Two Makes a Trend

John Quiggin makes an interesting observation here that is less, I think, about the long-run trends in Anglosphere public policy than simply about the human tendency to see patterns where there isn't necessarily anything happening. "When Blair took office, he was generally seen as offering Thatcherism with a human face," he observes, while "Ten years later, the picture is quite different, superficially at least. Brown seems much more Old Labour than Blair, and Cameron is eager to be seen as anything but Thatcherite."

Similarly, in the US I recall having heard Bill Clinton referred to as the "conservator of the Reagan Revolution," which made a certain amount of sense circa 1999 or 2001. But Clinton's successor was, though a Republican, substantially less anti-statist in his approach to economics than Reagan. And if Bush is succeeded by a Democrat who stands to Clinton's left on economic matters (which seems reasonably likely), then suddenly Reagan starts to look like an outlier, and Clinton the guy who got the ball rolling down the hill again. On the other hand, if Bush is followed up by a Republican who follows through on promises to return to small government orthodoxy, then even Bush's deviations will probably vanish from sight.

Comments

I don't see any substantial difference in budget policy between Reagan and Bush. Both talked about fiscal conservatism and neither followed through, which is really the story of the modern conservative movement. The one time Republicans actually tried to roll back spending in a big way (Newt's budget showdown with Clinton) was an unmitigated political disaster.

The electorate likes the way the words "fiscally conservative" sound. They're fun words to say. There's just not much of a constituency for fiscally conservative policies, which is why no one of prominence sincerely supports them.

Posted by Jake H. | June 27, 2007 12:10 PM

The big anti-statism success story was not the budget but de-regulation and privatization. In the U.S. this actually began under Carter, and it was paralleled around the world.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 27, 2007 12:51 PM

While Brown might be stylistically closer to Old Labour than Blair, in terms of policy, he's at least the co-creator of New Labour with Blair, and his policies as Chancellor were one of the anchors of New Labour. I'm not sure I understand where Brown gets this reputation as being to the left of Blair.

Posted by John | June 27, 2007 1:00 PM

The difference between Brown and Blair is that Blair was on the libertarian side of left-liberalism, whereas Brown is more on the traditionalist social conservative wing of Labour.

Brown has looked towards neo-conservative social policy and is also certainly more of a Eurosceptic and less of a postnational liberal than Blair.

Posted by Chris | June 27, 2007 1:20 PM

Wow, Brown sounds like a tool.

Posted by Reality Man | June 27, 2007 4:37 PM