Crevices: the pending and inevitable demise of the two party system
The last major US political party to be formed, the Republicans were born out of the collapse of the Whigs. What we are living through now is something even more momentous than the crisis of the War Between The States. I did not use the term "Civil War" advisedly. Yes the WBTS was civil but really only focussed on two broad economic issues: mercantilism versus slave labor. Only incompetence of Union Generals caused the war to last 4 years--it should have been over in 18 months or less.
What kept the Confederacy alive was the Concept of Home (as in this is my home--if you were white and male) plus the clever propaganda of the actual slave-holders to the majority who "owned" no other human being. This propaganda convinced the less powerful (common white man) to be sucked along the path of protecting the rich man's interests. Ain't it always the same?
We've had a good run of propaganda even since before 1776. The effectiveness of such P.R. has waxed and waned over the centuries. But now, primarily following the Debacle of 2016, has hit a nadir, from which the current brand of mind-washing may not recover.
Elements of this evolving mutation of our form of governance, more literally translated as codified oppression of the poor by the rich, became powerfully demonstrated to a large number of people following the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. Included in the population of the newly undiluted were conservatives, independents, but primarily Democrats.
After all, the hypocrisy of the Dem party had just become too glaring for any but the blind and deaf to not notice. Lefties, like most of us here at c99, took most offense by not only the primary rigging but the subsequent voter-shaming (unless it was for Hillary). Meanwhile the mainstream Dems, completely bereft of any issues which initially created the grand Democratic Coalition under FDR, are of two opinions:
1. Take the Money and Run (see Louis XIV: "Apres moi, L'deluge").
2. Why change, aren't we great? That's the song led by Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't believe it because she's already got her fortune. However, she is just trying to keep the faithful in line.
The problem is that many of the congregation have seen the brighter light of social justice, income inequality, ecologic destruction, etc. to know that Team Blue is no longer for them. And the attrition continues.
The destination of the departing is finally becoming clearer as the proverbial dust settles. In the beginning, like an exploding gas, the smoke, debris and confusion obscured what might be any trends from this cataclysm. But now, after 6 months, give or take, patterns are starting to be quite noticeable.
Like any natural process, by which is meant occurring in nature, there is often no single dominant pre-determined outcome. This can be argued, but I guarantee you, that for whatever argument is made for the inevitability of a certain outcome, a strong argument can be made for alternate results. Ultimately, we have to rely on facts. Painful as that is to many people, facts guide evaluation--not the other way around.
What are the trails of exiting Democrats?
1. Abstinence from politics altogether. It was a bad movie that they'd rather not watch again.
2. Return to the fold, as good sheeple do when the alarm bells have ceased and imminent danger is no longer anticipated (oh, poor sheeple! Your fuzzy heads are hard to penetrate with reason and your noses are usually in another sheep's behind).
3. Try to reform the Democratic party from within. To me this seems almost equivalent of trying "happy talk" to cure a malignancy. For the Democratic party is malignant, gleefully eating on the body politic and not caring where their feces lands, as long as it isn't on them.
4. New alliances with more progressive/left wing groups, either pre-existing or de novo. It is my belief that outcome number 4 is becoming the predominant refuge of those interested in political action.
The poverty of current political thought is evident to almost all but the Robots. Another refuge must be found. The new, main refuge has yet to be determined: such as Democratic Socialists, Green, Socialist, Communist, etc. But despite this current uncertainty of where Democratic refugees will go--they are GONE and will not return. The crevice between the Progressive faction has widened to the point that it is beyond being reintegrated in the slowly rotting corpse of the main party.
What this means nationally is that either the existing Democratic Party continues to exist in a continually enfeebled character, doing very little good to anyone (except the elites) or it collapses utterly. With the current "leadership" of the party, who would be surprised if the Dems completely disappeared?
So that leaves the deserters, as it were. Many are passionate about not giving up the fight--just look at c99 for one instance of that. Look for growing leftwing "third parties" to grow, as indeed they are. Even the US Communist Party is growing.
My opinion is that the Democratic edifice is permanently damaged and may not be able to survive in any but a token sense. The futility of belonging to such a party will become ever more obvious until even the most brain-washed have no choice except to acknowledge that the party is over.
So on the left, a deep schism has already occurred. The Democrat party will NOT recover from this. In terminal intransigence the Dems will refuse to allow JusticeDemocrats into the same tent.
