Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt
You can relax.
The Democratic primaries were not rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Every single candidate for DNC Chair will testify to their fairness.
In a recent forum of the seven Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair candidates, all of them, including Sen. Bernie Sanders backed candidate Rep. Keith Ellison, refused to acknowledge the Democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. “There was so little dissent among the seven participants that at one point, when asked whether they thought the DNC tipped the scale for a candidate [Hillary Clinton] in the 2016 primary—a criticism lodged frequently and vociferously by Sanders’ supporters—none of the participants raised their hands,” reported Real Clear Politics.
Boy, that's a relief.
I was worried for a moment.
I was worried they might have to inject some Democracy in the DP, but they are dodging that.
Of course DNC lawyers argued the exact opposite - in court.
Attempting to prove that the Bernie Sanders donors knew the DNC was biased all along, and therefore cannot complain about corruption after donating money, DNC attorneys produced evidence of Sanders donors posting links critical of Wasserman Schultz on social media and participating in online petitions.
In fact, it's fair to say that the Democratic establishment just isn't into you.
Many committed Democrats are following the DNC race as a fight for the future of the party. After a devastating presidential defeat and nearly a decade of steady losses in Congress and at the state level, there aren’t many other political battles for party activists to focus on. But the candidates themselves are not catering to grass-roots organizers or rank-and-file voters. They’re seeking the support of a majority of DNC members ― mostly state party leaders and political appointees ― and doing their damnedest to avoid ruffling any feathers. If any of the candidates on stage Wednesday were auditioning to serve as the opposition leader against President-elect Donald Trump, s/he managed to fool everyone.
None were willing to call for an end to state caucuses ― complex presidential nominating processes that undermine a one-person-one-vote framework. When asked what the party should do about superdelegates ― party insiders the DNC has long granted special influence over its presidential nomination ― no candidate would support simply scuttling the undemocratic system....
Candidates couldn’t even acknowledge the DNC had botched the 2016 process. When asked whether the DNC “put its thumb on the scale” in favor of Hillary Clinton, no candidate would agree. “That’s a gotcha question,” Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director Sally Boynton Brown said. “I’m not going to answer.”
The candidates almost universally agreed that lobbyists should be allowed to keep giving money to the DNC. President Barack Obama banned lobbyist contributions to the party in 2008, a ban then-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz quietly lifted in the 2016 election. Even Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the most outspoken progressive in this DNC race, downplayed his prior commitment to reinstate the ban
Bold stands!
It takes real courage to deny any mistakes and defend the corrupt status quo!
"There is not a word that anybody is saying that we do not agree with."
- New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley
That's not to say that they couldn't agree on opposing something - white people.
One candidate, Sally Boynton Brown, the executive director of Idaho's Democratic Party, urged Democrats to provide "training" to teach people to be "sensitive" and "how to shut their mouths if they are white."
"My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt," Brown said.
So THAT'S your job! I was under the wrong impression.
Not a single candidate for DNC chairman is a white heterosexual male, which may sound like a good thing until you realize that you are telling roughly 30% of the population that they, and their concerns, don't matter to Democrats.
So what have the DNC candidates been up to?
I'm glad you asked that question.
The Women's March last week proved an uplifting respite for many Democrats left dejected by President Donald Trump's upset win and inauguration, drawing millions to marches across the country.
But with one exception, the people left to put back together the pieces of the party were nowhere to be found.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported Saturday that only one candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee — South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — attended a march.
The rest? They were at a retreat in Florida dedicated to the future of the party, hosted by Democratic activist David Brock for top donors and party members. To some critics, it was more evidence of how the party's leadership has shunned its grassroots in favor of its donors.
Rep. Keith Ellison is the darling of progressives because he endorsed Bernie in the primaries, but since then he hasn't acted very progressive.
Ellison formally endorsed billionaire donor Stephen Bittel to take over the Florida Democratic Party as its chair, despite the corruption and cronyism the establishment exercised to get him elected. Ellison also openly dismissed all criticism of Hillary Clinton from the left. He attended a closed-door conference held by billionaire donor George Soros after the election
The 2016 election cycle ripped the mask off the joke that the Democratic party has become, but the reaction of the Democratic leadership after the election - or lack of reaction - is even more telling.
"The Democratic party is where progressive politics go to die."
- Rosa Clemente
Comments
She's my daughter, she's my sister, . . .
Can't we just put it out of its misery, please. They shoot horses, don't they?
By the way
if someone wanted to post this on TOP, you have my permission.
Unless I acknowledge my "bad behavior"
.
at TOP I am not allowed to do anything at TOP.
Circling the Wagons...
With donor money drying up nobody wants to be kicked off the PAC gravy train. Better to hunker down and wait for the cavalry.
Except Soros just fired his chief investment officer after losing a cool billion on Hillary bets.
Hey Dems! The cavalry ain't coming.
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?
Even after the mask was ripped off
Too many people still didn't see who the DP was or who they actually represented.
