8 reasons for the left to continue working within the Democratic party
No surprise, I’m deeply disappointed Bernie did not win the nomination. I’m also disappointed by the convention which in some ways overtly sidelined the left to appeal to “moderate Republicans”. Tacking to the center is a quite standard strategy when primaries are over. Hillary would not be the first or the last candidate to do it. Back in March, I said it may not be the best strategy for this cycle, since Trump jumps about all over the place on the ideological spectrum. I haven’t seen anything yet that changes my views on the matter.
Anyway, I’m going to make a case here to continue working within the Democratic party. You may not be ready to do it today. You may not be ready to do it in November. All I’m saying is you may want to think about it.
Why?
- The relative ease with which Bernie leap-frogged all other candidates to capture 43% of the primary vote is encouraging. It’s a sign that the Democratic primary voter is open to left-leaning policies and candidates. None of the centrist, center-right candidates sparked any interest and numerous others self-selected out of contention assuming Clinton would suck the air out fo the room. This happened even with Bernie’s numerous alleged “drawbacks” as a candidate (name recognition, socialism, shouting, etc. etc.)
- Bernie showed us the right candidate will not lack funds. A candidate who sparked the interest of ordinary voters managed to raise more money, faster than the single best fundraising operation cultivated over decades.
- Many within the Democratic party tried to sway the primary towards Clinton. Others worked to be fair. The thumb on the scale was not as bad as many of us feared it would be. Now it is true that establishment Democrats might have been caught off guard this time and they’ll do a better job of derailing a left-wing candidacy next time. But we can up our game as well.
- The demographics of the result favor the left. Younger voters leaned towards Bernie by large margins.
- It’s abundantly clear that the electorate understands the relation between politicians and campaign contributions. And they don’t like it. Politicians who rely on high-dollar fund-raising will start with a handicap in the Democratic party. It is so damaging, the Hillary campaign had to come up with various strategems to reduce their average donation amount.
- Income inequality is front and center among the Democratic electorate. We need to continue pressing Democratic politicians, but they have heard the message and know it demands a response.
- It is actually possible for a non-hawkish candidate to be a contender for the presidency. That implies state and legislative primary contests should be well within reach for a non-hawk to win.
- There is a lot of work to be done to move the Democratic party towards better fair trade, fair labor, and on climate change, environmental policies with teeth to them.
- Building a viable third party at the national level is a long-term task. Unless you think it can succeed quickly, we will need to ally with Democrats, perhaps expanding the model the Working Families Party does.
To be effective in any sort of collaboration, it’s important not to be bothered by the slurs so many have thrown about so freely this year. BernieBros, BoBsoWhite, Deadenders, or in kos’ words “trash”. There seems to be a new one each month. Just as racists seem to never tire of coming up with racist slurs, some Democrats revel in inventing new insults for the left. It’s a waste of time to get upset over them. Michelle Obama had a good line in her speech “When they go low, you go high”. We should follow that maxim.
We need to take honest and fair criticism seriously. This, for example, is a painful run down of fumbles made by the campaign while reaching out to black voters. Read it.
For left leaning candidates to be successful, they will need to present a constructive message. Much like Bernie did. A purely oppositional message is very unlikely to lead to victory. Protest candidates require the stars to align perfectly if they wish to win.
It should go without saying that none of this “be nice” and compromise stuff applies to activists and protestors. They have no such responsibilities, but focusing on the issues they care about. And on that score, the Democratic party seems far more interested in managing the minutiae of the convention pageantry than in listening to activists. Perhaps that’s understandable in an era of TV based politics, but it was a disappointment that Nina Turner wasn’t given the speaking slot she was promised.
Part of the stage management was an attempt to drown out the chants from the Bernie camp. Look, this is all part and parcel of politics. It’s fine that people wanted to chant and other people felt it necessary to chant over them. Good, they felt the urge to.
That said, most of the Bernie chants should have been completely unobjectionable.
No More War: Shouting over this one is the weirdest thing. Are we to gather the Democratic party is for war? And what’s up with the USA chant? I understand the convention was designed to appeal to Republicans, but not that long ago we were mocking them for their relentless faux-patriotism and war lust. What just happened here? Here’s an alternative strategy to tackle this chant. Have the speaker say: “To the people saying ‘no more war’ we agree with you, war should be last resort” would have been beautiful to hear from the podium.
Trying to drown out Love is Love and Black Lives Matter also doesn’t make much sense.
And it's ridiculous to shout over Stop the TPP. This is part of the platform and a policy position Hillary has adopted. Trying to have it shouted over just provides even more fodder to the rumors that Clinton plans to reverse course on this if elected.
I can kind of understand not wanting to hear Walk the Walk and Ban Fracking Now. Those are clear criticisms.
In the end I think it boils down to this. The senior politicians and their teams who run the convention are used to operating within organizations with strict hierarchies. That’s what they do most of the year, in the US legislature, state legislatures or the DNC and state parties. There are rules that govern decorum, format, interaction, sometimes written down, sometimes not. Few people who spend most of the year in that kind of environment are going to feel perfectly comfortable with an activist protesting them. That’s just human behavior and conditioning.
I don’t think there’s a lot of value in getting worked up over it. Just continue doing what you do, and know that some Democrats know and appreciate what you’re doing:
So if you agree that there's too much inequality in our economy, and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders' supporters have been during this election.
We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done.