But the turmoil is not limited to the Left. The Repugnants are now afflicted by an internal struggle, which has high likelihood of splitting that party in two. You can thank Donald Trump for that. He captured the party away from the established power brokers and is installing his own. For the moment, most of establishment is just letting this play out. However the Freedom Caucus is not going to play along. As with the Tea Party, this lot would not care if the whole government shut down--such is their extreme libertarianism. They seem to be slowly drifting away from the main Repugnant party. This is not yet of continental drift-tectonic plate divergence. But the healthcare plan fiasco is igniting a spirit of retribution within the party. Even though Repugnants have proven with their massive failure, that no faction of their party is fit to govern, most don't see it like that. In this way, they are like the remaining DemonRATic true believers.
The day of the Republican hegemony is not yet over, but the Crevice is becoming progressively more imminent. Will the party also dis-integrate into two or more factions? Although I hope so, I don't know.
But what I do see here, regardless of the ultimate coherence of the Red Team, is the arising of a increasingly greater challenge to the Old Order (and its corollary New World Order). In this lies great opportunity.
Opportunity is always accompanied by danger. The faint of spirit will opt for less contentious, "incremental" changes. The brave will hopefully recruit more to their numbers and grow as do most social movements. A fertile environment of like-minded people can often be coordinated by a charismatic person, holding the same beliefs.
So, with the aid of both my Ouija Board and my Crystal Ball, I predict the following scenario for 2018:
1. Democrats may win some contested seats--but some of them are going to be won by JusticeDemocrats etc.
2. Democrats overall will continue in their diminution.
3. Republicans in safe Red states will find themselves heavily primaried.
4. Republican disunity will become more apparent.
5. The collapse of the Republicans may be catastrophic but for the present, the source of that catastrophe is not apparent. However, on the horizon a dark cloud beckons: rapid collapse of the stock market and the attendant social upheaval engendered.
Although still in the large part ignorant of politics, the American people will find it hard to avoid knowing how bad their lot is. Scapegoating will ensue as is always the case in societal unrest. But a well-developed alternative narrative, such as the alternative Bernie presented, can decide the direction of the New Society. Because of the Crash of 2017 (or 2018), we will indeed have a NEW SOCIETY.
Comments
Economic factors that reinforce the AE's hypothesis
Revolution needs an econmic cause, and even without the next crash the case can be made:
I agree too that our economy has arrived at a state of gross internal instability. It needs one factor to trip the system into "a major correction." Gjohnsit's excellent essay on Damn Furriners points out that wotld wide entities are done with buying US debt:
The factors contributing to the break up of the two party system are very impressive, from the economy to war to social justice to health care and wait ... Trump's Goldman Sacks brain addled trust is about to attack Social Security. The banks are salivating to get in on the massive cash stream of S.S. This would finish the complete economic rape of America.
The situation in the US is far worse than Bernie pointed out, and yet he had an enormous following despite the "Socialist" label.
"Come Senators, Congressmen please heed the call....."
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Your points are well-taken
Give us peasants a little hope, i.e., a meager yet noticeable rise in our standards of living might buy some time. But also, that is like asking a sociopath to grow a conscience--can't be done; it's not in the nature of the beasts.
One crumb so
dfarrah
Funny thing about that first graph ...
In the 1980s I started a "broken record routine" of asking "how bad does it need to get before we (the 99%) stop putting up with being subjugated", and variations on the theme. Some context for those that don't know me: I gave a talk, "The Inevitable Demise of Capitalism" that created quite a few ripples during the early years of my tenure. That first graph (
) coupled with @Alligator Ed's :, I think identifies a critical point and as such suggests how we might proceed. And yes, I will "channel Bernie Sanders and Warren Buffett yet again: The
developmentthe hijacking of our economic system has been fueled by unfettered capitalism and the theft of resources by the dynastic families unconstrained by our impotent (and now gutted) regulatory agencies. The solutions are obvious given this framing of the "problem", the rest is left as a trivial homework problem.Trivial but still difficult.
It all needs to die in order to be reborn.
It is going to be painful. I hope I survive it economically for me and my heirs, but my children and my grandchildren also need a planet and a job in order to have a future.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Enough is enough, already ! ? !
Beyond education and health care the welfare of my heirs must be "out of my hands". A 100% inheritance tax would go a long way toward correcting our miserable situation. The "it takes a village" mindset needs to be cultivated. We have got to break the cycle of "my heirs" versus "your heirs" internecine economic war. Enough is enough, already.
