Yes, even though many Americans are quasi-socialist anyway (unfortunately, IMO). Fannie, Freddie, and the various government directives and incentives for subprime lending are corporatist. But since the intention was redistributive, they do have a social democratic flavor to them.
To me, corporatism is more pernicious and scarier than socialism. The shortcomings of socialism are easy enough to point out and to ridicule. Corporatism, on the other hand, directs money and social status to a large enough voting bloc so as to be self-perpetuating. Corporatism is thus more stable than either capitalism or socialism, and almost impossible to undo. Profits are privatized, but since social benefits accrue to politically favored groups (as in the case of the emphasis on preferential lending to minority groups), it is said to be a "win-win".
There is a loser, however, and it is the humble taxpayer and responsible borrower and saver. The corporatist machinery is too complex and too obscured from plain view to become a target of outrage. Have you ever tried explaining a TIF or a CDC to a neighbor who complains about skyrocketing property taxes? You will likely get a querolous expression in return, almost as if you had blamed it on reptilian shapeshifters. You're not against "affordable housing", are you? <g> |
