>>I hate to sound like a Commie, but it does seem to me that the Corporations have switched sides.
Think about how the major corporations, including the press (Robert McCormick, William R. Hearst) opposed FDR’s New Deal. Consider how Truman was similarly hated. Neither President won the big prize they were seeking, which was national health care.
JFK, LBJ, and Nixon correctly saw that the “commanding heights” of the economy could be advocates for the expansion of the state, but they needed the proper incentives.
Corporatism is, for a large corporation, a more stable economic system than free enterprise (I do not use the term “capitalism” since is is a Marxist term). Under unsubsidized free enterprise, a corporation may find its product supplanted at a moment’s notice by a superior product. And so industry groups get by far the strongest voice in the “common sense” regulatory framework that the federal government enacts and executes.
The only thing missing from this unfolding corporatist (i.e. neofeudalist) economy is serfs. Sure, we are making formerly middle class families into serfs by limiting economic opportunity, promoting indebtedness, driving up the cost of college, and valorizing intellectual over physical accomplishment. But this won’t produce enough serfs.
Maybe we could import some...
These serfs now come in the form of marginally attached labor - whether it be by agency/contract labor, guest workers, illegals, or other pliant individuals. It is easier to control someone when their livelihood can be held over them by short-term contract or threat of deportation. Such serfdom receives additional justification by being called "more competitive" - even when it reduces freedom.