"A 100% inheritance tax would go a long way..."
as would some serious salary adjustments - after all, the 1% have sucked up the value of all the productivity created by workers over the last 20+ years.
Then, include a ban on financial trickery, and somehow disband/replace the stockholder form of business, since it is so dysfunctional and now leads to so much manipulation rather than business.
dfarrah
These are actually attainable.
The trick is to not repeat the "errors" of the primary. We had an "in" to the "controls" and we blew that particular chance, but it ain't over yet. I know this is true because of the members of the millennial cohort that I know very well. We had a chance, but we were not unified. In spite of all the rhetoric, it was not the DNC or any other external agency that derailed the process, we screwed it up. If we don't own up to our mistakes we can never make progress.
Figure out that one thing we need to do to get "this show on the road", do it, and we will succeed.
Yep.
I'm a caretaker for my Dad, who has Parkinsons, but now that I have routines in place, I may be able to squeeze some political activity in again.
I've poked around in Colorado for the Justice Party or other split-offs, but haven't found anything.
Does anyone here happen to know someone in Colorado who is interested in getting a 3rd party going? I was a delegate for Bernie, but I didn't have time to volunteer, so I have no contacts at all (except for dem party members, who are still in the dem party).
dfarrah
Some problems with that idea...
You say a 100% inheritance tax would go a long way toward correcting our miserable situation and lead to a new "it takes a village" mindset ..
(aside: I can't hear that phrase without thinking of Hillary Clinton, so it automatically sends a shiver of revulsion through me; you might want to find another way of expressing that concept, just sayin) ...
Anyway, the red flag this raises is that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The more I read and understand what our government is doing with our tax dollars -- primarily funding an imperialist global campaign of death and destruction -- the less I'm able to believe that giving them more tax money is going to lead to anything good.
They don't spend it on providing for and sustaining the common good. The amount being spent now on wars is already more than enough to provide for a significantly better life for all Americans, by every measure, if we just ended the fucking wars and stopped the funding of an insatiable global empire.
I'm just not seeing how taking more taxes is going to fix that.
I'd also add that, from a more personal perspective, I think people do have the right to help along their families and other loved ones by building something to pass on to them. So I would not support eliminating that entirely. I think most people feel that way.
I also agree in theory on limiting that amount to spread the wealth around. Concentrate wealth among too few is a problem, obviously. But how do we ensure that the money goes back into the common good? "More taxes" all by itself doesn't get us there.
And it's also not a winning political slogan or position. Too many people don't like what our taxes are being spent on. So we certainly aren't going to get excited about giving them even more.
My comment was not about funding the government.
My comment was about not creating dynasties. That's The Oracle of Omaha's point about inheritance. My heirs shouldn't be elevated above other's heirs just because I can become rich.
If you don't like an economic oligarchy running this country then kill it. A 100% inheritance tax doesn't fund anything. An inheritance tax removes money differentially from the economy. Pushing toward a more equitable and just society requires a taxing structure that supports that ideal.
So, Where The Fuck does this notion that somehow this would "fund" any government program or misadventure ?????
Tax = Spend is bullshit economics for the ignorant great unwashed.
Professor, I like your equation
Tax = takeaway money
Spend = give money
The answer is: Tax ≠ Spend
Those who quack the loudest about deficits do so because they thing they aren't getting their fair share and/or somebody else is getting "their" money.
Where does the idea come from ...
It comes from the experience that when we pay taxes, we "give" (as required by law) some of our money to the government, which in turns spends that money on various governmental programs and services and activities. People use the term "tax payer funded" for everything the government does, which is taken as "they are spending our money on whatever they do."
If you're saying this isn't true -- I'm open to learning why.
I'm also telling you that from the point of view of regular voters, and people who might be voters for an independent party -- this is how they think about taxes. Their family's money or assets just "disappearing" doesn't sound good to people who have little. Say a house they worked their life to pay for. They can't leave it to their kids to give them a leg up in the world? People won't support that. They just won't.
I know you were speaking of avoiding dynasties, and as I said, I agree with that. There should be a limit on how much wealth should be allowed to be passed on.
But I don't agree with it being zero. Which is how I'm interpreting "100%" so please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
The Federal reserve creates money.
