What exactly does the Democratic Party stand for?
A few days ago Bernie Sanders called out the Democratic Party.
"The evidence is pretty clear," Sanders continued, "that when you lose the White House in a campaign against a gentleman, who, I believe, will enter the White House as the least popular candidate in the history of this country, when you lose the Senate, when you lose the House, when you lose two-thirds of state governor's chairs, when you've lost some 900 seats of legislatures around the country in the last eight year, I think it is time for the Democratic Party to reassess what it stands for and where it wants to go."
Sanders said that amounted to a choice for Democrats to decide whether they're standing with "corporate America" and Wall Street or with a declining middle class
So what do the Dems stand for?
From the 1930's to the 1960's the Dems stood primarily for economic progress and equality for the working class, and it was a winning strategy. Some will claim the Dems still stand for that, but the working class increasingly does not believe it.
Part of what drove the Trump takeover of 2016 was the fact that liberal culture is obsessed with identity politics based on race and sex, having all but forgotten anyone who isn’t a racial, ethnic, or sexual minority — and the bread-and-butter issues that exist outside of those categories. Classism is a very real thing too — and this year, the white working class of America stood up and said very loudly: You’ve forgotten about us.
Anyone that has spent any time on liberal blogs has notice the priority of social issues over economic ones, even to the point of accusations that prioritizing the economy is a symptom of white privilege.
The problem with de-emphasizing the economy is that the Dems aren't speaking to the concerns of the voters.
A majority (52 percent) of voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the country. (Voters were given a choice of four issues; “terrorism” was the second most commonly named “important” issue, with 18 percent choosing it.)
Social Justice Warriors will most likely view the exit polls as evidence of the pervasive white privilege in American society. But the reality is that the exit polls show the opposite.
Overall, 46% of Hispanics cited the economy as the most important issue facing the country, followed by terrorism (20%), immigration (19%) and foreign policy (11%).
Unless liberals are going to start accusing Hispanics of White Privilege, the obvious conclusion is that liberals aren't just out of touch with the white working class, liberals are out of touch with minority working class as well.
When you think about it, this shouldn't be a big surprise. People of all races are pretty much alike, and have similar concerns. The trap of identity politics leads liberals to forget that basic fact.
Besides being for the working class, liberals used to be noted for being against unnecessary war.
After 15 years of expensive, inconclusive, non-stop war, the American public is war weary.
Yet, where is the anti-war left?
Just days after Donald Trump’s upset victory in the 2016 presidential election, Sanders published a high-profile article in the New York Times outlining the policy agenda for progressives going forward. The piece contained the usual laundry list of identity politics and spending proposals that left-wing types have been pushing for decades. What was striking, though, is that the article contained not a single word—not a single word—about foreign policy. The United States is mired in the longest war in its history in Afghanistan, it has returned to the scene of its last major interventionist disaster in Iraq, and it is already entangled to a dangerous degree in Syria.
If Bernie can't be bothered with a destructive failure of a generation-long war, what does that say about liberals in general?
“What anti-war movement?” former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked when called for comment last week. Medea Benjamin of the radical group Code Pink agreed: “the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years.” Cindy Sheehan quipped that “The ‘anti-war left’ was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement.”
The demise of the anti-war left isn't something new - it started declining in 2003 - but the total abandonment of the issue by liberals, like the de-emphasizing of economic issues, leaves Democrats will precious few ways to connect with a majority of voters.
It also leaves the Dems with the fundamental problem of describing what the party actually stands for, outside of identity politics.
Comments
It is about why this happened in total primary vote:
White: 50-50
AA: 75-25 Clinton (rough estimate)
If we put AA at 20% of Dem vote, it gives result 55-45 Clinton. Actual count was at 55-43, pretty close.
(Assumed Latinos split, which is generous to Sanders.)
If you want to analyze the primary in terms of race, to me it looks like Sanders failure to break through to AA community was fatal to his chances. ( He did much better with AA under 40, maybe even 50-50?)
'Do progressives want to do this again in 2020?' is my question.
