C'mon guys. If you are going to put forward a lefty conspiracy theory to explain why monetary policy is tighter than you (and I) think it should be, you at least need to get your story straight.
How many times have I heard the lefty argument that it was "Keynesian policies" (understood very loosely, the way the PoliSci (mis)understand that term) that saved capitalism from itself? And it's not a totally stupid argument either, because when unemployment is very high, like it was in the 1930's, people don't like it. And if they think the government can do something about it, and isn't doing something about it, that government won't be very popular, and people will be more likely to want some sort of change.
How many times have I heard the argument, both from lefties and non-lefties, that it was primarily high unemployment that brought Hitler to power? And that seems like a sensible argument to me. And Hitler was many things, but he was not a neoliberal.
Or just look at those Eurozone countries which have very high unemployment today. Which political parties have gained votes? The communists and near-communists; and the fascists and near-fascists. Not the neoliberals, or near-neoliberals.
The most damaging and dangerous time for the "neoliberal consensus" (or what we would anachronistically call the "neoliberal consensus") was the 1930's. Because unemployment was very high, and the "neoliberal consensus" didn't seem to have a cure (because they were stuck on the Gold Standard, which was the problem). The intellectuals veered towards communism, and the middle classes veered towards fascism.
"So if you wanted to critique my (and Kalecki’s) characterisation of the views of the wealthy, you might say that keeping unemployment above its natural rate is not a sustainable strategy (and therefore not rational). To which I would respond maybe, but there could be a reason why now, like the 1980s, is a particularly important time to keep unemployment high for a while.