Thomas Frank: Listen Liberal, Or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People
Hi All, This is a video of Thomas Frank speaking on June 11, 2016 at Printers Row in Chicago. As a lifelong Democrat, a son and grandson of lifelong Democrats, this is to say the least, disheartening. He discusses what happened to the party and where it's going. He talks about how close we came to privatizing Social Security under Bill CLinton, who had cut a deal with Newt Gingrich and if not for the Lewinsky scandal it would have happened. But mostly he talks about how the party has turned it's back on Organized Labor and workers/middle class and the poor in general. As a long time Union member, this video has made me convinced that we need to start a 3rd party and turn our backs on the Dems and DNC. To me the party is as bad as the repubs because they have been lying to us for years. There is a transcript of this as I got one through an email but I can't seem to locate it. Please watch, it's eye opening.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?409990-2/thomas-frank-discusses-listen-liberal
Thomas Carr Frank (born March 21, 1965) is an American political analyst, historian, journalist and columnist for Harper's Magazine. He wrote "The Tilting Yard" column in the Wall Street Journal from 2008 to 2010, and he co-founded and edited The Baffler. He has written several books, most notably What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004).
Frank is a historian of culture and ideas and analyzes trends in American electoral politics and propaganda, advertising, popular culture, mainstream journalism and economics. His writing topics include the rhetoric and impact of the culture wars in American political life and the relationship between politics and culture in the United States.
Comments
The DL/NC isn't indifferent to the working class,
they hate the working class.
But this is about the one DLC founder that matters right now.
Every day in office, the one thing that the Clinton's and their ilk have done is to hurt the workers and the poor in order to empower and enrich themselves and their accomplices.
From the Governor's Mansion to the White House, this is the only perfectly consistent thread that runs through it all.
From the DP to voter suppression, Walmart BOD while Governor of the state (ever wonder why the state that is home to the largest corporation on earth is so broke?), executing the mentally handicapped, but pardoning the rich, paying lip service to gender equality, except for poor women, especially brown ones, and very especially foreign brown women.
This has been what the mountain range of BS has been hiding. Whether it's the republicans screaming about murdering people that "knew too much" or the Democrats screaming about how ridiculous the ridiculous accusations are, all that is really accomplished is to keep people from looking at what the Clinton's actually do every day when they go to work.
People forget that it was a Clinton that first said he was open to the possibility of giving our SS to Wall Street. People are forever going on about HillaryCare, but I have yet to hear from one that has any idea what it actually was.
If we knew history we would recognize every bit of our recent history as the repeat it is.
I remember HillaryCare
My first reaction was: "She invited the insurance companies? WTF!"
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Harry & Louise Hillarycare Ad
When Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of healthcare, the plan was enshrouded in secrecy. Surprised? Everything Clinton does turns out this way. Because the Clintons were neoliberals, they didn't want a Medicare for All plan, which would have been simpler and was already in place for people 65+ since 1965. The Republicans fought Hillary's plan, because that's how they are. Democratic neoliberal policies + Republican opposition = disaster for the typical American. A fierce campaign to defeat Hillarycare produced the famous "Harry & Louise" ads, which I can remember seeing because they were non-stop.
and that was pure BS as well. They used it to enrage
the rubes and take attention away from the ongoing monopolization of every significant market on earth, but they would have been perfectly happy with this corporate fellatio, if it had been enacted, just like they are with ObamaCare.
Hillary Clinton was for single-payer in the 1990s.
She didn't push Medicare, but the plan that she resurrected was effectively the Nixon plan that Ted Kennedy scuttled in the early 1970s. e.g. private HMOs like Kaiser would provide the coverage, private insurers would be largely sidelined, the private HMO system would operate more like a heavily regulated utility.
In some respects her plan in the 1990s was more liberal than what she (and Obama and the Dems) served up in 2009. Worth noting that Ted Kennedy said walking away from Nixon's HMO deal over while holding out for Medicare for all, was one of his great regrets.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMm...