I've been showing people a chart
where it clearly shows that fewer African Americans identify as Democrats since 2000
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/
Now if progressives want to start dealing with Trump on economic matters and forgo intense battles on other stuff...be my guest, you will have to ask African Americans for their vote
sorry , I don't see that .
Looked to me like total Dem. identified was at 70% over entire period. Is that right?
Went harder Dem after 4 years of Bush and harder again in 2008.
2012 showed a softening to the middle from each extreme, but no big change in big 3 totals of D,I,R.
I agree with your idea above- young are the edge of the wedge. A really thoughtful approach is needed.
Whole different level needed or (imo) forget it unless you are mainline Dem.
For a progressive candidate to be elected, not to mention a viable party created, I think this problem must be successfully resolved. As you said , we don't need half the AA, just enough to get going.
I am not sure what you mean in your closing. Will you say it again in other words?
While you are here. Do you have any thoughts about A. Baraka?
Thanks for your contribution to an interesting discussion.
Party ID 2000-2012
is what you want to look at.
Between 2000 and 2004 the number of blacks that ID as Democrats went from 88 to 74% and in spite of the fact that Obama got record numbers of black votes, Party ID did not change significantly even during Obama's time as President.
FWIW, it's really not showing up too much at the Presidential level...yet (with the possible exception of black men...which is a complex topic even from simply the anecdotal observations and talks that I've had).
As far as Mr. Baraka...I don;t know him that well and I would really like to see the Green Party go all in more so on municipal levels first...I'm not opposed to supporting or voting, say, for a Green candidate for city council and, in fact, I would like to see it...
Cooperation with Trump on ANYTHING will not go over well in the AA community, IMO...
Now...back to my hiatus but I wanted to answer your question.
thx.
But it loses.
Identity politics lost to Trump. If Hillary Clinton had attached herself anymore tightly to Obama I think Michelle would have given her one in the chops. Nor is there any reason to believe that black communities would have acquiesced in the special pain inflicted on their poor over the last 8 years if the president had not been black. Also, the Clinton-Sanders race hardly started as an even match even discounting the fraud.
I hope you are making an erroneous generalization from an anomaly. The 2008 and 2012 elections showed substantial numbers of working class whites were willing to work with PoC for a better future. If they are required to sign confessions of white privilege in front of notaries before their votes are accepted, get ready for a long line of Trumps.
I was not clear.
"It loses " referred to 30% AA vote in Dem primaries.
I meant that doubling his dismal AA numbers from the South still left Sanders too far down to beat Clinton.
And that any prog. would be advised to consider if he wants to give up on 70% of AA presently loyal to
mainline Dem Party.
Or first, try to figure out what happened. It seemed impossible to reason on this topic "over there".
It is better here, I think. thx.
Money is THE issue
If you remove money as a source of conflict by reducing income equality, all of the other identities become background noise. Democrats don't want to reduce financial inequality, because keeping identity-based friction going provides them with a lot of power and money.For example, identity politics has kept the black vote going Democrat for decades, despite the Democrats utterly failing that group.
I think opposing the choice of "hard work and economic
opportunity" to "civil rights legislation/BLM" as a way of making your life better is a very weighted-toward-the-establishment way of framing the issue. I think it's not likely that that survey was built to really get at what the life experiences of POC in this country are, because it's portraying the work ethic as oppositional to Civil Rights movements and laws. That's like taking the Torah of almost all Americans--the moral foundation, the thing that can't be disregarded or criticized, the almighty god WORK! and putting it in one corner of the cultural ring, and taking Civil Rights movements and laws and making those movements and laws the challenger to that unassailable champion, as if somehow Civil Rights movements and laws are not in favor of POC "working hard." There's an ugliness under there that partakes of the same messaging as Hillary's old statement that "Hard-working people, white people, won't vote for Barack Obama." This framing also totally ignores the fact that those movements and laws have, up until about 3-4 years ago, always mobilized FOR greater economic opportunity.
That said, YOUR point about economics being important to POC absolutely stands.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
BLM is making the economic case
The week before the election Alicia Garza of BLM was on Pacifica and made the statement towards the end of the interview that there needs to be a coalition between race/identity groups and class issues. That working on one but not the other results in failure.