Your remarks on 100% inheritance tax are absolutely correct. I can hardly think of a quicker way to lose the working class. The present two or four million limit is sufficient to go untaxed, take the rest away. And ban gimmicks like the Clinton Foundation.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
two or four million?
uh ... SIX, actually, and mom & dad get to combine their exemptions.
i agree that few mere mortals are going to sign on to any plan that tells them they can't leave something to their "kids", but whatever they are allowed to leave to their kids shouldn't be enough to remove their kids from the "need to work for a living" pool -- at least, not until there is nobody who needs to work for a living.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
The last I heard it was two and talking about four
Thanks for the info. I don't totally agree with you, however. I remember hearing about a big PBS legacy. The donor wanted to leave enough money to his kids so they would never be in want, but not enough to have anything they wanted without working. I think he was wise. (John D, and Katherine T. somebody?) figuring a safe 4% return that would be $60K/.04 or $1.5 million. The six million would provide for a lifetime income of $240K, too large IMHO. I could support $2 million per legatee. However, the most important thing is that no one inherit so much money that they can buy elections. Otherwise, we are just talking sour grapes. Disclosure: my heirs will get about $40K apiece, enough to buy a decent new car or make a down payment on a cheap house, not eve enough to pay for a bachelor's degree. That's all the money I have. But I sure wish that I could leave them enough to never be hungry or homeless.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
just looked it up to be sure -- 5.49 million for 2017.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Oh I was sure you were right about the $ amount.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@UntimelyRippd
Assuming that your mother dies in her 80s or 90s, and you're one of several or more 'kids' in or around your 60s or 70s, your share of the house sale price, after all expenses are paid, might reduce your house payment enough that you can keep it or enable you to get the roof fixed before your insurance is pulled, or enable you to live under a roof for a year once you're too crippled to continue your Mcjob.
Anyway, I personally have no problem with people being able to retire early, if they can, opening a job opportunity for someone else. There are increasing shortages of any - never mind living-wage - jobs, not of job-seekers, after all, and the plan is to essentially replace people with machines (who will have no pay and buy nothing, so that very few businesses will exist very shortly). What I object to are people/society/the environment being poisoned and drained to further enrich anyone else. And I do think that living comfortably is a great idea - and that everyone should be able to have at least some degree of comfort and security, even if some might be a little more comfortable than others.
Never enough to be able to buy public policy or political parties though, and having a few million doesn't enable the influence of an Adelson or a Koch brother. It does, however, free up the creative to engage in writing or some other of the arts, volunteer work, or whatever they choose - outside of messing with other people's lives and rights - and enable people to leave something of their live's history/heritage/work to their children or other loved ones rather than instantly depriving those of even the memories of their parents/ancestors, which I think would be awful. There very likely may not even be enough actual money left to cover cremation, never mind burial, expenses prior to a parental house sale they'd no longer be able to use as collateral for a loan, leaving children desperately trying to borrow for that with no collateral... Hell of a thing to do to the grieving 99%, though the wealthier would be able to arrange and pay for such things in advance.
But I do firmly believe that people should be able to have their last wishes respected, without allowing the generational concentration of obscene levels of wealth - translated into political power used against the rest of the world - seen in a very few families.
And a decade or two ago, I recall reading that people needed over 2 million to assure themselves of a comfortable retirement. A decade or two before that, a million bucks was plenty - what will 5 million be worth - even without hyper-inflation/crashes - in a decade or two? Not that most of us could have earned that in our life-times, lol - but we've been living in separate economies than have the Parasite Class and many of us can buy almost none of things we could once take for granted even on minimum wage. When I think of all of the things I haven't bought/done over the years of shrinking 99% incomes, I certainly have no need to wonder as to why the economies of various countries are shrinking...
Anyway, there's my 2 cents, out of the dollar I have to see me through the rest of the month, albeit with the most basic essentials paid for. And that's the view I see, from here.
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.
A reflective and pertinent observation
@Alligator Ed
Sorry about that! However, since both parties have made themselves so irrelevant except as hazardous nuisances, this seems kinda symbolic, although, as usual, (no matter how depressing the subject matter) I enjoyed your essay.
Personally, I rather suspect that when Bernie's attempt at a Medicare-For-All/Single Payer bill fails to gain sufficient support from either wing of the Two-Faced Corporate Party that things will begin to move.