That's right, feel the Bern!
That’s Obama by the by.
Comments
Minor point
Opposing the TPP is not actually in the platform. What's in the platform, sounds good but there is an extreme amount of leeway in there.
For example, the platform states:
Well that sounds great! However, some would argue that the TPP currently does all these things.
Here's another:
What does that actually mean? What is 'strong'? Who's definition of 'effective ' are they using?
At the end the platform states that these standards apply to the TPP but they do not explicitly oppose the TPP. The 'standards' are written in a way that may be taken one way by some and another way to others.
Here is what the platform says about trade:
It's true right now like it was back then. The old devils are at it again. When I say devil you know who I mean these animals in the dark malicious politicians with nefarious schemes charlatans and crooked cops. - 'Old Devils' William Elliot Whitmore
Democrats’ priority is to
The Commonwealth of Dominica is a small island nation with 72,000 people living here. B. Clinton destroyed out family banana farm economy when he denounced subsidies from Europe and the UK for our bananas by denouncing the subsidies as unfair trade practises to the WTO. The beneficiaries was Chiquita Brands, a corporation which was able to continue their unfair slave labor practices in Honduras and other CA countries. Our family farms have never recovered
From the Light House.
To what Democratic party was the essayist referring?
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
One that never really existed,
or only for a few years between 1932-1945, and then only in part of the country.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Thank you for that refreshing reminder!
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Excellent comment, hope essayist sees this.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
I'd say you
have been 'conditioned' by being on that nasty anti-democratic site for too long. Your basically saying that authoritarianism is normal human behavior and people should obey. Well fuck that shit. There is no way that the Clinton's and the Third Way Democrat's who own and run the party are any thing I will give my consent to be governed by. They represent the evil global powers that currently seeks to 'rule the world' . They have every intention of destroying all human progress and stopping any insurgency of 'we the people' globally that dares to resist them. Decorum my ass.
What they did at the Hillary Show convention not 'disappointing' it was a horrifying anti-democratic display of naked authoritarian power. This is not what democracy looks like. The convention was a little taste of what a Clinton administration will look like. Their 'rules' do not trump the universal laws and principles that humans have devolved over centuries to protect themselves from these power hungry psycho's who always say they are inevitable. Greed is not good. America is not good.
btw. I live in a city and state that is solidly Democratic. I helped starting in 2000 after Bush's selection working grass roots for my county D party. We managed to elect a lot of so called Dem. 'progressives'. These corrupt bent pols are now busy demolishing Portland and our governor is trying to override a ballot measure vote to keep Nestle from owning our water. So open your eyes better Democrat's is an oxymoron. Vote for Jill she may not win but it's a start.
Well said Shaz, they will be known by their actions
At the very least the Democratic party should stand for protection of water.
To thine own self be true.
That's not a plank in the platform is it?
Is water sacred and not to be polluted, stolen and diverted?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
K o s is claiming that the 41% Independents on his
site are dissatisfied Republicans. Would that percentage not include Bernie supporters?
To thine own self be true.
I don't think it would
as he has freeped his site to get the 'demographic' that he wants. Most liberals (progressives) and actual democratic people have either been run off by the flying monkeys, banned or had the good sense to see what a freaking authoritarian nasty site it is/was. It does not surprise me that the indies there are Republican's. They are the demographic he dreams of and his site reflects this.
It's Our Lady Of The Third Way
The First Commandment is thou shalt have no other Candidates before Hillary.
Second Commandment is thou shalt remember thy Talking Points and Keep them Holy
Third Commandment is Thou Shalt Steal All Ideas Belonging to Progressives, then Claim they are Unrealistic
Fourth Commandment is Thou Shalt Character Assassinate
Running out of Steam here, anybody wanna take over?
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Ok, here is a couple more off the cuff
(or off the "Cough" as the case may be. Teeheehee)
5th Commandment - Thou shalt not have any god before Money.
6th Commandment - Render unto Clinton what is Clinton's (and what is not)
7th Commandment - Stone the dirty Hippies, for they are an affront to mine eyes.
Shit, this could go on all day, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
There was definitely religious fervour at the convention
the praise upon praise was like a beatification. I was thinking, it's not about you lady, it's about policy and government. Those are things Bernie talks about, Jill Stein as well.
To thine own self be true.
There was definitely religious fervour at the convention
the praise upon praise was like a beatification. I was thinking, it's not about you, lady, it's about policy and government. Those are things Bernie talks about, Jill Stein as well.
To thine own self be true.
That 41% includes Kos himself.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Kos also
submitted the idea that the donkey be replace with a unicorn as mascot.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Kraken might be better. No survivors.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Yeah...
"Release the Unicorn" really doesn't have the same impact, does it?
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
I defended you yesterday subir.
I have no problem listening to what you have to say although I disagree on almost every point. I think that's a distinctly minority position at C99P. All of us have heard a version of everything you wrote. Most of us reject all or a large part of it. I think people would be more willing to engage if you would not do a drive by essay then flee the scene. Nobody likes to feel they're being told what to do or think but less so when you refuse to engage them on equal terms. I have no problem taking contrary positions but I will always stay to explain and defend and can change my mind if the argument and supporting evidence makes their case. This is the last time I'll defend you against a hit and run essay. That's hard to say because I've always enjoyed reading what you have to say but enough is enough and it hurts your cause.
You aren't here to reply so I don't know if you care at all what I or any of us might have to say but here goes.