The problem with Clinton's plan wasn't the secrecy. The problem was that she failed to get any kind of buy-in from the industry or from members of Congress. The Harry and Louise ad was funded by industry groups, not consumer advocates. That should tell you something.
After that incident, I think Clinton learned the wrong lessons. Rather than working these issues at the grassroots level and trying to build consensus and political space for the issue and maybe go towards a single-payer option, she kept the goal of universal coverage, but opted instead for a path that brought her closer to the industry groups. Clinton handled the issue poorly, but at that time I think her heart was in the right place. The problem that I have is her transformation after that fight.
I'm sure she would have been more than happy to back Medicare in the 1990s if it was politically feasible. But she wasn't willing to do the kind of grassroots work that was necessary -- either that or she just didn't have confidence in the public, or her ability to sell the public, on the policy. She's small "c" conservative in the way that she operates. Ted Kennedy's experience probably informed her that Medicare wasn't a viable option, so she starts with where his negotiations with Nixon left off as the starting point. Unfortunately, in 20 years, the terms of even that debate had shifted even further to the right. I don't think that was on her. I think it's a reflection of the effectiveness of Reagan at PR and right-wing propaganda during the 1980s and 1990s. If Ted Kennedy -- one of the most skilled legislators in U.S. history -- couldn't broker a deal for Medicare for All; on what basis would Clinton or almost anyone else be more effective as an advocate?
Now, I think the ground is much more ripe for those kind of discussions about single-payer. This is especially true after nearly 20 years of the private sector destroying its own public image, through stock bubbles, accounting frauds, and a massive economic crisis. The health care/insurance system continues to get be a major problem -- even with the limited good of the ACA/Obamacare.
You nailed it.
Republicans bleating "BENGHAAAZZZIII!!!" distracted the nation from an honest look at "We came, we saw, he died" and her execrable Libyan policy that led to IS and Al Qaida footholds there. Conspiracy theories about Vince Foster pull attention away from the fact that in legal dictionaries, gross negligence is defined as extreme carelessness.
Whoever is giving Clinton critics their talking points might as well be on the Clinton payroll.
They're on the payroll of the same people that the Clintons
are. She/They are not the boss. They're the highly paid executives working on behalf of The Bosses.
Well,
I'm not a Republican, but the knowledge of the 70+ bodies of people associated with the Clintons came to mind when I heard that Comey bowed to her. Fankly, I see those bodies as business as usual for them, which is disgusting. And these are people who knew them; not counting the people they never met but who are just as dead because of them all around the world.
I think the dead are part of the big picture, just like the Wall Street ties, the foundation, arms sales for "donations", appointments to committees, TPP, flip flops, lies, etc..
The Clintons Are But The Public Faces
One would need to know to whom they sold out back before becoming the First Family of Arkansas. They are the true murderers.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Who are TPTB?
I go back and forth with this. Let's say there is a group of people who control who the leaders are and what they do, like the wizard of Oz. Why not just do the leading themselves?
And who are they? Why would they want a sociopath as a pseudo leader? Sociopaths are too narcissistic to take orders.
never mind
Do tell
Wtf?
I'm all in for a brand new Party.
I don't see any sign of the Democrats being cognizant of how thoroughly they have destroyed the concept that they are more moral or "better" than Republicans. If anything, they are the party that allowed the evils of our day to proceed unimpeded, from torture to election fraud to racial and social injustices to economic fraud to austerity for the masses and crony capitalism for the connected.
Because I feel personally played by them, if anything I think I dislike them more than I dislike Republicans. I'm out of their tent forever. No one hates cigarettes more than a reformed smoker.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I agree with you & the post above yours. Enough.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Why do people keep going on about an all new third party
When the Green Party literally stands for everything Bernie and our movement does?
Starting from scratch is going to get us nowhere. Why not give the movement a head start and join the Green Party, that already has an infrastructure, already has a platform - that we agree with= already has name recognition?
Which do you think has the best chance to succeed?
Join the Green Party. It's gone up 5% in 6 weeks.