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.
anybody who cannot retire NOW "comfortably"
with 2 million dollars in liquid cash assets has a very strange (to me) conception of what constitutes "comfort". only a small fraction of the population can ever hope to have anywhere near that kind of wealth.
i am not receptive to arguments about "opening up jobs". people who are consuming but not working are inevitably and definitively a burden on everybody else. someone who decides to stop working and enjoy a life of leisure enabled by accumulated wealth has actually opened up two jobs -- their former position, as well as this one: supporting their life of leisure. it's well and good to talk about various social goods they might undertake with their abundant free time, but there's no reason to suppose that most of them won't just sit around doing nothing useful while the equivalent of one full-time laborer must be assigned to amusing them, clothing them, transporting them, feeding them, nursing them, etc.
the problem of unemployment is not one of a shortage of useful work that needs to be done, it is one of an ineffective and amoral distribution of demand power that makes it impossible for people to undertake that useful work.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Just because they say it don't make it true.
Even when I was a little child I knew this was not true. I knew it because I watched my dad create money from nothing but confidence. He did nothing more or less than the federal government does. The only reason my dad (and later I) did not get into the game is he had a conscience, but ... well that would be for another time ...
I remember when Silver Certificates were "discontinued" and my cousin told me he wanted to collect a stack of them. I thought that was a funny idea, but collecting art for monetary gain is a funny idea to me as well, oh well, jokes on me. I was sixteen at the time and had been arguing about "the value of money" for several years.
Every person that I have encountered argues not about the foundation of modern monetary theory, but about the macro- and micro- economic analyses and the interpretations of its various implications. Those in the soft sciences have a problem with separating foreground from background. MMT is not about what you should decide to do in an economic system. MMT is about how the system functions.
And those signs near the construction zones of federally funded highway projects? They display a lie.
Yep
The bread winner dies so the wife and kids get kicked out onto the fucking street. Yep, that must have been what PriceRip was advocating because he is such a fucking idiot.
Obviously we are all a collection of strangers with absolutely no ability to understand each other unless we spell out every micro detail lest we be hoisted upon our own petards. So, sure I will answer your penetrating question when I have an opportunity to write about ten thousand words of explanation. Oh, yea and, Let them eat cake.
Sometimes, even the most well-intentioned require
Nice
I don't understand your hostility. This is a discussion site, so pardon me for thinking we might have a discussion. Jeeze. As my husband would say, who pissed in your cereal this morning?
Well, you're clearly way too smart and superior for me, so I'll try not to trouble you further.
Good luck winning over voters to your ideas with that approach.
Well this is truly funny.
I do not live in a world of inheritances. After we did the funeral for my dad, my brother (as executor) pointed out that at least dad had died with some "spending money" in his pocket. Yep, some inheritance, we all opted to not divide the spoils.
Inheritances are a thing of some kind of USA outside my experience for the most part. I do have some in-laws that might die with some estate of some sort. But, we all are adults and would rather those older family members spend their money doing things they have wanted to do all their lives.
The nuances of the tax code that allow people to become obscenely rich and to then pass that obscenity along to their children are of no interest to me. Common sense suggests that our system is so very out of whack with the way it should be it needs to be fixed. True social justice encompasses the notion of "leveling" (or at least not grinding some into the dust while pampering others as if they were GODs) the field.
Why should anyone have any expectations as to the disposition of their possessions after death? After death you are no more, so what happens to your stuff after you die can no longer be of concern to you, you don't exist anymore. This notion of "ruling from the grave" is so very weird, I can't understand why anyone would actually care to perpetuate such a system.
This "I earned it so I get to decide what happens to it" is so very like the myth of "the self made man". Wow, the arrogance is astounding. I certainly didn't make it, earn it, or accomplish anything in my life through self-action. Everything I made of myself, or earned in anyway, or accomplished was because of the actions (or inactions) of those I live among.
A loan individual can never accomplish anything, they die. Even the iceman carried items that could only exist because he was a member of a group of other individuals.
I'm glad you got the joke. :)
Of course he doesn't say it only to me when I'm "in a mood" - more often it's directed at his boss or a buddy, but over our 27 years together we have developed a lot of useful communication shorthand. This one says: you're being rather irritable or grouchy right now, but I know it's not really about me, and I know it's not representative of all that you are, so I'm going to not take it seriously or personally, and I'm also not engage with it right now. He's very good at that, and not a grudge holder. I still work to learn this from him.