It's not BLM I'm so worried about--
though it seems to me that BLM is a coalition of many different groups that sometimes have different strategies and conceive of their movement differently--but it wasn't really BLM I was thinking of.
There's a strong push from the establishment lately to carve the economics out of racism and act like racism is nothing but (only working-class) cops and vigilantes hurting or killing Black people--and middle-class white people saying bad things and using bad words. There's a whole huge section of racism that's just been carved away like it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying the murders and assaults suffered by Black people in this country because of racism are inconsequential. But at least as important is the way that racism has been used to drive Black people down economically. And up till about 6 years ago or so, that was never in question! The only people who questioned that were the far right on Fox News. Now, you have Black people from the political class blaming Bernie Sanders for connecting Black people and poverty, as if Black people weren't three times likelier to be poor in this country than white people. Suddenly it's a racist insult to suggest that a lot of Black people are poor. It used to be just a fact.
Agree about working on both, don't see why we can't, and this is a serious danger point for anyone wanting to push back against the establishment. The next time I write a serious article for this site, it'll probably be on that, and I'm both formulating it in my head and dreading doing it, because it's the kind of thing that requires one to stare at something really really ugly and figure out how it works. It's also the kind of essay that, once you publish it, you could be pouring gasoline on your own reputation and lighting it on fire, which isn't pleasant for anybody. But I'll eventually do it anyway, unless somebody else does it first!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I wouldn't sell the BLM short just yet
The nightmare scenario for the establishment is for race, gender & class to organise together. It is why the shipyards in Northern Ireland were purged of their Catholic workers. Can't be having all the groups that would oppose the establishment in solidarity.
That one of the founders understands how race & class are intertwined in the way MLK did gives me optimism for a real resolution.
Other than that I'd be in agreement with you.
So maybe it should not be so
Surprising then that 34% of all hispanic voters voted for Trump, as he expressed the desire to create the types of jobs that offered us a decent life style for the middle class.
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
They don't stand for abortion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_coul...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yeah . . .
but that's 3 Hillary Clintons ago.
Of course they don't
They'd have to actually fight for something for a change. That's way more troublesome than just taking corporate "donations" and
riggingeasing the electoral process.I quitted the Democratic party
after the CA primary also.
I call their political agenda "Miss Manner's guide to political correctness while lining up your pockets"
Your theory is "on the money",
in my opinion.
The rich and the corporations apart from that
they play the wedge issue distinguishing game, usually none of them care a great deal. See that revolving door over there? If you don't re-elect me, I'll be richer anyway.
Fairly well said, but ...
you lose me when you starting quoting the Cato Institute.
"The real power is in the hands of small groups of people and I don't think they have titles. -- Bob Dylan"
I hear you, but
you show me a liberal source to point out that Bernie totally avoided mentioning our perma-war and I'll quote from it.
The problem is that you probably can't find one.
I'm done with TOP Game, where source has to be vetted by appropriate political bias rather than for truth.
I'm Finding Quite a Bit of Value From Some Rather Strange
sources these days.
My go to sources have succumbed to corporate propaganda and only traffic in approved talking points and frames.
Oh, my! How that has been an eye opener.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Bernie voters getting screwed opened my eyes
I began questioning the hard-line "rule" at Orange State about any source they claimed was right-wing bullshit.
To be honest, though, I began thinking the Republicans were right about there being a huge left media - when I saw the horrible videos of Syrian children dying horribly from sarin gas, even though American TV blurs out much less horrific images, like dog poo, side boob, and plumber's crack - because our DINO administration had an agenda to sell us regarding those poor, dying children.
Damn, revisiting the images that were repeated, as if in a programming loop, even just in my own head, dredged up horrible feelings for me.
F*ck you both, Killary and Obama. May the universe create a special place called Eternal Burning Hell for you both! Champion of women and children, my ass!
It's Nice, Though. Knowing to Keep Your Wits About You With ALL
media sure is an important idea.
I feel much more clear in my writing and communication, even though I am much less sure about the veracity of my information. It's like the Dunning-Kruger Effect for media consumption and communication.
