At least in the US, I think you’re mistaking controlled opposition in the form of a pseudo-left Democratic Party for things alternating. Post 1970s, the ideological continuity between the two parties (austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class) is quite obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars.
Since the 1970s, military spending has decreased as a percentage of government spending and as a percent of GDP, while "for the people" spending - social security, healthcare, etc. - have risen dramatically in both measures.
One reason is that spending is often dictated by need. Military spending, for example, is hugely influenced by the current political environment so a reduction in military spending from the levels of the 40s-80s is not really a "for the people" change as it is more a "we don't need to fight the Axis/Soviets anymore" change. Similarly spending on social security and healthcare is something that is hugely impacted by the age of the population.
The second big factor is revenue generation. "For the people" spending might not be a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes if that program is funded by revenue from the middle and lower classes. If you only look at that spending chart you do see a dramatic increase in social security spending, but there is also a large increase in the social security revenue side that helps pay for it.
So your position is that post 1970s increases in government transfer payments are "not a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes" and represent "austerity", and that major reductions in spending are "largesse for the military".
I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.
So the upper classes pay more taxes in both rates and absolute dollars, those rates have increased, and the social welfare programs are the largest and increasingly largest categories of spending.
To credibly assert "Post 1970s...austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class", you'll need to provide some strong opposing facts.
To reiterate and clarify the point from my original comment, you need to ask why and to what effect spending is done. The population of the US is much older and much unhealthier today than it was in 1970 and healthcare is more expensive. So increased spending on healthcare doesn't necessarily prove an increase in commitment to serve the people and can instead simply be a result of rising costs.
Also that Wikipedia link you included conveniently doesn't start until the very late 70s just after the top rate saw a huge drop from the levels established in the post-depression era.
Lastly you need to factor in growing income inequality in these numbers. It is possible for the top tax bracket to collectively pay both a higher share of taxes in both percentage and absolute dollars while each individual person in that tax bracket sees their tax rate decrease.
If I used to give 5% of income and now I give 15% of income, my commitment has increased, even if the need has also increased. 5% GDP to 15% GDP shows a pretty dramatic increase in commitment, especially with the economic growth in that time frame.
OP asserted "Post 1970s", so starting in the late 1970s is the appropriate starting point (quibbling?).
The progressivity rate link above was tax rate, not percentage of taxes paid.
Let's say I paid $500 per month in rent a decade ago and today I pay $1500 in rent. What does that say about the quality of my home today compared to the quality of my home a decade ago? It says nothing because there are countless other details being ignored in that equation.
OP's point was that a change was made during the 1970s. You therefore need to look at the period before the 1970s and compare it to after the 1970s. You were just looking at the time period after the largest change in the top marginal tax rate was already made. Here[1] is the top marginal tax rate during a larger time frame.
Can you clarify which statements in the parent you're asserting are counter-factual?
The parent seems to assert:
1. the parties function as controlled opposition
2. the Democratic Party is pseudo-left
3. after the 1970s, the two parties have had ideological continuity
4. one example of this ideological continuity includes some (preference for? belief in? rhetorical advocation of?) austerity* "for the people"
5. another example of this ideological continuity includes largesse (i.e., generosity) "for the military, corporations, and ruling class"
6. the ideological continuity is obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars
* I'm not clear on what definition(s) of austerity the parent has in mind here. This could be the general pol/econ definition, but the direct contrast with largesse makes me wonder if the more general "severity" definition is also important.
Which is the exact reason the system is setup like it is. The federal government is only supposed to take action when it can get two ideological parties to agree on something.
The theory being that if the two sides can find common ground, it's actually a good idea.
I'm not sure that's a great thing, but you're never going to find a consensus that's both palatable to a majority and the right thing to do (of course, "right thing" being what I'm arbitrarily deciding is "right" based on my own values).
What's the compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery? Thank god argument to moderation wasn't the solution here.
There are two checks against the agreed upon "right thing",the national executive who has to agree with the consensus, and (thanks John Marshall), a system of (theoretically) impartial courts which can decide if the "right thing" is actually allowed according to the rules of the game (Constitution).
The slavery compromise was exactly that. First the 3/5th agreement, then the Missouri compromise, then finally, when one side got all of the power (which is what the system is supposed to mitigate the chances of) a shooting war.
Lincoln likely wouldn't have gone quite so agro on slavery if not for succession.
And there likely wouldn't have been a United States if there hadn't been any compromises on slavery. The two sides would have split at the outset, and either
1) neither would have been able to amass enough influence on the continent and they'd have been reabsorbed by a European power
2) after a hundred years of independent growth and simmering hatred, the two nation's would have had a war even more disastrous than the American civil war.
Moderate political solutions are (1) very frustrating and (2) much more effective in practice than they have any right to be. Often both sides of a political argument are wrong about the nature of reality and a solution where the major concerns of both sides are addressed is pretty good.
And the important thing is often that decisions don't happen in isolation. A moderate middle ground solution that fails often lends a lot of weight to the next round of negotiations when people decide what to try after compromise solution #1 fails.
Which, given that the US Constitution of "minimize the damage one person / group can do" is the longest standing constitution currently, I think it's one of the better solutions.
This has no historical basis. The system was designed to preserve control of government in the hands of the elite cadre who led the rebellion, whose ideological differences were quite small in world historical terms. It’s meant to reconcile these differences, but is in no way broadly inclusive to political interests outside this narrow circumscription. Concessions have been won to further democratize the system, but these were largely accomplished outside its terrain in things like the Civil War, labor struggle, suffrage and civil rights movements.
