The last two decades of the Cold War are filled with many political controversies in the inner policies of the United States. Within the span of sixteen years, America was dominated by both Democratic and Republican parties, yet, the general policy has remained surprisingly the same regardless of the presidential promises of change and shifting between the parties dominating the Congress. In his work A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present, Howard Zinn argues that this period is marked by a political phenomenon he defines as bipartisan consensus. Understanding what constitutes Zinn’s argument is essential in ascertaining the exact nature of the political situation of the US during the final years of the Cold War.
Bipartisan consensus is a political stalemate when both parties pursue the same policies despite being ideologically, economically, and politically opposed to each other. Zinn views such governmental unity as a negative phenomenon to the point of calling it “the equivalent of the one-party system in a totalitarian state” (550). The reason for such negativity lies in the absence of any real social or economic progress. As one president changes another, the general direction remains the same, with each administration repeating the actions of the previous one. Not only did the military expenditures not decrease, but they also increased and remained substantial even after the end of the Cold War to the detriment of social spending.
Zinn begins by describing the peculiarities of Jimmy Carter. Carter followed President Nixon who received substantial criticism surrounding his policy in Vietnam and the infamous Watergate scandal. In comparison to Nixon, Carter was seen as a better choice for the presidency. Zinn writes that Carter “presented himself as an ordinary American farmer”, a sympathizer of anti-war movements, and a proponent of human rights (529). However, the author also disregards these claims because the President’s actions devalue them.
Zinn finds that Carter’s actions are not supported by his promises. He draws attention to Carter’s support of the war in Vietnam during Nixon’s presidency (529). He also devalues his appeal to the average American due to his millionaire status (529). Furthermore, Zinn criticizes Carter’s tax reforms, which led to the increase in corporate profits. Carter’s foreign policy also added to his lack of popularity due to his inability to handle Iran’s hostage crisis and continued support for military juntas and dictatorships around the world (535). The combination of economic problems, political crises, and overall disappointment with Carter’s results has led to his defeat to Reagan.
Carter’s defeat heralded twelve years of the dominance of the Republicans in the political arena. Zinn argues that their terms transformed the US into a more conservative force (537). The federal judges in the judicial system were replaced with conservatives, who followed a pro-business ideology. The result was the restriction of labor laws, environmental protection (538), and cutting of social benefits (541). 350 000 individual were denied their Social Security disability benefits (540). At least one million poor children were denied access to free lunch meals (541). As a result, the social welfare of citizens who were not wealthy enough to sustain themselves was severely damaged.
At the same time, corporations and the military benefited significantly. The end of the Cold War was also marked by the growing global concern for the environment. However, the implementation of workers’ rights and environmental policies could affect corporate profits. Companies enjoyed substantial freedom and benefits during the Reagan and Bush terms (539). The same dynamics could be seen with the military complex. The Earth Summit in 1992 raised the problem of environmental degradation and the military’s role in it, to which the US objected (540). Bush and Reagan could issue any statements for the support of citizens and the environment, but they were always intent on favoring the same stakeholders.
A more surprising was the response of the Democrats, who favor social expenditures and emphasis on people over businesses. However, Zinn writes that “Democrats often joined Republicans in denouncing welfare programs” (542). Both parties were interested in maintaining relationships with the corporations, which is why they continued to prosper according to Zinn (543). He further argues that attempting to blame the Republicans for starting the pro-corporate course is meaningless, as the first tax reductions for corporations were introduced in 1978, during Carter’s term (543). Ultimately, corporations were the biggest beneficiaries regardless of the party in power.
Overall, I agree with Zinn’s argument that the rotation of parties yields no real change. First, the decreasing number of voters signifies the fall in the public opinion regarding the trust in the change. As Zinn himself argues, the voters were kept in the dark about many governmental expenditures and the percentage in the budget (546). However, in all cases, the voters wanted progressive taxes, which would relieve the pressure on the poor people. Yet, as each president decreased social expenditures and favored corporations, fewer people retained trust in voting. The voter’s abstentions prove the factual consensus between the parties.
Second, military spending remained a priority in each term. The US has continued supporting the foreign dictatorships and training their officers (Zinn 545). American expenditures did not decrease with the end of the Cold War significantly. Although the public opinion polls show that a fifty percent decrease was really desired (Zinn 546). Both parties supported the military and were willing to cut the social expenditures to maintain military operations overseas (Darity 15). Such a stable a consistent affirmation of the military budget signifies bipartisan consensus.
Third, wealth disproportion remained an issue and was exacerbated. Zinn argues that corporations derived their resources from the exploitation of the poorer countries. Specifically, he writes that “American corporations depended on the poorer countries for 100 percent of their diamonds, coffee, platinum, mercury, natural rubber, and cobalt” (532). At the same time, prices of food and basic commodities rose, unemployment was high for some social groups, and racial disenfranchising persisted (533). Both Democrats and Republicans pursued the policies, which enhanced the wealth of the rich and reduced the incomes of the poor due to the tax burden (Darity 15). As a result, the bipartisan consensus is evident in the continued neglect of social spending.
Altogether, it should be evident that Zinn’s overview of the relations between the parties during the final years of the Cold War is correct. Even though Republicans and Democrats continually criticize each other’s policies, they support them nonetheless. Since Carter until Bush, the American public has experienced the growing wealth gap, rising power of corporations, and support of military operations overseas. These expenditures came at a cost of falling social spending, restriction of workers’ rights, and neglect of environmental problems. The lack of any meaningful change serves as proof of the bipartisan consensus between the parties.
Works Cited
Darity Jr, William, et al. “What We Get Wrong about Closing the Racial Wealth Gap.” Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity and Insight Center for Community Economic Development, vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-67.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present. HarperCollins, 2003.