And even though Hillary was telling them that she was willing to risk a war with Russia, they were still going to vote for her..
as we know unnecessary or illegal wars when it's a republican president committing them.
Bernie was asked if Hillary had won the primary fair and square and he said yes. Even knowing about all the people who had been kicked off the voting rolls or had their party affiliation changed. Or any of the other shenanigans that happened during the primary.
And now he is on board with Russia interfering with the election.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Telling Americans the truth about the DNC does not
Equal "hacking an election."
Obama referred to Snowden contemptuously as a hacker, too. Snowden hacked nothing. He did not have to. He worked at the place. He very likely violated a non-disclosure agreement he had with his company, but I guess that doesn't sound sufficiently "evildoer," so Obama called him a hacker.
Now,we call people who tell Americans the truth about the DNC hackers of an election?
How about stop this, Mr. President,establishment media and others: Stop clucking lying to Americans about hacking. Just stop it.
@HenryAWallace I believe the correct
I believe the correct term is "opposition research."
"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
No amount of lost elections
will force the Dems to reform.
Democratic guilt gone awry
Well, let's see. This brilliant protagonist for the DNC, who is probably still looking under her bed for Russians, has continued the long list of geniuses in the moribund party with more fine political analysis: first, there's Bernie Bros. Then there's rigging. And then there is rampant stupidity about who Americans wanted for POTUS. Then there's DWS, who always plays by the rules--her rules. Then there's Black Lives Don't Matter. After that there are deplorables. Then there is that imaginary animal called "moderate Republicans" that the DNC courted. Now, she of melanin-deficient integument is telling white people to fuck off--and proud of it. Did I mention Russians?
So who composes the decomposing Donkey Doofus Party? C.G.I. (like the great American classic) is now Gone with the Wind. Barack Obama--who lives on a golf course and is the only black allowed? How about the Billionaires' Boys Club? Progressives? Nah, they're progressively distancing themselves from this political disaster.
By my calculations, there are 5,000 party members who control 82.7% of the national wealth.
I'm just so angry
and I resent that these protests are based on emotionalism driven by the same machine that gave us Donald.
Clintons need to freaking die off. Of course I mean than in a symbolic way. I think I mean that, but I'm not sure how evil I have become post-Clinton influence. Might need some soul-saving here.
For that matter, let me go on record: We are going to see a huge religious uprising at some time during this administration, and it will be as dangerous as you can imagine or worse.
@gustogirl A very recent Religion in
A very recent Religion in America study shows that in 2015:
25% of Americans are not affiliated with any church or religion
21% of Americans are Roman Catholic
16% of Americans are Evangelical Christians
The rest are in single digits.
Of Americans aged 18 to 35, 39% are not affiliated with any church or religion
Since the end of WW2, the "unchurched" has been the fastest growing segment of the populaiton.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Totally agree. They make me want to vomit. But they aren't
going away anytime soon: The Return of Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz
The latest rumor is the worst one of all: After losing to a TV celebrity, Clinton reportedly wants to become one herself
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
I am hoping for a meditative mindfulness contemplative
kindness compassion generosity gratitude Revolution.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
That's a lot of hoping ...
Can a revolution have the characteristics you describe?
Isn't that weaseling around of what the realities of a revolution usually are?
I looked up the definition of "revolution" in the google and none of the ones listed resemble much of anything your adjectives describe.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Buddhism is something you do;
not something you believe.
I hope so too but I don't think it's going to happen in a large scale way.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Reply to duckpin . .
I am leaving this little bit of code in my comment so maybe it will come up as a reply.
Duckpin,
Cool.
According to Jesus, Christianity is supposed to be something you do as well.
And . . .
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
@mhagle I was thinking of the
I was thinking of the sustained meditation various schools of Buddhism are based on and the effort it takes.
I agree that Christianity, especially the RC version, is based partly on good works and charitable actions much like the eightfold path of Mahayana Buddhism and its sects. You are certainly correct.
I think it's also correct to say that most evangelical Protestant sects do not emphasize good works and do not put much store in them. This religion relies on a sudden blessing from above and that wipes out all sorts of terrible actions the convert has engaged in throughout his/her life.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I have never actually studied Buddhism, but . . .
I am encouraged by spiritual teachers who sort of transcend all religions and draw from the beauty in many. Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, Mooji, Father Richard Rohr and others. They often quote Buddha and I don't see much difference between Buddha and Jesus. Sadly, it is true that evangelical christianity does not follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is just a figurehead = an idol. Lots of well meaning people though.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
So what are we gonna do about it?
Yesterday I got a fundraising email from yet another new group, a PAC, being formed to take back control of the Democratic party. Leslie Danks Burke, a losing Democratic candidate for NY assembly has started Trailblazers PAC , a nonpartisan group, to support grassroots candidates and get money out of politics. For some reason the proliferation of reform/resistance groups is making me less inclined to get involved with a group.