I agree that Bernie should continue to work within the DP. His network is there and he has long experience at success across widely different viewpoints. The Rolling Stones interview with Jane Sanders revealed that is sort of what he will do. He said in an interview that he was elected as an independent and that he will serve in the Senate as one when he returns. Sounds reasonable, very smart. There is no way he could remain a Dem in the Senate and be an effective voice against HRC and the party when, yes, when not if, they lurch hard right and develop Ronnie Raygun's memory on their commitments to Bernie following the election. He should work with the Dems where he can, develop/maintain allies in the DP, and powerfully disagree with anyone who pushes policy or legislation that goes against what he spoke so effectively for and against during his campaign. He plans to do exactly what he's done his entire congressional career and I applaud that decision.
I'm in the minority here when I say there is some value in trying to reform the Democratic Party. I also don't see much chance of succeeding. Bernie's right that we need more Bernie people in congress as well as state and local elected office. He has allies in Dem seats in congress with more up for election. We should help him build on them just as we work outside the DP towards the same goal. Beyond that I don't see much purpose.
The Democratic Party abandoned FDR after Carter. (Some might argue before Carter but there's clearly a break after Carter lost to Ronnie.) Bill Clinton cemented the wall between the Party and FDR principles. Those in elected Dem seats, in positions of power within the party, and the lobbyists have too much to lose personally to relinquish power willingly. Sometime there will have to be a splitting of the DP for any meaningful change to occur. (Unless we consider a scary merging of the two major parties after ejecting the progressives and crazy teabagger wings.) I don't see the progressive wing of the DP leaping out into space without a net that only a growing third party can offer. Since you framed your essay around Bernie I'll say that I think Bernie would agree that a third party is necessary. I can't see any other reason for him to also be working on initiatives outside the DP if he doesn't agree.
Finally, I think the DP is going to be both surprised and frightened when a large chunk of the DP breaks away over this election. It may be a big enough chunk to deny HRC her inevitability. Many who identify with the progressive wing have said that HRC is unqualified, unsuitable, and extremely vulnerable to losing the election. Many of us have also vowed to do nothing to alter the possibility of losing the election. Nothing. So when you go back to the GOS please report that most of us are living up to our word. I mean #NeverHillary so there's no doubt. That may cause some confusion and consternation among the self identified adults since the pragmatic Clinton's recognize no such principle as keeping their word.
Once more. Please don't do another drive by.
Edit: subir, I apologize for calling you out for doing a drive by essay. I missed your comments while I was writing. I fell into the trap of assuming ill motives where none existed. I'm glad you're here and I appreciate your thoughtful, well argued essays. We don't need to agree with one another to learn from each other. That's sometimes very hard to remember in these trying times.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
He is engaging today
His comments seem to invalidate the premise of his essay, though, on the whole.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I have not seen his comments
while I was banging away on this one but I'll look now that I know they're here. Good on him. Thanks for telling me.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
I see what you mean Dd.
I also think this is a lesson on how a writer who engages can change the perceptions people get from a piece. I too fell into the trap of assuming it was an appeal to reconsider HRC and the DP inside a pretty package. His comments suggest otherwise which is what I've come to expect from him over the years. I think I see conflicted feelings from divided loyalties that he's using his posts to process. (Or, more likely, I'm completely full of shit.) Writing and constructive feedback can help so I have another reason to be glad he posted here. It's one more reason to like this place.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
LoL VTCC, That should be my sig line. ;)
I frequently sign off on my essays with, "But what the hell do I know, I am just another asshole with a keyboard and too much free time."
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I've found no harm in being wrong.
So far I've lived through every time I've been wrong. I've discovered that embarrassment is a great motivator to avoid being carelessly wrong and that a heart felt, sincere, "I'm sorry I was wrong. What can I do to make this right." goes a long way. I'm also careful to never be wrong about certain things. Gravity, "unloaded" weapons, chainsaws, "My wife won't mind if..." among them.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Ahhh "My wife won't mind if..." Indeed!
Sounds like you have excellent Husband-Fu Grasshopper.
I too subscribe to the philosophy of, "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody gonna be happy...". lol!
As a matter of fact, one of the things I work into the more informal weddings I have performed is to mention to the man, "As a Husband, You can be right or you can be happy, but you can't be both, so choose wisely." It's said in jest, but only partly.
I ain't been right in 15 years....
But all in all I'd say I am pretty happy.
P.S. It helps if your good in one room in particular as well.
NO NOT THAT!
The Kitchen you Pervs!
Chicks think my apron's sexy.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
My line is It ain't only
My line is It ain't only the kitchen where I can cook!!
Personally I prefer al fresco!!!...just kidding! Those hot splatters could cause serious damage
Heh, on the topic of "being right"
My favorite statement is that "I'd rather be right at the end of the race than at the beginning. That means if I start off the blocks in the wrong direction I sure hope someone points that out to me so I can get running in the right direction."
Or, put differently, I prefer to be actually right than right in my own mind.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I do think there's the potential for a new party system
I can see numerous potential realignments, including a third party becoming a contender. But it's just as likely that a push within the Democratic party turns it back to what it was prior to 80s (minus the southern democrats who clung on after LBJ).
