New Deal 2.0

Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 7 May 2021
by Vilma Gryzinski (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lisa Carrington. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The debate on the size of the government resumes with a bang.

What is the best way of running a country to benefit as many people as possible? The two answers at play in democratic countries shift back and forth like tectonic plates. One is increasing the size of the government, creating a super-powerful entity that regulates economic activities, taxes heavily and provides citizens with all their basic needs from the cradle to the grave, as the saying goes in social democratic countries. The other answer is breaking the government’s shackles, allowing businesses and workers to get along as they wish, to give life to the spirit animal of free enterprise and to lay to rest the bogeyman that creates bureaucracy, waste, inefficiency, poor services, impregnable castes and corruption. Ronald Reagan summarized this idea with his famous joke about the nine scariest words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Biden Used the Pandemic To Pass a Slew of Astronomical Packages

The U.S. became the greatest power in history by using a bit of both ideas, depending on the moment in history. Big government was most influential when Franklin D. Roosevelt fought the Great Depression with successive wallops of public funds and large-scale structural reforms. This is the spirit that Joe Biden is seeking to replicate with his version of a New Deal 2.0. The press constantly makes comparisons between the two, with the clear fingerprints of Biden’s influential chief of staff, Ron Klain. Even the overused idea of 100 days of transformation after taking over the government was copied from Roosevelt and disseminated by Klain.

Lacking Roosevelt’s gravity, intellectual power and historic vision, Biden makes up for those disadvantages with numbers: his $6 trillion stimulus packages are far ahead of the money spent on the New Deal, the equivalent of $650 billion today. An important difference is that in 1933, Roosevelt inherited a country ravaged by the Depression, and Biden took over in an episodic crisis created by COVID-19 that is relatively easy to solve. There were enough vaccines and emergency funds to get through the dark months of unemployment and bankruptcies. But Biden used the pandemic to pass — or almost pass, because some projects have not yet been brought to Congress — a slew of astronomical packages.

The all-powerful state is also known as Big Government; its role has been debated since its birth in the U.S. Founding fathers such as George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton favored a big government. The greatest of them all, Thomas Jefferson, was a minimalist who thought that the government should be “rigorously frugal & simple.” According to historian Joseph J. Ellis, the debate between the two schools of thought stems from a shockingly simple dilemma: Is the government “us” or “them”? Unfortunately, this question doesn’t exist in Brazil. Here, whatever the government, it is always “them.”


O New Deal 2.0

Reabre com estrondo o debate sobre o tamanho do Estado

Qual deve ser a melhor forma de administrar um país de modo a beneficiar o maior número possível de pessoas? As duas respostas existentes em países democráticos alternam-se como numa dança de placas tectônicas. Uma é aumentar o tamanho do Estado, criando um ente superpoderoso que regulamenta as atividades econômicas, cobra impostos polpudos e provê os cidadãos de todas as necessidades básicas, do berço ao túmulo, como se diz sobre os países onde vigora a social-democracia.
Outra é quebrar as canelas do governo, deixando que empresas e trabalhadores entendam-se como quiserem, para insuflar o espírito animal do livre empreendimento e cortar o fôlego do bicho-¬papão que gera burocracia, desperdício, ineficiência, serviços miseráveis, castas inexpugnáveis e corrupção. Ronald Reagan resumiu a ideia com a brincadeira famosa sobre as nove palavras mais assustadoras da língua inglesa (o mesmo número em português): “Eu sou do governo e estou aqui para ajudar”.

“Biden aproveitou a pandemia para passar a boiada dos pacotes estratosféricos”

Os Estados Unidos se tornaram a maior potência da história usando um pouco de ambas as ideias, conforme o momento histórico. E o momento em que o Estado grande mais teve influência foi quando Franklin Roosevelt combateu a Grande Depressão a golpes sucessivos de dinheiro público e grandes reformas estruturais. É esse espírito que Joe Biden pretende reformatar, numa espécie de versão 2.0 do New Deal. As comparações entre os dois são constantemente plantadas na imprensa, deixando as digitais do influente chefe de gabinete de Biden, Ron Klain. Até a ideia já bem gasta de cem dias transformativos logo no início do governo foi copiada de Roosevelt e disseminada por Klain. Sem a densidade nem o poder intelectual e a visão histórica de Roosevelt, Biden compensa a desvantagem com números: seus pacotaços de 6 trilhões de dólares deixam numa rasteira muito distante os 650 bilhões, em valores atualizados, gastos no New Deal. Uma diferença importante é que os Estados Unidos que Roosevelt pegou em 1933 eram um país alquebrado pela depressão e Biden assumiu com uma crise episódica, criada pelo coronavírus e relativamente fácil de resolver — bastavam vacinas e dinheiro emergencial para atravessar os meses sombrios de desemprego e falências. Mas Biden aproveitou a pandemia para passar — ou quase, pois há projetos ainda não levados ao Congresso — a boiada dos pacotes estratosféricos.
O Estado todo-poderoso é chamado em inglês the Big Government e desde o nascimento dos Estados Unidos seu papel é discutido. Pais da pátria como George Washington, John Adams e Alexander Hamilton pendiam para o lado “grande”. O mais genial de todos eles, Thomas Jefferson, era um minimalista que achava que o governo deve ser “rigorosamente frugal e simples”. O historiador Joseph J. Ellis diz que o debate entre as duas correntes decorre de um dilema espantosamente simples: o governo é “nós” ou “eles”? Infelizmente, é uma dúvida que não existe no Brasil. Aqui, seja qual for o governo, é sempre “eles”.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Topics

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Related Articles

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons

Colombia: US Warships Near Venezuela: Is Latin America’s Left Facing a Reckoning?

Germany: Learn from Lula

South Africa: Litmus Test for SADC Unity in the Wake of US Military Overtures

France: Ukraine: Avoiding the Trap of the Russia-US Summit in Alaska