Gandhi?
http://www.biography.com/people/mahatma-gandhi-9305898
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
(redacted) - the double whammy super burger strikes again /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
civil non-violent disobedience movement leaders like Gandhi
(in case that comment was directed at me) ...
did not lead revolutions in my books, because his movement was non-violent and non-militaristic.
Here is a nice long list with revolutions in the past. Afaik, there was none that was non-violent. May be one should use the word 'revolution' for what it is, violent actions. And then ask oneself if one really wants a revolution or a civil disobedience movement. I wished the word 'revolution' would be used in a more honest context.
I am sure some civil non-violent disobedience movements had similar (if not better) results) than revolutions. There are many examples for that as well.
Just saying.
PS. I am stuck in dark bunker (so to speak) and bored. That's why I can't help posting again.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Thanks for posting this, Marilyn.
While reading it, I thought of how I've been telling people that Americans must not go into military service as a resistance to these endless wars, and government workers must not cooperate with the administration when they want to implement illegal acts. Resistance by the people is the only way. It is up to us to stop this regime. No one can save us from ourselves.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Can the Party be as bad as it is out of happenstance?
We all know that the Democrats have collectively lost over 1,000 seats since President Obama was inaugurated, both at the Federal and state levels. We are down to 12 governorships, 13 state Senate majorities and and 18 state House majorities. For all the people crowing about Hillary's victory in the popular vote, yes, she is clearly the President of New York and California, but in 37 out of 50 states she did not win a majority vote.
Did this happen in a vacuum? Where was the effort to rebuild at the state and local levels over the past eight years? The strategy seems to be to simply rely on a marquee top of ticket to bring in down-ticket voters, assuming there are any Democratic contenders to vote for.
In any company that I have ever worked in, the upper level management responsible for such wholesale loss of market would be summarily fired and yet, strangely the Democrats have chosen to stick loyally with the leaders and architects responsible for the debacle over the last eight years. I don't know if there is such a term, but I would call them Nadirists, a political party determined to explore previously unknown depths of political irrelevance.
To get back to my question at the top of this comment, no, I don't believe it is possible to be that bad unconsciously, one would really have to work at it. So, I think all those jokes over the years about the Democrats being the Generals (the designated losers) against the Globetrotters turned out to be true.
I won't even get into about the pathetic performance of the Executive branch over the last eight years when all this voter purging and vote suppression was being conducted in the open and being reported on regularly. If the Dems cared about voter access, they could have easily launched a number of civil and voting rights investigations out of the Justice Department, but they gave voters the same priority they gave to homeowners and the taxpayers who funded the bank bailouts - none.
How much evidence does someone need before concluding that the Democratic Party has been primarily a con designed to enable Republican policies at least since the Clinton era? They distracted us with social issues, and even on those they led from behind, kicking and screaming and "evolving" (gay marriage for example) only when the courts and constituency left them in the dust.
" “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 "
@Phoebe Loosinhouse - http://7www.alternet
- http://7www.alternet.org/why-are-these-clowns-winning-secrets-right-wing...
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Of course the demise
of the dems was done purposefully, by the likes of Al From, the Clintons, and BO.
The party was taken over by repubs. The DNC (or DLC) was funded by repubs. They got into power and made sure to kneecap liberals and support dinos as much as they could. They established super-delegates to keep the dinos/repubs in power.
Why do people keep citing democratic stupidity or carelessness or vacuums or other such nonsense?
Did you not hear of the strategy to win over moderate repubs and ignore the working people?
What was done was carefully orchestrated and purposeful.
dfarrah
Your comment makes Kos' "More and better Democrats,"
sound decidedly sinister. I shoulda known!
"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"
There is the belief that they can't be fired
Only a 3rd party rising is any threat to their employment.
That's why they are obsessed with beating down real leftists and tiny minority parties, while being OK with losing to Repubs.
Reply to mimi . . .
I am clicking the blue reply button, but it comes up to this window . . .
Mimi,
I think I get your point. You are saying that the word "revolution" always implies violence. In that article about Gandhi they used the term "non-violent civil disobedience."
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
@mhagle
Although Bernie used the term revolution as in a turning, a change, as in the revolution of an LP record on a turntable, or of the Earth...
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.
Reply to Raggedy Ann
The blue reply button brought me here . . .
Raggedy Ann,
I had not thought about encouraging people not to join the military, but you are probably right. I have a nephew who is a career army dude. Good guy with wife and two little boys. He was army reserve in high school, he worked construction some, but this is mostly all he has ever done. I don't know what I could say to him, but I would definitely make the argument against joining to someone considering entering.
What struck me most about reading and watching videos on Gandhi was that he got the Indian people to quit buying anything from the British. They even wove their own fabrics for their clothes!
What if a large group of people quit buying oil, gas, big ag food, walmart clothes, etc., as a protest? I have had the mindset that ocean shipping is going to end because of giant waves in ocean storms resulting from the gulfstream shutdown (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-han...), so the global economy would end and we wouldn't have access to those things. But . . . what if we did it as a means of protest?