I think the lack of cock sure "FACTS" is a healthy place to be and fosters growth and understanding.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
This is the best description of Hillary I have seen printed.
I am not Donald Trump, she cried out. I am a women — well I am a human with a female anatomy anyway. Token to feminism but hatchet man to the women in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Honduras, the garment workers in Haiti, the women thrown off welfare and millions of working women struggling to get by. People are not stupid and these unmentionable casualties were greater than the “deplorables” we were instructed to despise.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Not sure b/c I haven't been following Bernie as closely lately
but the places I'd look: Democracy Now! Lee Camp's Redacted Tonight. The Jimmy Dore Show. And a whole bunch of podcasters (are you counting them as sources? such as Debbie the Sane Progressive. Nina Illingworth. Maybe the Secular Humanist. Maybe Tim Black.)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes Tim Black
and Benjamin Dixon as well.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
That game has a name.
It's called the genetic fallacy. I don't know how many times I tried to explain that over there, but it was more than once. You'd think all those credentialed experts would know that. I learned it as a kid in Logic 101. Kinda' funny, really, that they ended up calling the Associated Press a right-wing source.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Be careful who you ignore
If there's any lesson from this election, it's that we should all be careful who we choose to ignore. You may not like what Cato has to say, but isn't it important to acknowledge their opinion? Because others certainly do.
I'm a libertarian, but lately I've found it a lot more interesting and insightful to consume information from people who I don't necessarily agree with. I don't gain much from sitting in an echo chamber and listening to people I already agree with. I really love the C99P site and its contributors, this is an amazing group of people with great experience and insight. I watch Jimmy Dore's YouTube channel religiously. I don't necessarily agree with every sentiment, but I find them informative and they force me to challenge my own beliefs. I find myself learning new things all the time.
I looked to the libertarians a long time ago
I like their two planks: Military for defense of US borders only; and drug legalization. These two policies would transform this country. The problem with the libertarians, IMHO, is that they (I think Republican infiltrators) sweep these things under the rug and focus on the deregulation fairy tale. I'm sorry but just as our streets need policing so do the markets, as well as some degree of management, for the common good.
Can't disagree there
There's a certain number of libertarians who are exactly what some claim they are, corporate thugs who want to privatize and deregulate everything. I'm not in the camp personally, but I can't deny it exists.
Labels suck, they leave no room for nuance.
I'm so over source shaming. If it's factually wrong, say so and
back up your claim. If it's right, it's right. If it's opinion, so what? Everyone has them.
No, Bernie, he obviously wasn't the least popular
"...when you lose the White House in a campaign against a gentleman, who, I believe, will enter the White House as the least popular candidate in the history of this country..."
He won the most Electoral College votes. The elites on each coast may have voted for Shrillary - but we still have a Constitution, no matter what Barbara Boxer thinks, and Donald J. Trump did win the election.
That was least popular of those who entered
I'm not sure of that either.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Nah, Bernie is actually wrong about that
at the end, Donald was at 58% unfavorable and Hillary at 60% unfavorable. So she was marginally less popular than he was.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Still didn't win the popular vote though
But he probably thinks he has a mandate like Bush who was selected.
glitterscale
Federalism
Expect there's a reason it is one of the longest parts of the Constitution.
Do we want a country ruled by the east, west coast elites? Campaign in CA, NY, TX and win? Not me.
Could be worse
The current system has the opposite problem: the largest states in the nation are largely ignored. This can't be good either. Look which states warranted significant campaign visits in the general election campaign and it appears that many other states were pretty much ignored besides the ones you list. In the worst case the electoral college could produce a president who lost the popular vote by tens of millions of votes which would undemocratic.
Wicked Witch of the East. Wicked Witch of the West.
That referred to the dependably pro-Gold Standard vote on the coasts that was in opposition to the Good Witch of the North where the Populists held sway.
Heck. I'm an urban guy and I don't want that
I fled the Midwest the moment I was old enough to get out. After that it was New York, California, Washington, and now British Columbia. I am the very stereotype of urban liberal and I don't want my voice to dominate.
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
Conventional Wisdom?
You've got me.
Non rebels without a cause? They appear to be entirely pointless.
