New York Times analysis of the first presidential debate last night :
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/debate-a-clash-over-governments-role-news-analysis.html?hp&_r=0
Earlier in the day, when discussing the concept of progress and development in my ATR 220 (cultural anthropology) class, I found myself trying to tie the discussion of neoliberal economic theory to the varying political philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties. I figured it was a great opportunity to "repatriate: andthropology- to apply the concepts we were studying back here at home.
While not all politicians and their supporters subscribe to the same ideas, I think it safe to say things like "Republicans tend to be in favor of less regulation of markets, lower taxes, fewer government services and personal responsibility while Democrats tend to favor stricter governmental oversight of business, more taxpayer-funded programs, pand some kind of a safety net for when market forces leave people behind."
The neoliberal approaches to markets and to economic development applied in the global system seem to me quite analogous to the different party-line approaches to the economic condition of the country today, despite what either candidate has done in the past or is likely to do in the future when freed from the neccesity of campaigning for votes.
TheNew York Times' analysis of the debate referenced above seems to me to echo that- that what we saw last night was discussion of competing and starkly contrasting views of how to grow an economy and govern a country. Whether Romney is a neoliberal or Obama a true opponent of neoliberalism is certainly debatable itself, but it sure seemed to me that last night they were debating the relative merits of a neoliberal approach to development here in the United States. And that debate has been going on worldwide for some time now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/debate-a-clash-over-governments-role-news-analysis.html?hp&_r=0
Earlier in the day, when discussing the concept of progress and development in my ATR 220 (cultural anthropology) class, I found myself trying to tie the discussion of neoliberal economic theory to the varying political philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties. I figured it was a great opportunity to "repatriate: andthropology- to apply the concepts we were studying back here at home.
While not all politicians and their supporters subscribe to the same ideas, I think it safe to say things like "Republicans tend to be in favor of less regulation of markets, lower taxes, fewer government services and personal responsibility while Democrats tend to favor stricter governmental oversight of business, more taxpayer-funded programs, pand some kind of a safety net for when market forces leave people behind."
The neoliberal approaches to markets and to economic development applied in the global system seem to me quite analogous to the different party-line approaches to the economic condition of the country today, despite what either candidate has done in the past or is likely to do in the future when freed from the neccesity of campaigning for votes.
TheNew York Times' analysis of the debate referenced above seems to me to echo that- that what we saw last night was discussion of competing and starkly contrasting views of how to grow an economy and govern a country. Whether Romney is a neoliberal or Obama a true opponent of neoliberalism is certainly debatable itself, but it sure seemed to me that last night they were debating the relative merits of a neoliberal approach to development here in the United States. And that debate has been going on worldwide for some time now.
No comments:
Post a Comment