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Khadi is the fabric Gandhi wove and encouraged
others to weave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadi
WorldMarket.com sells some items made with khadi fabric at reasonable prices. I rather like them. http://www.worldmarket.com/search.do?query=khadi
@mhagle
Boycotts are great - enough involvement and the money/power of these government-buying corporations is reduced. We don't need them to suck up all of the money and pollute the Earth.
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.
HI, Marilyn,
just saw this response, so hope you get this response,
Those already serving is one thing, I get that, but I'm hoping less millennials opt to serve. It could be hard because less career opportunities make the military a career option, which I think is the plan. I do hear career bureaucrats are already slowing things down within. Glad to hear it.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
The corporate Dems will be the death of us. Learned nothing.
Should Progressives Let Corporate Democrats Lead and Be the Face Of the Resistance?
Much more at the link above. It's sad that even Bernie and Ellison appear to have drank the Kool-Aid. Guess it is going to take another beating in 2018 for these idiots to get the message.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
@ZimInSeattle People, including me,
People, including me, have to face the facts that [1] the Democratic apparatus is actively anti-working class; and [2] they are relying on sterile identity politics to try and regain power; but as long as they retain a donor class (Big Finance; Silicon Valley; Hollywood) they can forego the power.
This is the message of the Clinton/Obama clique that is holding to party power.
This paves the way for fascism - corporate control of everyday life backed up by the police/military/intelligence agencies.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
@duckpin Agreed. They could
Agreed. They could careless about being in power. 'Twas ever thus.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
NH State Rep Timothy Smith.
On September 23 2015, NH State Rep Timothy Smith wrote:1
So, who ya gonna believe?
Smith, who had every career incentive to play ball and shut up, but chose to take a risk and speak out?
The DNC, which violated its own charter, and whose acting head says she'd do it again, but would not risk getting caught emailing next time? ("Next time, pick up da phone.")
Career Democrats who, like Smith, know on which side and by whom their political career is buttered, but, unlike Smith, did play ball and shut up?
IIRC, TWO members of the D.C. House, the two co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Sanders founded, and ONE D.C. Senator endorsed Sanders. That is no coincidence. Those numbers were supposed to show how universally wonderful Hillary was, but all they proved to me was the truth of Rep. Smith's brave comments.
FYI: In Game Change, we learn that Reid and other Democratic members of the U.S. Senate were prepared to make Hillary sit down and shut up after she lost the 2008 primary. They were going to freeze her out (though it's hard to imagine how she could have been even more ineffective as a Senator). Fortunately for her, though, she cut a deal with Obama for Secretary of State.
1 I can't remember if Smith posted that on his facebook page, or if he emailed it to those who had posted on his facebook page to thank him for endorsing Sanders.
The Democratic Party has been useless for a long time
The Democratic Party of FDR was about economic justice. Somewhere along the way it became all about identity politics. Probably because Democratic candidates realized that they needed the establishment to get into office. The weakening started with JFK, got stronger with with LBJ, who was a major war hawk. Carter was a break from this but too weak to fight the trend. Saint Ronnie could claim the labor vote because the Democratic Party had abandoned economic justice by then. By the time that Clinton got elected the conversion was not only complete, but whole heatedly endorsed by the now corporatist DNC.
Is this enlightened attitude towards the DNC by Progressives something new? No, there is real history behind this. During the Vietnam War protest era the New Left was open in their disgust of Liberals and the DNC. The protests against the DNC in convention in Chicago was from the Left. The New Left held the Democrats in much lower esteem than Republicans. The Democrats were seen as hypocrites, talking about Peace and Social justice while doing the exact opposite. At least Republicans were true to their beliefs.
The demise of the Democratic Party is trending across America, except for NY, California and Massachusetts. In these area we live in a bubble. The Democratic Party will never gain any national power without bringing the middle of the country with them. This is currently impossible as the Democrats are circling the wagons and viciously attacking the President, who was strongly elected by middle America. This exposes the elitist attitude of the Blue Coasts.
Clinton won by 4.25 million votes in California, 1.75 miliion in NY and 1 million in MA. That's a total of 7 million votes. Subtract that from Hillary's 2.8 million national vote margin and you get a popular vote margin of 4.2 million votes for Trump. In other words, take away the uncontested Blue heads-in-a-bubble states and Trump had a landslide in popular vote and electoral vote. If the Blue Coast Dems continue as they are with bashing Trump we are headed to a civil war. We need to concentrate on the really important issues and use facts and logic to oppose him.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
IMO, there was no Democratic Party of FDR.
Or of LBJ. Not at the powerful politician level, anyway.