Compost?
My two senators, Franken and Klobuchar, pretty much represent the utter vacuousness that is the Dem party. Franken annoys me more because he always refers to his seat as Wellstone's..... as if Franken has in any way filled those large shoes.
(Edited)
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Humanitarian Intervention,
as pioneered by the Clintons in Bosnia, is what allows liberals to be pro-war. That and historical ignorance. Every time they want to start a resource war or do a regime-change they call the targeted leader Hitler and liberals buy in. Again and again they believe they are stopping Hitler and stopping Hitler is a good thing, right ?
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
I actually got that answer from my brother
And let me be very clear. My brother has a very high IQ. He is highly educated with advanced degrees in both law and IT. He passed his bar on the first go. He is an analytical and critical thinker.
When I said to him that we invaded Libya over currency and pipeline routes he told me, verbatim, "Hillary said it was for humanitarian reasons." That was all he said on the topic.
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 have the same problem talking to people about this.
I try to remind them of the Dulles Bros, the CIA and Iran and Guatemala. Many remember the history and understand that those regime-changes were done on behalf of Anglo-Iranian Oil and United Fruit respectively. They just don't want to recognize that today's regime-changes are being done for the same reasons.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
More than anything else, . . .
. . . it appears the Democratic Party stands for not answering your title question.
There was a time when the Democratic party was people. Now it is a product, marketed as if it were still about people, but most voters know better. Hence, the outcome twelve days ago.
The Democrats can no more tell you what they really stand for than a corporation making a sugar-free soft drink can tell you what its product is about. Both entities select to pitch images of lifestyles, not substance -- because the remaining substance is not much of anything appetizing.
The establishment, period.
As for the lack of an antiwar movement, it's up to the people. I've been writing against war and imperialism for a long time now and have noticed a few things from the responses. Most people simply don't want to focus on it for various reasons. I've complained for years about the lack of importance given to war and imperialism from the left, democrats, liberals, and progressives. For many, it doesn't even make their top ten list.
Now with Trump, it seems to have gone even further down the list because of his overtures toward Russia and other supposedly positive aspects like the neocons not liking him, etc. But that's not true, his appointments have proven it already, guarantee it. U.S. imperialism and it's wars will go on.
For instance,
this article about the democratic party will get a lot of recs. G writes an article about the war in Syria it will usually get less than half that. I experienced the same thing at Daily Kos. There would be a small number who would rec and read but most would pass it by and gravitate toward the party politics stuff. This is how it is on the left.
It damned well makes MY top ten list
Sheez, it fails on all scores. It impoverishes our nation and it is a moral outrage.
And I'm not even remotely a pacifist. Show me an actual enemy and I'm all about winning the war as quickly and expeditiously as possible with minimum friendly body count. I'm just scratching my head looking for that enemy.
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
But take heart, d.y.m.
They've learned. They've changed. In fact, they've learned so much as a result of these newest losses, that they just named Chuck Schumer as Senate Minority Leader. Channeling Talleyrand, "They have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing." Of course, he was speaking of the Bourbons, but he could have easily been directing that comment to the 2016 Democratic Party leadership.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Catch Schumer Claiming That Bernie Has Influenced Him?
Chuck Schumer Is All In On Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Party
Amazing that retroactive amnesia! Let's forget about how "Hillary Clinton’s ruinous White House run" did everything it could to prevent Sanders from a victorious nominating effort. Stealing votes, dropping names from voter registration lists, challenging voters' eligibility, and so much more.
But then, consider the source. As a regular Huffpo commenter -who I have followed for years- says about the subject of this article (and I don't mean Sanders!):
What he sez!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Democratic Elites
The Democrats don't have the kinds of leaders and legislators they used to have. All that matters to many of them are campaign contributions and getting re-elected. When they leave the Capitol, many find a cushy lobbying job and make their fortune, although many of them are quite wealthy in the first place. Since much of the military is outsourced, many Americans are not affected by the endless wars. The expense is added to the national debt and only a few people notice. I don't recognize the Democratic party that I was aligned with for over 40 years.
Well, the first one.
