17
  18. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    As others have pointed out, a crucial difference between now and the 60s is that the left has succeeded in its long march thru our institutions. Universities are now little more than places that dispense technical training along with a standard far left indoctrination. Our court system is shot thru with radicals with lifetime seats, the permanent bureaucracy is now fully developed, and we are seeing the devastation of 40 years of leftist domination in the final collapse of cities like Detroit.

    Most significantly, and as I briefly mentioned, the institution of the family has been destroyed. Daniel Patrick Mounihan famously produced a study in the 60s on the crisis of the black family – when out of wedlock births for blacks was at 25%. It is now somewhere north of 70% and the white rate is passing 25%.

    Kevin even wrote a book on this – The Dependency Agenda, detailing how it was LBJ’s explicit policy to destroy the black family and make blacks permanently dependent on government. Well he succeeded. And things are better now ??

    • #18
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    J Climacus: Kevin even wrote a book on this – The Dependency Agenda, detailing how it was LBJ’s explicit policy to destroy the black family and make blacks permanently dependent on government. Well he succeeded. And things are better now ??

    I didn’t know about this – neither the book nor the fact that LBJ intentionally tried to make this change. I know it’s the subconscious plan of all leftists to do that, not just to blacks but to everyone, but how intentional they have been about it is another matter.

    • #19
  20. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Ontheleftcoast:

    KC Mulville: The media approve of the same political corruption and opposition suppression that they railed against Nixon for.

    Not exactly. Some of the opprobrium Nixon faced was rooted in anti-anti-Communism, but not all. Many if not most Republicans and some Democrats were genuinely offended by his misconduct.

    The media approve of the corruption because they are, as Robert Stacy McCain put it, Democrats with bylines – and Alinskyite BAMN is now standard for the Democrats.

    “Genuine offense,” though, requires a standard by which to be offended.  No standard = no offense.”

    • #20
  21. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    MarciN:An excellent post.

    Yep, it is. And, I think the comments have been first class as well.

    • #21
  22. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    I think comparisons like this are hard. What we know about the problems of the 60’s and 70’s is that as bad as they were we made it through them. That is something we can’t really know about our own problems. It is easy to see the strengths and advantages we had back then that helped us to cope and overcome. Yet, to see our own strengths we would need perspective that we can not have in the moment.

    I think we should ask ourselves which will motivate us better? Thinking that things are worse and that we therefore need to try harder? Or, thinking that we have faced worse and we need not be paralyzed with worry and despair. Both can be productive.

    • #22
  23. Dustoff Inactive
    Dustoff
    @Dustoff

    Following on from Valiuth’s thoughtful comments, I would  side with Williamson if on November 8th, Ronald Reagan is elected.

    Post 70’s we were able to snap back and overturn much of the Left’s nonsense and damage in short order. There were enough of us who could still intuitively understand the common sense and essence of America regardless of party.  And there was the clarity of a Reagan, who spoke plainly and was unafraid of what needed doing.

    J Climacus has well described today’s Dilema.

    • #23
  24. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    The Reticulator: However, it does not take into consideration the fact that I was younger in the 70s, so life was better then for that reason.

    • #24
  25. Kevin Creighton Contributor
    Kevin Creighton
    @KevinCreighton

    And while the 70’s inflicted us with the singer-songwriter, prog rock and disco, at least we were able to right that ship and bring Sly and the Family Stone, The Ramones and The Clash into the world.

    Today, however, we have Justin Bieber and Jay-Z.

    We are so screwed.

    • #25
  26. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Kevin Creighton:And while the 70’s inflicted us with the singer-songwriter, prog rock and disco, at least we were able to right that ship and bring Sly and the Family Stone, The Ramones and The Clash into the world.

    Today, however, we have Justin Bieber and Jay-Z.

    We are so screwed.

    We also had Michael Jackson.

    • #26
  27. cirby Inactive
    cirby
    @cirby

    One major change we’ve had since the 1970s is that news gets out, no matter what.

    When I was in high school, a (non-student, older) guy came on campus to visit his girlfriend and saw her talking to a black guy. He pulled out a knife and stabbed the black guy. One thing led to another, a couple of small riots, and things were awful for a while.

    It never made the local papers or TV, in any form. The only thing I saw about it in the press was when the Dallas paper (a hundred miles away) mentioned that he was being let out of the hospital, months later.

    Now? It would be on the net before the guy made it to the hospital…

    • #27
  28. Josh Inactive
    Josh
    @Josh

    There is a single point of Williamson’s argument that I’m not quite understanding here. I’ll surrender to the possibility that I am not reading it correctly, or am over-analyzing, but concerning his third point, how would people being more disengaged today make us better? Is he playing off the idea that people are ignorant today & so we’re better off not having them involved? I just cannot possibly see where disengagement, in this sense, would be a good thing.

    • #28
  29. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    I Walton: In the 70’s we were killing kids in a dumb war fought dumbly, part of the Hubris of the lessons we mis learned in the war and post war world.

    Gee, I would have expected a foreign service guy to have a better grip on the history of the Vietnam War.  This is a really sloppy thumbnail that mischaracterizes the war in the 1970s.

    • #29
  30. The Evergreen Man Inactive
    The Evergreen Man
    @TheEvergreenMan

    Though I normally am in agreement with Mr Williamson’s thinking, I must agree with your post in its entirety. The nation could potentially handle one bad presidential term, but we have had several in succession, and there is little sign of a course correction until the unsustainable elements of the current system collapse. Which will truly be an epic and memorable moment in our history.

    We had a good run.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.