There was, as soon as the U.S. Communist Party formed in 1919, a fear that the U.S. would see revolutions of the kind Russia had then just seen. This fear led to Congressional investigations of the U.S. Party that begin the same year it formed. Those fears never went away. While we--including FDR-- needed Russia during WWII, those fears became McCarthyism after the war because J.Edgar Hoover was making notes during the war. And, of course, we've had one form of so-called Cold War after another ever since.
Those fears of revolution in the US must have been at a fever pitch after the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the Depression and bank panics that followed the crash. Joseph Kennedy, who helped FDR fashion the New Deal, is reported to have said, "I will gladly give away half of all I have if I can keep the other half in peace," or words to that effect. In my opinion, that is why we got the New Deal, which then Presidential candidate JFK later described on MTP as the Democratic Party's having "saved capitalism." (While a lot of the New Deal helped ordinary people, a lot of the New Deal was to make ordinary people comfortable about investing in Wall Street again and depositing their money in banks again.)
The Great Society was, IMO, a response to the fear that the civil rights movement, then coalescing with the anti-war movement and the economic justice movement would soon turn into a revolution.
And the same Democratic Party that enacted the New Deal and the Great Society voted to dismantle much of both. What's left of both is mostly Social Security and Medicare, which both of the two largest political parties have been trying to do away with for some time. They just have not been able, so far, to figure out how to eliminate either of them without committing electoral suicide. However, they have been getting people used to the idea by telling younger people it will not be there for them when they retire.
So, IMO, we had a Democratic Party that panicked a couple of times enough to throw some bones at working people and the needy, but that began pulling them back as soon as they could without undue risk to the Party and their own individual political careers.
HenryWallace,
thank you for stating this so clearly. FDR was a corporate lawyer and candidate funded by the banks and industrialists who armed Hitler. I do respect him for allowing the New Deal to happen, but it was, as you say, also a New Deal for the banks, and I believe we have him to thank for the fact that the United States came into WWII on the side of the Allies, whereas his political donors presumed he would bring the U.S. into the war on the side of the Axis powers.
Thank you for your kind words.
It's good to find someone who thinks along the same lines as I have come to think. As best I have been able to discern, we are relatively rare, even among those who have Demexited, whether by literally changing voter registration or by their behavior on election days.
@HenryAWallace Yes, the New Deal and
Yes, the New Deal and the Great Society were only possible because of fears of revolution from the left. FDR himself was quite clear on that in his 1932 nomination acceptance speech.
That said, one's assessment of the party at that time depends on what you think of the New Deal and the Great Society themselves. I mean, are you OK with the deal as Roosevelt proposed it between the wealthy and the people? Because to me, it amounts to more than just throwing a few bones. I would actually have been OK with it, with two alterations, if they'd actually kept their word.
The two alterations: the Civil Rights movement--and clean up your damned pollution.
Apparently those two things were a bridge too far, which led to the Powell memo so that we could keep the Chamber of Commerce from freaking out. OMG American business is going to DIE! Free enterprise is OVER! Pay Blacks the same as whites? Nobody can live that fast!
But the greater point here is that they were never going to keep their word anyway. You have to have an implicit gun pointed at their heads to get them to deal honestly and decently with the rest of humanity.
I don't have a great deal of problem with the domestic policies of those years (with the caveats I mentioned). I've got a lot of problem with the characters of the people on the other side of the table--and I don't primarily mean the politicians. I mean the rich bastards. FDR was just brokering the deal.
"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
As far as I can tell, we are saying the same thing,
in essence, although your wording suggests you are disagreeing with me.
Yes, looking at the entire history of the US from the 1600s to the present, and to who actually built it and died for it, yes, I do think the New Deal was a few bones finally and temporarily thrown by the ruling class, and, to boot, from the U.S. Treasury--tax dollars--our money. In that big picture, I do indeed think the New Deal was a few bones, particularly compared with what would have happened to the class of FDR and Joe Kennedy, Sr. had Americans mounted armed revolutions against them as the colonists and the French had during the 18th century and as had the Russian farmers and military not very long before the Wall Street crash of 1929 that triggered the Depression.
Finally allowing us to participate in tax dollars was, IMO, a very small price for the ruling class to "pay" to, in their eyes, "save capitalism." (I believe the comment of Joe Kennedy's own adoring son to be very indicative of how his father and the other architects of the New Deal saw what they were doing via the New Deal--using tax dollars to save their own personal wealth and their methods of making more personal wealth in the future from the kind of "rabble" that had, within then-recent memory, killed the Tsar and his family and others and turned Russia communist.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-United-States-of...
If the Joe Kennedy quote in my reply to The Wizard, above, http://caucus99percent.com/comment/238577#comment-238577, is not apochryphal, then Joe Kennedy seemed to think that dipping into tax dollars was little enough to do to save his personal fortune--and maybe his life and the lives of members of his family--from revolutionaries. And to "save capitalism," which would allow him to increase his wealth in the future. I don't think the New Deal or anything like it would have happened if enough people like Joe Kennedy did not see the wisdom embodied in the words of that quote, whether Joe actually spoke them to anyone or not.