The Democratic Party is not interested in winning elections, but rather in keeping power in the hands of rich people. If they were interested in winning elections, the 111th Congress would have bothered to defend itself.
“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
This is it.
Campaign contributions, re-election. They will say whatever it takes to get more votes, and do whatever it takes to get more money.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I don't think they give a shit about getting more votes.
Not really.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Votes? We doan need no stinking votes!
Sanders filled NFL stadiums standing-room-only.
Hillary couldn't fill the seats in a county library lobby.
So ... who does the DNC run with?
They get their asses literally handed to them, and then go party in Palm Beach -- changing absolutely nothing. The 2018 midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats. You can see it coming already. We're going to be close to actual one-party rule after that as the Democratic Party may be reduced to near third party influence.
They have to get enough votes to keep the money coming
They have to remain the nominal party of opposition or Wall St. will ignore them. Beyond that, they don't seem to care much about winning. How many losing campaigns did Bob Shrum lead? How about Donna Brazile? These people are so bad they could be republican plants.
In the eyes of most independents...
...especially the ones who did not vote for Hillary, the Democratic Party stands for Deception and Manipulation.
To them, and increasing numbers of 'low-intensity' card-carrying Democrats, Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton sound like politicians who are simply standing up there telling you what they think you want to hear, but who are revealed when they are subjected to some scrutiny to be something quite different (like when they are talking to their big money donors).
From this POV, Hillary lost because she was not believed. Her 'presentation' was not convincing. Sure, many long-established 'Identity Democrats' talked themselves into believing her 'progressiveness' claims because they wanted so much to believe them and she had that 'D' next to her name, didn't she?
Bernie Sanders was a dramatic contrast to this common perception of the Democratic Brand in the eyes of independents. His campaign was unbelievably inspiring and we knew that he had a chance to change the Democratic Party's branding in the eyes of independents.
He has another chance right now to try to effect that branding change, but I must admit that the lack of any kind of bandwagon for that kind of change at this early stage is quite disappointing. It suggests that the The Losers are quite firmly entrenched in their positions of influence and may ultimately be able to manipulate their way into retaining control.
Gotta hope that there is reason for hope...
James Kroeger
Wow. You're right. It's not Greed they stand for.
The Republicans stand for that too.
It's Lies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's amazing how entrenched they remain
They'll make Ellison the DNC chair, but it's rather like placing a cherry on a piece of shit. The e-mails on Wikileaks outline a profoundly corrupt institution, and those e-mails will be used to characterize the structure, function and priorities of the Democratic party for a very long time to come.
Until there is real reform, the Dems will get creamed.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
...Until there is real reform
As they should. And, as Bernie always says, vote your conscience - not for evil, in order to let it prosper at everyone else's and everything else's expense.
When your enemies say that you have to vote for them and self-destruction because those offering survival - in this last election, the Greens - can't get enough votes (because voters are convinced, through repetition of propaganda by these enemies, that nobody else will vote for them,) you then have the opportunity to see through that feeble propaganda trick, vote for survival and protest electoral cheating, rather than letting it stand as a 'done deal' - something that has also been occurring with the bankster robbers and others stealing even people's homes - and basic rights. Evil spreads and corruption rots right through, if not eliminated,
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The People's Property Party or the Property People's Party,
not sure which.
Reminds me of the People's Front of Judea, SPLITTERS!
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Today's Sunday political shows were quite instructive--
so much so, that I plan to occasionally post some of the transcripts at EB.
From the interviews of Schumer and Bernie that I got to hear, I'd say that we're in for an extended campaign season--rhetorically, that is.
Schumer spent a portion [on at least two of the shows], having to try to distance himself from Donald Trump.
After two show hosts indicated otherwise, Schumer insisted on pretending that he 'really doesn't know him.' Sure. Apparently, Schumer has appeared on a TV show with him, and is known to be in frequent phone contact with DT--which Schumer did not deny. Not to mention that he's represented New York as a US Representative, or US Senator since 1981. (Bernie basically gave his standard stump speech, and vowed to work with DT where they can find common ground.)
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
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
"I tell you, I don't know him!"