Because the factionlization within the party ensures that it
it will never grow beyond the vanity/boutique organization that it is.
Dr. Stein is brilliant and she's almost certainly going to get my vote in November, but she's the rational face on what is, at least from my perspective, the perfect caricature of a hopeless cause, more accurately, a sizable collection of hopeless causes.
Then let's dilute the factions
How many new members would it take to water down the factionalism? They were polling what, 2% at best but now they are heading up to 10%. That is a factor of 5.
The Greens have a good candidate, a recognizable brand (none of this "The New Originals" stuff) a decent platform and the bones of a national organization.
We argue about taking over/reforming the Democratic Party, but all the Greens need is new coat of paint and the bodies to do the work. Bernie's revolution has both.
I think the biggest danger is that we have our own factions and might simply expand the internal conflicts instead of swamping them. Balancing the need for continual debate with the need to seize a moment is hard, but the solution doesn't have to be the moneyed indifference of the dems.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Hawkfish is right....
Although I don't want to say "we should take over the Greens from within" as if to imply that the existing Greens are not important or are wrong in any way - but I mean that by growing their ranks, bringing in some organization, the party could grow beyond it's niche market right now. They do at least have some of the basic infrastructure in place. And their policy positions are pretty great overall.
Yes, there may be some Greens who would resent that growth, but I do think most would like to see the Green party become a real force.
Thanks HK that says it better
I'm on summer vacation so I have limited connectivity and only a phone. I didn't mean to imply the greens were prey or something just that they are a good fit for the present moment, and politics is about alliances. And who knows, given the tendency of American political system to reduce choice, it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Why this emphasis upon the Democrats
as a "party of the people"? Sure, the Democratic Party had a role in creating a number of class compromises during the Golden Age of Capitalism, with some rather notable exceptions (see e.g. the Taft-Hartley Act, not good for the working class at all, and as noted in Wikipedia: "Despite Truman's all-out effort to stop the veto override, Congress overrode his veto with considerable Democratic support, including 106 out of 177 Democrats in the House, and 20 out of 42 Democrats in the Senate."). But if even a portion of what is written in Lance Selfa's history of the Democratic Party is true, then no.
The Democratic Party is an elite party which functions to give selected groups a "seat at the table" to shut them up while the elite consensus is being continually renegotiated. It deserves neither Frank's praise nor his declamation as such. It is what it is, and the "liberals" (including Frank himself) reveal their lack of a cause by supporting the Democratic Party.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
In the American mind, the Democratic Party
is the party of FDR and Kennedy/LBJ, and that's no accident. Today's Democratic Party is exactly the same Democratic Party from the 19th century, the party of the robber barons.
The Democratic Party was founded as, and remains the representatives of generational thieves.
All this energy directed towards the Democrats is pointless
We should join the Greens. End of story. Who gives a crap what the Democrats do - what matters is what WE do.
But instead, nothing will change, because of the fragmentation and the bickering about what oh what to do. No wonder we are screwed, if the Left can't get its act together. It's goddamn depressing.
Mobilizing the Left is like herding cats, it's true
But I think many, many people ARE joining the Greens. But speaking as a lifelong Democrat who thought I knew what the party stood for, there's some hopefully understandable anger and grief at giving up on them. Plus, while I think growing the Greens into an actual contender in US politics is a laudable goal, it's going to take some time, which means all of us ex-Dems are cast adrift and basically voiceless and representative-less in America. If no Greens win, there is no one speaking for us. (Now you could argue rightly that no one has been speqaking for us when we were Dems, but until recently, many of us didn't quite realize how bad it was.)
I am mildly hopeful that things WILL change, as people finally and officially turn their backs on the corrupt Democratic party and look to the future.
Edited: HERDING cats, not gerding cats, although girding cats could be interesting
I wish there were a Watermelon Party
Green on the outside, red on the inside.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Wouldn't the opposite have a better chance in America?
Red on the outside to win elections, green on the inside to save us from ourselves...