I pointed out elsewhere that a measure of the level of dissatisfaction people have with the two candidates is the renewed interest the libertarian and green parties are getting. Johnson is polling in high single digits, Stein in mid single digits. They've never had candidates that polled higher than low single digits and apart from Nader, no one ever got more than 1% (in the recent era). So it's pretty clear there is a desire for an alternative.
If I put on my prognostication hat, I have to say that I think much of the support for Stein will disappear come November if it looks like Trump is close. That's a value-neutral assessment.
@subirgrewal
I think you are greatly discounting
the dissatisfaction of the people. This election will be decided by a handful or so of states. The rest are solidly red or blue and with a couple of exceptions should remain so. So what I think I hear you saying is that you think that HRC can safely hang the success of her campaign on the possibility the campaign can scare a couple of million people enough to vote against Trump. There's no wonder she thinks we can be ignored and her entire message is "I'm not Trump!" I'd say good luck but I wouldn't mean it.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
If the convention is any indication, I don't think the DNC
will be amenable to change. That broken clock, Sarah Palin said, "How's that 'hopey changey' thing workin' out for ya?" after Obama's election. Now that may have been based on plans to obstruct his administration, but it has echoed down through the years as the weak tea of the Democratic Party has failed to impress.
The party has continued to move to the right, even though right wing policies are not what this country needs as evidenced by both the Sanders and Trump campaigns. People know the system is not working for them. They are understandably angry. The DNC's response was more weak tea.
People flocking to Sanders because, "Fuck this shit!" means people require a drastic course change. The party elite don't seem interested. At all. President and vice presidential nominees are waaaay off base on progressive policies. They just don't get it, but think that they do.
The DNC tried to force unity and just pissed people off more. Authoritarian tactics won't lead to a merging of idea.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Question: What brain type buys this unity bull?
Answer: The "shitfer"
Our village and town are so small that we don't have a village idiot or a town drunk. Nope, we all take turns.
No wonder Warren and Bernie spoke the first night--
this DNC Convention consisted of the most right-wing claptrap that I can ever remember seeing at a Convention.
Whew!
We ended up finding and reading the major [speech] transcripts, and print media accounts, because watching, or listening on the radio, was simply too tortuous.
In short, the entire spectacle was surreal.
"So, thanks, but no thanks."
Not only won't I join in, I'll actively work against anything, everything, anybody, and everybody who's trying to get those two right-wing miscreants elected!
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit and therefore– to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
The SOSD Fantastic Four
Available For Adoption, Save Our Street Dogs, SOSD
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
To address the 8 points:
1. The majority of Bernie's votes came from independents who joined specifically as a means to defeat undemocratic closed and semi-closed primary rules. Citing "43%" as you have leaves out context that invalidates the point to a significant degree.
2. Fundraising in spite of and external to the Party's fundraising network and apparatus is actually a good argument against supporting the Democratic Party. I and others have written essays on this very subject.
3. In fact the thumb was more like a cement brick. It wasn't as bad as we thought because it was actually worse. Even if it weren't why expend energy fighting against that when the energy could be spent instead making much bigger advances building up a more receptive party? This point strike me as mistaking what our goals are: helping the Democratic Party isn't one of them, helping ourselves against the corrupt influence of powerful elites is.
4. Younger voters were constantly derided and excluded. My response to point 3 applies here, too.
5. This is empirically false. It did not handicap Hillary one bit with a large majority of Democrats. In fact it helped with some. Their reasoning is that Democrats have to play the dirty money game to be competitive. Also, again you seem to be arguing that it's more important to help the Democratic Party than to achieve our policy goals.
6. This is just unsupported by the evidence. In fact the speaker selection and corrupt appointments-for-donors scheme exposed by the email leak directly contradicts this point of yours.
7. Sanders is much less hawkish but again most of his support came from non-democrats.
8 and 9. These aren't good reasons to work within the Democratic Party. See point 3. It strikes me as wasted effort: we have to first fight internal opponents and then build on that when we could instead work with allies elsewhere and just start building.
Haven't looked state by state
1. But Michigan had an open primary and the majority of his votes were from Democrats.
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem
Dem voters were about 70 percent of the total. Sanders won 40 percent of those voters. Independent voters were approximately 30 percent of the total and he won 70 percent of those voters.
Meaning that 28 percent of the total were Democrats for Sanders and 21 percent of total were independent voters for Sanders. Almost 57 percent of his support in Michigan came from party voters.
Also, a number of those independents were likely young voters who don't yet identify with a political party. My recollection is that the numbers were similar in states with open primaries.
Some of the head-to-head polls also looked at this question and my recollection is that he was pulling about a third of the Democratic vote nationally. However, his voters tend to be younger, so provided people 45 and under don't leave en masse, in the future they will be a large share of the vote in 2020 and beyond than they were in even 2016.
2. I agree with you respect to party committees. If a person votes exclusively on social issues, then it makes sense to give money to party committees, because the party as a whole is socially liberal, and the GOP is not. But if economic issues and foreign policy matter, the donations need to be targeted towards candidates who share those commitments, and those candidates may not include Ds or Rs.
3. The party establishment put its entire body (along with the media's) on the scale. Even in a fair contest I still think Clinton would have won based on the huge organizational advantage she had in the beginning,;the fact she had 100 percent name ID; and based on her popularity inside the Democratic Party. If Bernie had been able to beat Clinton, he would have cruised in the general election. However, if he had run as an independent from the beginning, I don't think he would have raised the money or received the kind of media attention he would have needed in order to actually win the presidency. He achieved a lot simply by running as a Democrat and allowing the Democratic Party and the media to reveal its true priorities and nature.