Besides, as my reply to the Wizard and your own post says, it was only temporary and under at least perceived duress, which adds to the "few bones" factor:
Indeed. The "Party of FDR" and our other largest political party both began going back on New Deal while FDR was still very much alive and well and head of the Democratic Party (and not vetoing the repeals). In 1978, Democratic President Carter and a Democratic Congress took care of a lot of the anti-fraud, anti-corporate raider reforms embodied in the Bankruptcy Act of 1934.
The two things from the New Deal that survived longest survived because they came to be seen as political third rails, namely ending welfare, which Democrat Bill Clinton ran on and pretty much took care of, and Social Security. Both of those programs are one way or another, still funded by our money and have long been marked for destruction by the ruling class duopoly. Joining them is Medicare, one of the last remnants of the Great Society, and also a political third rail. (In January 2009, Obama promised to go after "entitlements," but Republicans stonewalled him.)
The SEC, of course, just, in practical reality, because as much an arm of the securities industry as other regulatory agencies become, like the Food and Drug Administration, which long enabled the tobacco industry and now enables the likes of Monsanto. After all, the SEC twice investigated Madoff because of tips and somehow missed a tactic as clumsy and easy for regulators to spot as a Ponzi scheme. (The poor Ponzi family, that their name became--and still is--tied to something that probably originated before the Common Era and that Madoff perfected beyond Carlo Ponzi's wildest dreams.) And Madoff famously named as his dear friend, Mary Schapiro, a classic revolving door regulator since the Reagan administration, whom Obama appointed as SEC head. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schapiro But, I digress...
IMO, more to the point in 2017 than the relative merits of the New Deal, is the issue that my reply to The Wizard tried to address: Whether what some people like to think of as "the Party of FDR" ever actually existed or not. I don't think it was anything near what is believed by people today, looking back only to the US in the 193s--and not to Russia in the early 1900s--or even to the entire course of American history. Or the history of humans, for that matter.
I think a lot of people, including me, have consumed a lot of time and energy by seeing the Democratic Party through that prism and paradigm of a party that went wrong only after Reagan. I used to see very little about politics. Then I, too saw what a lot of people still see. Now, though, I see the New Deal and the Great Society as aberrations, blips in the histories of humankind, of the US and of the Democratic Party, and prompted by fear of serious social upheaval. Now, I am not longing for or striving to restore something I no longer believe ever existed in the first instance. They were, and still are, trying to save themselves, their necks, their fortunes, their Party, their careers.
As far as civil rights, an issue different from, but not totally separate from economic justice, maybe motive matters? FDR was far from zealous or effective in civil rights, though he succeeded in enlisting civil rights activists of his day to help him in selling Americans on entry of the US in WWII. By the time that JFK was getting ready to run for President, the Democratic Party was between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, the Solid South, the population centers of Northeast and the DFL had enabled Democrats to win Presidential elections. However, since the early part of the 19th century, the Great Migration had been bringing African Americans, then "Lincoln Republicans," north, where they were diluting the vote in what had been Democratic/union strongholds--and unions had not welcomed the newcomers, either. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement that had come to the fore during the 50s was threatening the ability of Southern Officials--the vast majority of whom were Democrats--to continue keeping African Americans from voting. Even establishment media had turned in favor of it (the reason they were dubbed liberal, though often far from it.)
Senator John F. Kennedy was very well apprised of all this when political advisors urged him to reach out to the Kings. Then, MLK, Sr. went from a Lincoln Republican to someone who promised to vote for JFK. I've read more than once that JFK resented having to deal with the civil rights issue so persistently, but, today, I could not find that with a quick google. LBJ spoke very differently about the issue in private than he did in public (which I was able to find quickly). http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism (Maybe JFK has a more efficient team of purgers?) I do think that RFK believed in civil rights, and not only for political or p.r. reasons. However, as we all know, he and MLK, Jr. were assassinated within months of each other, each supposedly by "a lone gunman," just like JFK supposedly had been killed by a lone gunman, acting alone, not many years earlier. And the rest is, as they say, history.
If you think I'm cynical, think of every bill signing photo you've ever seen relating to bills signed before 1996, then look at the bill signing photo of Clinton's welfare "reform" bill:
BTW, thanks so much for pointing me to FDR's first inauguration speech. I've never read it, though I of course have probably heard and read excerpts. But I will read it in its entirety now.
@HenryAWallace The only
The only disagreement I thought we had was about whether FDR's deal was good or not. We're in total agreement on the history and politics of it. I just thought I liked the policies better than you did.
"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
@HenryAWallace Oh, and it was his
Oh, and it was his speech on acceptance of the nomination in 32 I was talking about. Here's a link (there's even some video you can find on the web but it's incomplete and quite poor quality).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=75174
He's basically saying "the people have been patient and compliant up to now, b/c they have faith in the establishment. You must reward that faith or there will be hell to pay."