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5vUEOeonKI]
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Hi Mollie,
Thanks for keeping us atuned.
I think we have become addicted to this saga. We don’t want this record-breaking, box office hit, to end. I would categorise it under the genre of horror.
Hey, Janis, hope you
and yours are enjoying the long Thanksgiving weekend.
BTW, I've been meaning to mention this Bloomberg piece that I ran across the other day. I sure hope the mega-rich don't flood in (in huge numbers), and spoil the natural beauty of your environs.
You lucky stiff!
Seriously, we never enjoyed a place more than we enjoyed living in Alaska. Winters (or inclement weather) were never too stiff a price to pay, considering the unspoiled beauty of our surroundings.
Have a good one!
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
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I Go With The Latter
"People's Property" could be seen as constituting the National Parks, the broadcasting spectrum, even the air, among many other things. So by default, I declare that "The Property People's Party" is the accurate descriptive of the political entity which thinks it's still pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheeple. Their successes are in the past now, so they are going to be looking for work as the Republicans resume the actual task of keeping the lowly peasants productive and profitable.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Compassionate Capitalism? Compassionate Corporatism?
Friendly Fascism?
Markets for Freedom vs the Republican Freedom for Markets?
I do know they are a property party.
Posting this, yet again, as it's super bad ass, speaks directly to this piece here, gj, and it's probably rather simple to mine it for some answers to your question.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed...
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
GREAT ARTICLE
If anyone hasn't read that atlantic article, I encourage you to do so. Lot's of fascinating history there.
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
US government has always favored the wealthy
It was expressly designed to favor the wealthy. Not a bug, but a feature. James Madison, leader of the "populist" faction at the constitutional convention, stated that "[government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."
Had our hallowed Founding Fathers genuinely favored a form of government that was committed to justice, equality, and individual freedom, they would have designed a system that endeavored to protect the citizenry from the "tyranny of wealth." Instead, they contrived to do exactly the opposite.
The result has been what one would expect. A government that habitually favors the interests of the wealth class at the expense of everyone else will inevitably result in the wealthy becoming even more wealthy, with the result that they can exert even more influence over the political system, with the result that it becomes even more skewered in their favor, and so on.
The relationship between the uber-wealthy and our "public servants", in all branches of government, couldn't be any more intimate if there was an umbilical cord connecting one to the other. Until this systemic corruption that is quite literally built into the system is addressed, nothing will change.
Is Bernie naive enough to believe that by hectoring and scolding Democrats can be induced to suddenly "get religion", and start attending to the needs of the commoners as opposed to their donors? This flies in the face of not only history, but basic human nature. At the end of the day, it really is all about the Benjamins. To quote Mark Hanna, a US Senator from the first Gilded Age: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."
inactive account
I'm not real comfortable with appeals to "basic human nature"
which tends to take me closer to conservative essentialism and arguments of political inevitability--but that said, I totally agree with about the tyranny of wealth and the naivete of Bernie.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Basic human nature
On an individual level, a brave soul may occasionally be willing to bite the hand that feeds, but on an institutional level - no. Not gonna happen. Whether you call that human nature or something else, it doesn't negate the fundamental truth of it. I don't think it can be emphasized too strongly that what is legally permitted in terms of funding campaigns and other rewards and payoffs to government officials (elected and otherwise) by the financial elite makes a complete farce of our so-called democracy.
inactive account
Precisely why Thomas Paine
Precisely why Thomas Paine who could not get even one clear reference to the rights of the average working person inserted anywhere in the new Constitution, finally gave up and moved to France where he was respected, revered, and requested to come over and help them with their new Constitution.
It is always about the already protected, privileged and prosperous class. Same as it ever was.
Still wondering what we will call that new party we need so desperately.
...And then the revolutionaries jailed him,
and came thisclose to chopping off his head. Seems his ideas weren't really all that popular in France either.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The revolutionists were Guillotine Happy..
Hey, they even finally used it on Robes Pierre. One of the problems with deciding that the way of violence is necessary, which it sometimes is, is that it can be difficult to foresee where it will go and how long it will continue.
During Obamacare repeal...
All shall be revealed.