The Democratic Party isn't socially liberal. Tolerant
when forced, but liberal? The VP is a goddamn anti-abortion bigot. Don't tell me the party is liberal when it basically gets in the way a little less when it is politically too hot to do otherwise.
It's all about point of view.
Headline from conservative "Life News":
"Planned Parenthood Loves Pro-Abortion Tim Kaine".
Kaine is to abortion policy, what Elizabeth Warren is to financial regulation. The party establishment is happy to have him to provide the illusion of diversity on the issue, but his view will never have more than a token place in the party.
why would i,
a person in their mid-30s, whose entire generation has suffered from neoliberal politics, whose friends almost to a number have very little chance of ever retiring and living out life like every generation before us had an opportunity to...
why would a person like myself, having seen the fraud committed, having watched this primary be stolen on prime-time...
why would i see the presumptive nominee already tacking rightward, and who has just nominated a full-on christian conservative as her vp...
why exactly would i throw myself back at the dem party? why would i buy this crap, fear? sorry guy, that dog's dead. i'm done being an assured vote for these people.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
I sympathize with your points
but you get one thing completely wrong that is very important to the argument.
Out of the Great Depression grew the most prosperous middle class in human history and in these times we are seeing it strangled by our betters. We are seeing a return to the times before the Great Depression. The New Deal brought the promise of a livable retirement. The atrocious state of the living conditions of the elderly prior to Social Security won some support among Republicans. Even some Republicans could see the present conditions of the elderly were undeniably inhumane. Old folks either had money or family with the means to care for them. SS was an insurance style program that provided some measure of protection against the lack of money and/or family. It was totally inadequate when passed and was strengthened many times until the Dems abandoned FDR for neoliberal principles.
Pensions likewise grew out of the Great Depression and the boom following WW2. Employer provided health care too. Both were incentives to attract prospective employees in the high growth, maximum employment years of the 1950s into the 1960s. The WW2 generation and the baby boomers have been the primary beneficiary of a retirement enabled national policy.
The decline of the middle class began in the post Vietnam War recessions and political turmoil. Ronnie Raygun and Bill Clinton were really effective at driving back hard won middle class advances in the interest of promoting big business interests. The neoliberal wet dream is people living like they did at the turn of the century before government was forced to create better living conditions by a few labor champion presidents, mostly the Roosevelt's, the Democratic Party, and the socialist movement.
I can understand the confusion on your part. Socialist influence and hard fought gains in the late 19th through early 20th centuries isn't taught in schools. What is taught is hyped up drivel about the great advance of our nation brought forth by the captains of industry. There's no mention of how the heros were dragged kicking and scream, cheating and murdering, along the way. A quick and dirty introduction can be found in Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. He doesn't do a comprehensive history but he does lead the reader to ask lots of question and encourages them to find answers. I recommend People's History for anyone who wants to get a true history of who built this country.
In the interests of full disclosure I'm a baby boomer who barely got out of the rat race with a pension in tact. The thieving bastards of modern big business came close to stealing it all but failed in the end due to worker unity and a strong union. I got out with about 80% of what it should have been which is far, far more than many of my peers and about 100% more than my 28 year old son can expect. You're dead right that everyone born in your generation but also those born since about 1965-70 will never see what I've been fortunate to receive. Their expectations are approaching zero. I'm in this fight not for what I can get, I have mine many times over, but for my son and all of the sons and daughters in the 99% who are having the middle class stolen out from under you.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
I'm not sure this is an accurate interpretation.
That wasn't a result of coming out of the Great Depression, that was a result of The New Deal.
The Democratic Party is not the party of the New Deal. It never was, and it never will be again. FDR was an anomaly in the party. If he wasn't it wouldn't have taken this long for us to see a New Deal type candidate running, and the fact that he had to come from outside the party is telling in and of itself.
So I think we need to stop hoping and fighting from within against our own party to change it into a party that reflects New Deal ideals and instead use that energy to build a new one.
I don't have time to fight against those ignoramuses that support Clinton either due to their own "Privilege" (almost ALL of her most vocal supporters are from the "Professional" caste) while saying that our refusal to play along reflects our privilege or out of blind party loyalty.
Sorry, but I don't have the privilege of having the time necessary to fix all the flaws and rot in an unstable house full of mean girl types as every day I am sliding further and further down the hole towards poverty with no net in site to catch me on my way down or even any real hope of slowing the rate of descent.
I stopped being middle class sometime around 2009, and things have only gotten worse, not better and I will not support those that are for letting things continue on their current path because I really have no desire to take up residence in a Refrigerator box at my age with my health conditions...
If I am gonna go down, I am gonna go down swinging, but in the meantime I'm packing my shit and moving along to Greener pastures.
The DNC can fold my old registration card until it is all pointy corners and insert it someplace unpleasant. I will have no future need of it.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I understand your position.
The New Deal would have been unlikely without the Great Depression. I see the New Deal being a seed planted by the depression. The Dem Party was dragged kicking and screaming to the New Deal I'll grant. FDR also outmaneuvered the Party but only after he tried everything else. Then he got cold feet and got spanked. My position is that there is no harm in doing the right thing for the wrong reason and just because you might be wrong a thousand time getting it right when it counts is worthy of praise.