I really dislike this medium
My high school teachers and counselor told me I would be a failure because I couldn't communicate via the written word. It is a tossup which is worse, written communication or voice-only communication. Sigh, maybe in a few more decades ...
USA military spending
We could do that by redirecting a mere one-third of what we now spend on wars, spend one-third on a legitimate defense military (you know, like all other major developed nations) and we'd dtill have one-third of our current military spending to work with to solve our nation's other difficulties.
No nation can afford to maintain a continuous interventionistic foreign policy. It inevitably leads to prolonged warfare, with all its associated costs, which are unaffordable.
-- Sun Tzu, The Art Of Warfare
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
If there was a 100% inheritance tax, I wouldn't save a dime.
Instead of living frugally and years of passing by impulse buys, I would spend every dime on my me, my daughter and grandsons to make sure nobody else got a dime. If I have no money to pay for my old age, the rest of you can pay for it or put me on the street to die. There are a lot of people who have money only because they didn't drive BMWs, own a MacMansion, or travel the globe in designer clothes. Life is relative. One million ain't what is used to be. I don't mind paying my share of taxes to assure a healthy and educatedsocietyand planet, but I resent paying for bombs, jails, corporate welfare and Trump's golf at Mar-a-Lago. I also resent Obama and his daughters capitalizing off his pandering and favors for the 01%. My kids would end up in jail for getting caught with a joint, not a gap year in Europe.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
caught with a joint
Sounds like you need to move to a less fascist State!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think you are lying.
You are either lying or you do not expend much energy in self-reflection. I have known a great many people that do not expend much energy in self-reflection.
I have read much of what you have written here over time and you are not at all like those people of whom I speak. Besides, they are not the sort to be involved in discussions here on c99p. No, I think you are trying to make a point that is not in accord with your true self.
The way to kill the "oligarchy" is to starve it to death. Leveling the (economic) playing field, to use the old tired sports analogy, is but the first step in really making america great. As for the bombs, jails, corporate welfare, and Trump's et cetera, ??? Eliminating the dynastic element from our society does not imply we must continue to do stupid ...
My values are eclectic.
I will spare you the details, but suffice it to say that I believe in success and not pulling the ladder up behind you. I also believe that my children should be better off than I was, it is what I was taught. My definition of rich is the eight fucking people who own as much wealth as the bottom 60%. The "Millionaire Next Door" or the 250K two working professional family is my definition of the epitome of the American Dream.
It is why I abandoned the Democrats and Republicans sometime around Johnson. I was certainly less politically informed at the time, but I still had my opinions. The Democrats were stuck on giving everything to the poor (identity politics) and the Republicans stole every dime within reach. The working/middle class just got stuck with the bill. When Bubba said he was a new kind of Democrat, I thought he meant he was going to support working/middle class. I totally missed Wall Street.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@PriceRip
So, who gets the homes of the widows and the sons/daughters burnt out caring for their parents in their old age, and the farms of the kids who took over the field-work when their parents aged, while they go homeless? Presumably, this 100% tax include personal effects, family heirlooms and other sentimental items, such as grandmother's lace wedding-dress and their books? Not to mention tons of things otherwise thrown out, such as sturdy old cooking-pots and cookie sheets.
Personally, I rather liked the idea of the $5 million cap per heir which I seem to recall having been suggested (by, I don't recall whom) way back when, especially as the wealthy can still do a lot for their kids, including being able to part with money and properties while still alive, which the poor cannot possibly manage, not to mention the fact that these would be most harmed by any such over-ride of their last Wills and miniscule hopes.
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.
And the Dems still don't get it!
" But despite this current uncertainty of where Democratic refugees will go--they are GONE and will not return."
They couldn't win running against an unqualified, lying pussy-grabber and they still think they're doing everything right except for "messaging". Millions of Americans voted third-party or just didn't vote at all and the Dems just walk around with their heads up their collective ass.
Wake the fuck up, morans!
Dear Dems: You lost the WH, Senate, House, dozens of governors, state level SOS and AG and about 1,000 state legislative seats. Maybe...you're doing something wrong.
So, what are we going to do about it?
I, for one, have no interest in trying to "turn it around" for the DNC. I am one of those that was never really a democrat. As independents, what are we going to do about the situation. I would not be happy to see us piss away yet another opportunity to actually make a difference. I am getting too old for just "spinning my wheels" and complaining. I am in need of some good old fashion bashing the doors down action to generate real change.