"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
Thanks! As it happens, I read the 1933
inauguration speech about an hour before opening Caucus99 this morning and was wondering what you meant. I should have checked my replies sooner. Oh, well. I don't mind reading an extra speech of FDR's. Either he was a good speechwriter or he had a good one.
I had once seen a PBS program. Maybe it was the one about Hoover; maybe it was one of the ones about FDR. Anyway, the comment was made that Hoover had campaigned to FDR's left. As soon as I heard it, I disbelieved it. What you're telling me about FDR'a nomination acceptance speech confirms my suspicions. PBS has not been reliable since Bush the Lesser.
@HenryAWallace FDR was not a
FDR was not a saint, by any means. But there is a definite attempt to undermine his reputation of late. I saw a piece where Bill Murray was playing FDR--definitely a hatchet job. Gave him no credit for, well, anything 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
Demorats falling into the same error as the Federalists
thinking they only need their corporate backers and a "loyal" base in deep-support areas.
The Federalists fielded their last Presidential candidate in 1816, and faded away with a whimper sometime in the 1820s.
What happened next was that the "Democratic-Republican" Party fractured, and the two largest fractions became the Democratic Party and an even more "populist" party - the Whigs.
Will history repeat? Who knows?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Mimi: look up 'revolution' in a dictionary.
It has no agenda. Rec'd!!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
I know its a cliche
but you could have stopped at your title.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Progressive Party
Why can't we start a Progressive Party?
My emphasis would be on Peace, Prosperity, and Putting the Saudi Government on the government's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, where it belongs.
this is a problematic conclusion, imo
For centuries, right up until today, non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual people have been "represented" by white heterosexual males -- and many of us didn't feel heard or seen or cared about at all. The fact that once in a very great while, white heterosexual males are in the minority, or in this very rare case, not present at all, should be seen as a minor attempt at balance.
The white supremacist nature of the system we live in has made some folks think that if white people are not the main focus, not first and foremost -- or even, occasionally, not included -- that is now discrimination. It is not. It's a tiny attempt to tip the scales just a bit.
I guarantee that the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual people care a lot more about white heterosexual males than many of the latter care about us.
There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka
That's not how democracy works
Intentionally excluding groups is a wrong. Reversing that exclusion doesn't make it right, and more importantly, won't win you an election when that group is 30% of the population.
What you are describing is "spite", not justice. I guarantee you that my poor, white-trash heritage never had a say in who was represented and who wasn't.
why do you assume "intentional exclusion"?
Isn't it possible that these are the people who chose to run and who are being supported, and exclusion has nothing to do with it?
I don't see this as spite at all, and as I said I think that those of us who don't fit the white male heterosexual category DO care about those folks' well-being. More than those folks care about ours, if history is any evidence.
I'd be happy to add a class component to my argument: it was white male heterosexual wealthy property owners who have claimed to "represent" us all. Is there a working-class white guy who's running for DNC chair?
There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka
I base that assumption
on Sally Boynton Brown's statement about teaching people "how to shut their mouths if they are white." Plus a decade of Identity Politics rhetoric at TOP.
You know there is more than one reason why white males vote Republican, and not feeling welcome in the DP is one of those reasons.
Personally I think progressives are making a massive, inexcusable, historical mistake by embracing this Identity Politics, which is divisive by design, because it makes us hyper-sensitive to tiny differences.
Class-based politics, OTOH, stress things we have in common, and that works well with the principals of democracy (and a better future).
sorry I broached this today
I would like to engage with you on this subject in more depth, but my timing sucks. I'm packing to leave town in a few hours, and will be without internet access for about ten days (yay!)
I shouldn't have opened this aspect of the conversation, knowing I had limited time today. ttyl
There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka
@gjohnsit
Smells like a social bone to me. "See? We may be corrupt, lying, cheating war-mongers willing to destroy the world out of greed, but just look at the diversity we're selecting from!'
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.
I'll disagree to this extent:
What is popularly known as white supremacy is a manifestation of the class war big capital engages in against those for whom the sale of labor power is their only means of receiving money on which to live. Capital thrives by dividing the working class.
This is not to deny that people are not oppressed to varying degrees and African Americans usually get the short end of the stick. But, it's important to understand why working class people, males usually, of European descent, do the what they do: The are duped into doing the work of the owners of the political economy. It's important, critical surely, that working people unite in solidarity against the true oppressors and the system that benefits them to the near exclusion of the majority.
As for the people in charge being exclusively Euro and male, I would point out that in the age of financialization of monopoly capital, many are Jews, not "white" at all.
American Indians stand alone in North American to being the victims of genocide and suffering the theft of the land which was held in common tribe by tribe. Today we see a militarized clampdown on peaceful Water Protectors who are gathered in peaceful vigil on ancestral land. In the 19th century, we saw President Jackson steal the land of the Cherokee and force them to march to Indian Territory, now known as Oklahoma, even though the Supreme Court ruled beforehand that this was illegal and must not take place.