I agree about the Party. I am not now nor ever have been a Democrat. I've always been an independent who votes with those who best serve my interests. The Dems are completely gone off the rails. I think Bernie can squeeze something useful out of the Dems but that ultimately both major parties must fracture. How the pieces will reassemble I don't know, can't know. Working towards a third party to be ready for the breakup seems prudent and the most likely way a progressive movement will get a seat at the big table.
I come from less than humble beginnings and even being a child of the '50s I looked destined to remain there. I had few force multipliers to advance socially or economically. I had the fortune to have above average intelligence, people who helped me along the way, and a terminal case of the flying bug. I did the work but those who helped me along the way are to blame for any success I've had along the way. I was at a time lost in thinking this turtle put himself up on the post but life and my flaws did a great job forcing a rethinking of my own greatness. I am not responsible for any success I've had but I am totally at fault for every failure.
Most of my long time friends would think that a strange idea. Most are still believers that their hard work got them where they are. I also know many more who were every bit as smart, driven, and fortunate as me who got nowhere near success as defined in our culture. There are a lot of really smart people who are stuck in shitty jobs and lives. The kids I grew up with had little chance for more than they were born into and that is where most are today. They had more chance to better their lives than anyone ever has but only some found some small measure of advancement. Even the small chance of socio-economic upward mobility given the boomers has been stripped away by our betters. My experiences seem to put the lie to the expression of the American Promise as if you work hard and get an education you will succeed. It is not now nor do I ever think it was true. I see America as if you do not work hard and get an education you are far less likely to succeed unless you were born on third base. I have little use for those who were born to plenty and none at all for those who achieved and take all of the credit while forgetting where they came from. My loyalty is to those like you and my son who struggle daily to get by but keep on keeping on. The heroes are the ones who persevere and struggle daily but keep going.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
This caught me, I understand
You see, I did. A well educated set of parents born during the Depression having suffered along like a case of work-acquired TB and a 10 year hiatus for retraining. One earner-household, we did okay, not lavishly. 4 people, one bathroom. Shared bedroom for the 2 girls. Normal in the 60's. And they lavished me with education (within limits). I have the privilege now to resent being their Second Coming.
Husband and I tried to pay our kids' way. It did not work out at the end. Unemployment does that. Both my kids still have a chance at upward income, not necessarily mobility. Out of my control. But I understand they have done much all by themselves to get there, making me feel like we did some things right.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Eisenhower expanded Social Security.
Medicare, Medicaid and other food assistance programs happened under Johnson. Nixon created the EPA.
Even Reagan had to operate within the terms of the New Deal.
I agree that the overwhelming majority of Democrat serving in federal office right now are not New Dealers, and it has been a long time since we had a New Deal-type presidential nominee. FDR helped to shape the terms of the debate for decades, in part because FDR Democrats kept winning elections in Congress and dominated the Congress for decades. Republicans had to work within the framework he created. e.g. for a time organized labor dominated, no one would talk about eliminating or cutting Social Security.
Reagan achieved the same results on the GOP side -- he shifted the framework to such a degree that the Democratic Party accepted his argument that Government was part of the problem and that as many public services should be privatized as possible.
Obama and the Dems had a chance to change the framework in 2008, but lacked the will to do what was necessary. The Dems couldn't even pass a watered-down public option with a Democratic supermajority, and that same party failed to pass Cardcheck legislation, which had the potential to shift power toward the Democratic Party and towards the people. Most presidents don't even have the opportunity to enact fundamental change like FDR. The success of FDR's policies can also lead to complacency. If things are working OK for most people, they don't want radical change. People start looking for more dramatic solutions when the system starts to break down.
Unfortunately, that radical change doesn't always produce people with FDR's humanity and priorities.
Ike was downright *rude* about would-be deprivators
President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, uttered these words on November 8, 1954:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ikesocial.asp
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
How incredibly high our nation's
middle class climbed and how far it has fallen in the space of a few generations. Sixty years after those words were spoken we saw Granny Starver Paul Ryan doing everything in his power to do what Ike, a fellow Republican on whose shoulders supposedly he stands, considered fringe and stupid. I might be shocked were it not that the Clinton wing of the DP, the Party of FDR no less, agrees with Ryan. Clinton may very well accomplish everything that the greedy prick Ryan and his fellows want. Trump, his Party nominee, claims to want to save SS which is more like Ike. The world has been turned upside down. These fucks have to be pranking us.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Exactly.
It's like some of these revisionist books about Calvin Coolidge as a conservative hero. It took over 70 years before anyone even tried. If they had done it within the living memory of his presidency no one would have taken it seriously.
Clinton and Gingrich's discussion over privatization of Social Security also only became half-way feasible after memories of the Great Depression and FDR started to fade. After another financial crisis and nearly 20 years of wage stagnation, he's more relevant than ever.
sorry, let me clarify
i should have said any living generation.
clearly i didn't intend to extol the prospects of the non-existent pre-depression middle class, and i'm well aware that the victorian-era factory workers who would, at least spiritually, become the middle class after roosevelt were quite a bit more fucked than my generation. they'd be dead by retirement, we'll just be working til we die.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
spot on clarification
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Based on last night
What we're stuck with is a right wing party vs a far right wing party. Climate change will kill us before the Dem party changes. It might kill us before a third party, too. Giveen this, I might as well do the right thing and screw the Dems.
Besides, what's that old American saying "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me."