Reopening health care gives Bernie a big chance for extracting some nice concessions from Trump. We may not get a public option at the Federal level, but making state level adoption easier, plus more funding for Bernie's health clinics (a very underrated program BTW), and ending prescription drug price gouging could all be some nice cookies to come out of this.
Of course, Schumer's financial pals won't be thrilled with giving up any public insurance concessions or drug patent profits, which means Chuck will have a very hard time backing Bernie.
If Schumer brings the Dem caucus along with Bernie on health care, we'll know he's on board.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.
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?
State health care funding.
The problem on the state level is that some states, redder ones, don't believe that waste people (the poors) have a god-given right to health care, or any other claims which drain the system that working people (deserving productives) provide through taxes. This is also true in some coastal cities, like New York and San Francisco, whose elites (tech billionaires and Wall Streeters) are hell-bent on removing the homeless from public view. Not blaming the entrepreneurial landlords at all who make housing unaffordable for all but elites. The essential problem in every issue is that when Dems became Repubs, the middle class started to die, good jobs with benefits vanished, the rich got richer, and the poor were blamed for their structural poverty. If any politician can solve that issue, they'll win in 2020. Bernie is off to a rough, wrongheaded start.
I don't see Bernie as naive
And in fact I'm appreciative of his efforts. For myself personally I am still unclear whether building a new party or reforming the Democratic party. I've settled on the new party option for myself but I readily admit that's a long and nasty road which, among other things, means handing government completely over to the Republicans for more than a decade. I see Bernie as my ally working the choice I didn't make... trying to reform the Democratic party.
It is typical of me that when I'm undecided I'll work both paths of a problem and see which pans out. I hope Bernie is more successful than I think he will be.
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
Rich people.
What's more, it's always been that way. See Lance Selfa's The Democrats.
“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
Kinda, sorta off topic... I
Kinda, sorta off topic... I hate the term Social Justice Warrior. I accept that the problem SJW describes is real, though. My church's social justice team does good work. Being a fighter for social justice should not be a bad thing. Can't we just rename it Identity Politics Warrior or something more alliterative?
It's too late.
SJW is an established usage with the young 'uns all over the innertubes. Old "bloggers" like us can't change it with our silly posts which nobody reads anyway.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Your question,
had a one-word answer from my grandma: War.
I'd say
Greed.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'd say: doing the least
amount of work (identity politics vs. public spending for actual things) for maximum payback (campaign contributions; lobbying; consulting; pundit; charity-foundation-influence peddling; book sale gigs). Used to be hard to represent the people - now it's easy.
Thank you for this persuasive post and dynamic conversation.
Why the conflation of "liberals" with "Democrats"?
As in this paragraph which I think is your own commentary-
If you replaced the word "liberal" with the word "Democrat" I would have no argument with the wording or conclusion at all, but in substituting "liberal" FOR Democrat as a synonym, I have many objections.
" “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 "
Fair question
I didn't want to be guilty of over-stating my point.
Thirteen years later, "I'm Not a Liberal"
On the tube: Bernie Sanders Explains Political Revolution to High Schoolers (2003)
Schools Without Walls High, Washington D.C. (okay that effervescent name made me lol)
"I'm not a liberal" at 26:40
being Bernie, he goes ripping on the media, there is currently no one like him. Welcome modern book tour! I hope people who aren't already buried will support his traveling word show, he has the best words.
-- Organized by Comcast and C-SPAN -- probably because he's a Senator? Thanks Vermont. Go Bernie
Solidarity
The total abandonment of the war issue
was partly because of an unwillingness to criticize Obama, yes, but also because Americans figured out that protests against war don't stop war.
That's an awful thing to say, but seriously, when was the last time the government listened to people saying they wanted wars to end, one particular war to end, or the end of war itself (something we never discuss anymore)?
If you're optimistic, I suppose the last time anti-war protests were effective with the American government was at this point:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Vfp48laS8]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Stand for?" Nothing whatsoever.
Give them money, and they will suck whatever flavor of wabbly bits you happen to have.
They aren't proud- business is business. No smiley.
no smiley
[video:https://youtu.be/z4PKzz81m5c]
Pages