While working for solidarity, we need to halt the violence and theft and prosecute the malefactors of whichever class. A civil society must do no less.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Agree with everything except--
Democratic Party leadership shouldn't be at an anti-Trump march UNLESS they're willing to admit they brought us President Trump. If they're not willing to admit this truth, they might as well be hobnobbing with David Brock (although I wish it wasn't in my state. Can't they go to Bora Bora or something?)
"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
Chasing the unicorn of a dem party take over by progressives
Great essay. Interesting about the FL democratic party. FL proves that even long time loyal party activists with some fame cannot beat money and corruption of established democratic officials. The democratic presidential primary proved that point also.
Also, in looking back at the Tea Party, did they gain influence by first taking over the party from the inside? As I look back, I don't think they did. It seemed more that tea party groups would back their candidates and it had nothing to do with some internal gop take over, which then lead to their candidates winning. This whole DNC chair election doesn't mean much as it looks like all the candidates will first honor money and power of party mandarins.
It may be the case that while the population in general supports liberal policies, the dem party oligarchs have enough base support for their neoliberal agenda. There is this assumption that all progressives have to do is defeat money, and they can control the party. So the problem becomes in taking over the democratic party is not only the party mandarins, but a large enough base that is not ideologically supportive--Hillary's right wing attacks on Bernie's proposal for tuition free college and universal health care seemed to resonant with much of the base. In 2000, around 95,000 democrats voted for Bush in FL. (This is where identity politics plays a role--vote for Hillary because she is a woman--and forget about her right wing economics.) So in effect, while progressives may win, they can't win in enough places to take over the party.
@MrWebster
Would just like to point out that Hillary cheated Bernie, voters and the world out of the nomination, with the DNC arguing in court that Dem voters were not defrauded of time, money and effort because they should have known that the DNC would cheat Hillary in.
Since the Tea Party was a Koch brother creation, I wonder if Koch money beyond what was then allowed was funneled to various Repubs via this, in much the same manner as the various State Dems funneled money donated, presumably predominately for those down-ticket races she bragged about raising money for, to Hillary's shared account with the DNC? Since we've found out that the Kochs were apparently also funding the Dems, not just the Repubs?
2 halves of the same asshole must coordinate, as seems to me to likely be occurring with the Trump win, outrageous and very well-publicized-by-corporate-media acts of sheer lunacy, and Hillary's brave and valiant continued campaigning for the already-past Presidency, to save us all from a slow Republican death by nuking hell out of the earth. ...
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.
It's equal-opportunity not
It's equal-opportunity not-caring about the entire population's concerns. They care about their donors paying them... and the billionaires seem to be un-Progressively taking over the whole mess themselves, sort of a House of
LordsGorge where they pig out on the everything of the country and world as it all flows directly to them.I hope the teeny little wafer explosions will be filmed.
But I guess that now the billionaires and corporate heads will no longer need either corporate Party for that stale old attempt at the pretense of democratic elections any more than either Party needs actual voters for that reason.
And I'll laugh if the donors want their money back from all of these soon-unneeded political lackeys and they wind up impoverished and desperate, with the rest of the 99% of America and the world.
No cake for us, so I suppose we'll be eating the fat, juicy rich.
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.
I don't know enough for certain
about who obtained the DNC and Podesta emails and how they were obtained to agree or disagree. (Emphasis on "for certain.")
Typically, it's oppo research if someone on one candidate's official team does it about an opponent of the candidate. As far as we know, Trump's campaign team did not do this or hire anyone to do it. Also, oppo research is usually done without breaking any laws or gaining unauthorized access to the contents of someone else's personal mail--at least not as far as we know. As for disclosing it, that's simply making accurate data available to the the public, not hacking.
In any event, people who falsify or steal actual votes or prevent people from voting hack elections. Providing the public with unadulterated information, however obtained, from computers of private individuals involved in the private activity of campaigning for one candidate, is not hacking an election or anything remotely close to it.
The rationale for the election lie has been that it was one-sided. By that standard, every editorial endorsing one candidate, but not the other, is hacking an election. So is every truthful statement made by anyone that benefits one candidate, but not the other.
It's ridiculous, dishonest and borderline scary that government characterizes making truthful information available to the public as hacking an election--and gets away with it. AFAIK, there's been no push back against that Big Lie from media, so-called honest politicians or anyone else in the establishment.
Not only no pushback, active propagation
Fux Snooze is spreading the Fake News that "the Russians" were "confirmed" to have "hacked" the "Democratic Party servers" - when not a word of any of that is factual.
Fux is the network that sued and won the right to LIE to the public. They have been taking full advantage of that insane decision.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Hacking the Democratic Party servers, whether it
happened or not, is very, very different from hacking an election.
Content deleted by HenryWallace. Duplicate.
Content deleted by HenryWallace. Duplicate.