Really?
I suppose we have LOTS more of these type of diaries to get through before November. I should not have bothered even reading it. And you do sound really very condescending here, although you tried mighty hard to disguise that as mere "advice" to the unrealistic. We are done with a corrupt party that basically has told us to pound sand. How utterly ridiculous that you seem to think they are worth trying to work with, particularly with Shillary as their standard bearer. Quit trying to recruit.
And if you think we still have time to work with these people and try to get them to "move left" then go on back to that other hell hole and tell them about it. We no longer HAVE time for increments. While your party will have us in another war, this entire planet is at risk and we're most likely going to see more and worse effects from that very soon - they won't even consider banning fracking either, we can't even talk about it!
To move Shillary to the left? I think it may take actual riots now on a mass scale to get the Democrats to give a rats ass about income inequality, or the wars, or the planet. By voting FOR them, you enable them to continue and they by God will continue until we demand they stop. We don't do that by voting for them.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Bravo lizzyh7 Bravo
Bravo lizzyh7 Bravo
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
I dunno, I think it was well worth reading.
Not because I agree with any of it, and it's formulaic approach is a bit tired, but for all the wonderful and inspiring comments that I got to read below.
It boosts my confidence to know that I am not the only one that isn't being suckered in by all this Unity bullshit.
The time for Unity was BEFORE they actively worked to rig the election against the most progressive candidate in the race, and the only one that showed a SOLID margin of victory of Trump, a candidate that would have had tremendous coat tails and would have most likely led to a blue wave this cycle for the down ballots.
The time for Unity was when they had the chance to pick a progressive over a corporatist for the first time in my lifetime, and they chose the corporate backed candidate.
The don't want Unity, they want control.
Fuck that shit. I am done being controlled and manipulated by parties that have ZERO interest in representing me or any other member of the 99%.
I'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground and start over than stay in this abusive relationship for a single second longer.
Tired of the hippy punching, tired of the hypocrisy and tired of the lies, and that is all the DNC seems to have an ample supply of when it comes to progressives.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I will not be an Enabler
Its like these people have Stockholm Syndrome noun, Psychiatry.
1.
an emotional attachment to a captor formed by a hostage as a result of continuous stress, dependence, and a need to cooperate for survival.
The primary election was
The primary election was stolen~
The demicratic process was Tampered with; to produce the outcome of the Ruling Class~
Go ahead continue to expain to me how THAT ISN'T SO BAD~
At least with Bernie we know they had some sort of gun to his head we'll say here for the sake of my health; It was a metaphoric one.
What is your excuse for accepting criminal democracy death blows in stride, again?
If you would have been around in Patrick Henry's time you would have informed him of the virtues of TAXES.
And I am a woman who has no reason to be proud of someone who turned the democratic process into a Coronation and further empowerment of her own Rulng Class!
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
no
simply, no.
Okay I have provided a visual representation of your message
I really have no kind words for this piece and the other one you wrote yesterday. Therefore, please view the video that I attached. Note you and the Hillbots are the Borg.
If you really want to make a difference then please either refine your message with something positive, understand your audience and timing, work with others, or a combination of all these options. However, using a sledgehammer to drive home a delicate and sensitive message to a resistant audience just does not work. That is why the Borg theme keeps playing in my head. By the way, this is the MO for the Clintons.
Good luck.
We are the Clinton Borg....
"Lower your standards and surrender your principles. Resistance is
futileShowing your Privilege..."Naaa, I'm gonna go with, "Arm Phasers and Fire Proton Torpedo's."
Assimilate This! (He says while grabbing a part of his anatomy)
I ain't going down without a fight.
(Had to edit to add that strikethrough.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I don't plan on abandoning the Democratic party
I think despite it's obvious systemic corruption, there is maybe some hope. Most of my efforts, however, will be going Green because I see more hope there. To a few of your points:
The relative ease with which Bernie leap-frogged all other candidates to capture 43% of the primary vote is encouraging. It’s a sign that the Democratic primary voter is open to left-leaning policies and candidates. None of the centrist, center-right candidates sparked any interest and numerous others self-selected out of contention assuming Clinton would suck the air out fo the room. This happened even with Bernie’s numerous alleged “drawbacks” as a candidate (name recognition, socialism, shouting, etc. etc.)
Not exactly. It showed that an astonishingly large proportion of the electorate is open to "left-leaning politics" despite the lies that flowed forth from the Democratic party on a constant basis. In other words, this isn't a benefit to the Democratic party. It's a benefit to the electorate who needs to find the most reasonable home for those politics. For me personally, I don't consider corrupt neoliberalism a very good home for actually liberal policies.
Bernie showed us the right candidate will not lack funds. A candidate who sparked the interest of ordinary voters managed to raise more money, faster than the single best fundraising operation cultivated over decades.
Again, this is a very positive sign but has nothing to do with the Democratic party who pretty much cheated on funds every step of the way.
Many within the Democratic party tried to sway the primary towards Clinton. Others worked to be fair. The thumb on the scale was not as bad as many of us feared it would be. Now it is true that establishment Democrats might have been caught off guard this time and they’ll do a better job of derailing a left-wing candidacy next time. But we can up our game as well.
In fact, this is no reason to work within the Democratic party. What you've said is "they weren't quiet as awful as you thought they might be." That sounds more like a reason to search for more equitable grounds.