I'm with you on this entirely
I'm past believing that the Democratic Party as it exists today "doesn't get it" and is inept. The party is owned by "pro business democrats" (i.e., republicans) whose job is to make sure that big business continues to get whatever it wants. Whether that means winning or losing certain elections depends on the situation. Sometimes yes, if a neoliberal dem can win; sometimes no, if losing allows a more business friendly republican to win instead.
We have to stop believing the party can be changed. Until they unanimously disown the Clintons and all their lackies and the entire neoliberal platform they built and change to a real progressive agenda -- like single payer/universal health care/Medicare for all (don't hold your breath) they will happily lose certain elections.
They are not stupid. They are doing this intentionally. They won't "learn" because they already know their role and are doing fine from their perspective.
I think following Bernie and his spin offs who are sticking with the duopoly into any fix the dems effort is a dead end. If I'm proven wrong in time, and there is a successful party takeover, I will be happy to be wrong. But I'll have to see it to believe it.
For me it's independent, third party, whatever you want to call it. Both heads need to be cut off of our current single, two-headed corporate party.
Dems learn? Yes, the rich ones. No, the poor ones.
The top of the pile knows where to get their bucks--which is at the top of the pile. But in order for them to have at least some pretext at "deserving those bucks" by the PTB, there has to be enough people on the bottom of the pile to elevate the top of the pile. It's the lower pile Dems that keep believing in the upper pile bullshit. It is they, including Cenk, who never learn.
Age differences are going to have a lot to do
with what happens. A quick check of Senate Democratic leadership shows that 9 out of 11 are over the age of 60 - some by quite a bit. The remaining two are in their 50's, the youngest being Tammy Baldwin at 56.
Thinking about other demographics - just as more lines were being blurred between ethnic voting groups, along comes Trump with his fierce racism and "otherism". I expect this will create more solid voting blocs by ethnicity. Fear is now a common theme within some of those blocs.
A successful alternative needs to keep these and other demographics in mind when trying to build mass.
The age one ticks me off a bit because I belong to that older set and I know many who are liberal as can be. But when I look at Schumer and Pelosi, I sometimes wonder how much longer they have to live. Youth always replaces the Elderly. Change is the only constant.
We older liberals still have a lot to offer to the young. We've been through it, we've been fooled and manipulated and marginalized and jailed and ignored. Many lessons were learned, and it would be great if a new party could add our experience to its arsenal.
About fear
Quite true, but it has always been thus--at least in 20th/21st Century American politics. 100 years ago, we hated the Commies. That actually lasted quite some time. The younger generation doesn't give a damn. They don't know Joe Stalin from Joe DiMaggio.
Now we have manufactured another international threat: the very jihadists that we created. Ooh! And, please do check under your beds at night because I think Boris and Ivan are taking up residence again.
Will the people collapse before the parties collapse?
The single biggest voting block I believe was the people who didn't vote. More people opted out. The democrats could not get their most loyal voter bases to show up. We are seeing unprecedented changes in mortality rates based on in effect suicidal habits, and now just from the little I have read, opiate addictions raging. Something like the majority of the population could not handle a $500 emergency.
And just saw this incredible tweet:
https://twitter.com/nandorvila/status/845404390307512321
The root of the problems we
are having is the gross socioeconomic inequality that is inherent with unfettered capitalism gone rampant. Fixing the problem will require a seismic shift in the traditional American identity that has been carefully and deliberately instilled since birth through both the media and education system.
Those who hold the levers of power in the Democratic Party have seamlessly replaced "Communist threat" with "Russian threat" as the enemy 'without' to rally against. The rubes have swallowed it without a second thought - obfuscating communism with Russia is as natural as apple pie. The socialism of Bernie vs the capitalist corporatism of Hillary has been transmogrified. Bernie has been categorized as a tool of the evil Russians who want to destroy our hallowed democracy by undermining Hillary who epitomizes the American Way of life and all that is good in the world. The battle has become existential.
CB, a very apt citation from Heilbroner
If I didn't know better, this might have confused me as to your real opinions.
The citizen has been commoditized. How much revenue will Citizen 3,201,478 bring into the system. How much will said citizen deplete the revenue stream? (we have solution for this: deny health care. Plausible deniability all the way round).