You are here: Home Research Ruth Rosen Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism
Document Actions

Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism

by Ruth Rosen

Allison Stevens, a contributor to Women’s enews, a news service which too few good men bother to read, has just reported that the hugely expanded bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues now has the power to put women’s issues on the national agenda. The caucus, which Stevens says may end up outnumbering the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of 44 fiscally conservative Democrats, and the New Democrat Coalition, a group of 63 pro-business Democrats,” also has the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was a member of the caucus, which was founded in 1977.

Among the issues on their “wish list” according to Women’s Enews, are women’s health, educational equity and sex trafficking, women in prison, and international domestic violence.

All are important but will go nowhere if they don’t challenge Market Fundamentalism, the exaggerated belief and faith in the ability of markets to solve problems that have dominated our national political debate for a generation. Without directly challenging Market Fundamentalism, they will ultimately fail to improve the lives of ordinary American women and their families.

Put it this way: What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our society’s lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private magic and that government action would create more problems than it would solve. These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by invoking the arguments of Market Fundamentalism: privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect nothing from your government.

Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the unquestioned assumption that we all embrace Market Fundamentalism. Through constant repetition, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational and efficient while public spending is always wasteful and unproductive. (Tell that to people in New Orleans.)

Progressives and liberals have assumed that Americans would eventually turn against these ideas, much as they become disillusioned with the Iraq War. But the truth is, neither the women in Congress nor progressives outside of D.C challenge Market Fundamentalism directly. Two decades of the reign of Market Fundamentalism have impoverished both the language and aspirations of progressive Democrats.

So what they generally do is try to work around Market Fundamentalism; they try to gain support for their cause without directly attacking the 800 pound gorilla that sits in Congress, in our deteriorating schools, and at the bottom of the gulf between those who hold stocks and those who wait for their next minimum-wage paycheck.

Ideas that are not challenged or questioned become even more deeply entrenched. We have private “security guards” who are doing the work of soldiers in Iraq, but who are not accountable to the military. When Hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans, many of us imagined that the Bush Administration’s callous and incompetent failure to rescue the people of New Orleans and to provide the leadership to rebuild the city would lead to massive disillusionment with the Administration’s market-oriented rhetoric.

But has it? I think not. Many people seem to view it as one more example of the government’s incapacity to solve problems.

This is a huge problem for liberals and progressives. Even if a decent Democrat wins the White House in 2008, his or her ability to offer compelling leadership and to propose new progressive solutions will be limited if Market Fundamentalist ideas remain unquestioned. Ditto for the women in Congress who think they will push women’s issues on to the national agenda.

So, it’s necessary—no,urgent—that we immediately challenge Market Fundamentalism every chance we get. I hesitate to suggest conversations around water coolers because as most of you already know, most water fountains no longer work; there is great profit in selling water to thirsty people.

But every conversation, wherever it takes place—on blogs or among political progressives---should be viewed as an opportunity to explain to others why this exaggerated faith in markets is so dangerous and misplaced.

Take a look at Longview’s new Market Fundamentalism resource page. The plan is to steadily add new arguments and new material, but what is already there provides plenty of fodder for a collective assault on the ideas that support Market Fundamentalism.

Market Fundamentalism—this is what prevents us from having universal health care, mass transit, affordable housing, trains that cross the nation, subsidized care for the young and elderly, and government efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The list, of course, is endless.

Aside from ending the war in Iraq, there is nothing more important we can do to improve our domestic future. Ending the reign of Market Fundamentalism is a precondition for every kind of progressive cause. If we don’t attack the effort to privatize every public service that belongs to “the common good,” we will ultimately fail to move this nation in any progressive direction.


Personal tools