The demographics of the result favor the left. Younger voters leaned towards Bernie by large margins.
So... we win in or out of the Democratic party?
It’s abundantly clear that the electorate understands the relation between politicians and campaign contributions. And they don’t like it. Politicians who rely on high-dollar fund-raising will start with a handicap in the Democratic party. It is so damaging, the Hillary campaign had to come up with various strategems to reduce their average donation amount.
This is hardly abundantly clear. In point of fact, this seems very much like an issue which Democrats are entirely willing to ignore when done by Democratic candidates. How is this a reason to work within the Democratic party in either event. The electorate needs to start caring about this stuff and wouldn't it be better if we gave them an actually non-corrupt choice rather than working to reinforce the Democratic corruption?
Income inequality is front and center among the Democratic electorate. We need to continue pressing Democratic politicians, but they have heard the message and know it demands a response.
ROFL. Come on Subir. You should know better. They DID respond. They gave us the ol' razzle dazzle and it worked. LOOK OVER THERE! RUSSIANS & ISIS!
It is actually possible for a non-hawkish candidate to be a contender for the presidency. That implies state and legislative primary contests should be well within reach for a non-hawk to win.
Agreed, but again, this isn't an argument to work within the Democratic party.
There is a lot of work to be done to move the Democratic party towards better fair trade, fair labor, and on climate change, environmental policies with teeth to them. Building a viable third party at the national level is a long-term task. Unless you think it can succeed quickly, we will need to ally with Democrats, perhaps expanding the model the Working Families Party does.
This is the only thing you've said that I agree with. Happily, I'm not constrained to pick only one choice. I can work to build a non-corrupt third party and at the same time, see if the Democratic party can be salvaged. I have strong doubts on that topic and even if it can be, that also is going to be a "long-term project". We'll need to take the party over from the local committee level on up. I see no short-term solution at all but I'm content to work both long-term solutions. I'm happy to support populist Democrats where I can find them and at the same time work to get the Green party in better shape. Ultimately, without a credible threat, the oligarchy party won't have any reason to change... as we have just seen.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Thanks...
...but no thanks.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
WRONG!!!
1. Hillary's campaign has burned all of the bridges to the Left. They believe that having done so, we no longer have any other option than to fall in line behind Her.
2. This is why many of us Berners are moving to Jill Stein.
3. "The thumb on the scale was not as bad as many of us feared it would be." How much more worse could it have gotten???
4. And working with the Democrats benefits the young voters of the Left how???
5. Riiiiiiiiiiiight! Their figures lie because their liars figure.
6. Something besides, "Shut up and let me handle it"??? [Apologies for linking to LOF for this, but they seem to be infiltrating here lately.]
7. I will stipulate that Bernie proved this to be accurate. You got one correct.
8. Then prevent Obama from getting TPP through the Congress in December, or else there is no chance of success.
9. Like I'd believe any of the Democrats if they told me they were dead? Trust them with YOUR back and leave mine out of stiletto range.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I don't agree that people should vote Dem blindly
up and down the ticket.
People will do what the want, but in my case, I'm going to support Democratic politicians on a case by case basis. I will give money and maybe time to candidates the same way. I will not give money to any of the party committees.
In terms of long-term strategy, it's worth noting that the Democratic party apportions delegates based on the presidential vote. If a person lives in New York, for example, I would say vote Green. Clinton is going to win the state by double digits. However, if those margins are closer, New York will have less influence in the next presidential nominating contest. Same is true in a number of red states that went for Clinton in the primary. But in states where Bernie won during the primary, vote the Democratic nominee in order to increase the clout of those states in the 2020 nominating process.
If people voted that way in November, it would create a bigger opening within the Democratic Party.
The idea of abandoning all influence and rebuilding an entirely new party is something people can do and try, but as a matter of tactics, I don't see it working.
The secessionists in the 1860s helped the then radical Republicans re-write the social contract and the U.S. Constitution in a way that would have been impossible if the southern states had opted to remain in the union and to gridlock Lincoln's administration.
In that particular case, maybe it was better for the country as a whole that the secessionists left. But at a tactical level, the move wasn't effective for them.
If there is a realignment between big business Dems and big business Republicans, and the action is inside the Democratic Party, I think there's a lot to be said for keeping a foot in the door, even if it is simply putting the brakes on awful policy.
Well, in the case of this analogy I am more of the mind to
not jump into a car that is careening dangerously out of control.
I'd rather put it up on blocks and steal the tires and sell the rest off to the scrapyard, preventing it from driving that awful policy in the first place.
Just Say No. (To the Oligarchy)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Some good points in the essay.
But I knew in August 2015, when I started organizing for Bernie in Hillary's home county - Westchester NY - that if Bernie didn't get the nomination, I wasn't voting for Hillary.
And this wasn't something I came to lightly, it was the culmination of decades of data processing.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
We need a system with more
We need a system with more than a duopoloy, it is a broken and damaged system that is disgusting and needs to be remade. five parties might do the trick. We will have the Tea-party-ists aka Republicants, the Demopublicrats aka Democratic theft party, Green Party, Libertarians, and maybe a Progressive party made from lefties not liking the Dems, but not also likely to go Green? Either way, it would be a step in the right direction, and as history has shown, their own irrelevancy will see the phase out of the older parties to be replaced with some different party that appeals a bot to their sensibilities, but new name, and maybe a new set of ideals? One can dream.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Pages