A short note for Thomas Frank

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:23am

Ir's basically about this:

Can liberals please work out how to win back the working class?

I'd write one of those "open letters" things, as in an "Open Letter to Thomas Frank," but, no, this is a short note. Political discussion these days boils down to Upton Sinclair's maxim that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

At any rate, the reason this stuff makes sense:

The Democrats, however, remain a mystery. We watch them hesitate at crucial moments, betray the movements that support them, and even try to suppress the leaders and ideas that generate any kind of populist electricity. Not only do they seem uninterested in doing their duty toward the middle class, but sometimes we suspect they don’t even want to win.

is because people like Thomas Frank keep saying this stuff:

Still, as we are reminded at every turn, this flawed organization is the only weapon we have against the party of Trump. And as the president’s blunders take a turn for the monumental and public alarm grows, the imperative of delivering a Democratic wave this fall grows ever more urgent.

The Democrats are of course not a mystery, and the Democratic Party is not the only weapon we have against the party of Trump. And it's a bit of a joke to talk about "the imperative of delivering a Democratic wave" when we were all in full view twiddling our thumbs as the Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures under Obama. We could, of course, argue for organizations and parties that opposed both the Republicans and the Democrats, as two parties devoted to keeping the working class nice and quiet and desperately poor. Couldn't we?

Dear Thomas Frank: if this is really your view, and yes you get some time to move on, then keep promising to write books. Somewhere along the line a nice revenue source will come along to pay you not to write them, just as revenue sources have come along to pay our favorite protesters to support the FBI. On the other hand, you might consider spending some time creating a countervailing force to the two-party system which supported the working class. As an added bonus, you'd have something to write about.

Tags:

Thomas Frank

short note

Vote

Comments

Submitted by k9disc on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:50am

You Want a Blue Wave? Throw Out the Corporate Sponsored Ballast

that is sinking the boat and drowning our people.

https://www.salon.com/2014/11/29/why_are_these_clowns_winning_secrets_of...

More generally, Dunning said, “Whenever you see somebody acting in what looks like an incompetent way you have to ask yourself if they actually perceive themselves doing a different task than what you think they're doing, and being very competent in [that task].” He cited an example from his own experience, a dean at a university he had observed, who “would speak in non sequiturs,” hardly a sign of intellectual competence, “until I realized this task was to outlast everybody, just so he got his way, and that he was brilliant. But if you thought his task was to bring many minds in together, and come to an understanding … no, that was not the task.”

They are STILL in power. No rollover in leadership after 1000 lost seats and record low approval rating - as low as Drumpf's... Question the task, people.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by mimi on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 3:59am

I am getting confused all the time ...

so I asked the almighty google to help me out and I ran into Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa and his novel The Leopard .

One quote stuck in my mind:

As the novel progresses, the Prince is forced to choose between upholding the continuity of upper class values, and breaking tradition to secure continuity of his (nephew's) family's influence ("everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same"). A central theme of the story is the struggle between mortality and decay (death, fading of beauty, fading of memories, change of political system, false relics etc.), and abstraction and eternity (the prince's love for the stars and calculations, continuity and resilience to change of the Sicilian people

I kind of love these quotes:

1. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.
2. What would the Senate do with me, an inexperienced legislator who lacks the faculty of self-deception, essential requisite for anyone wanting to guide others.
3. The young feel sorrows much more sharply than the old; the latter are nearer the safety exit.

Hope they confuse you as much as they amazed me.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 9:49am

Fiction is important

@mimi I was raised in a household that was super rational and super activist.

Fiction was a dirty word in our house.

I have only recently seen the importance of fiction and am reading Richard Powers work.

He tackles some of the most important issues of the day and brings in science, politics, sex, etc.

Before I bring in Richard Powers, I want to respond to one of the quotations that Mimi posted

2. What would the Senate do with me, an inexperienced legislator who lacks the faculty of self-deception, essential requisite for anyone wanting to guide others

What, someone who hates politics? What, a politician who is not a linear, straight talker?

By the time someone is in kindergarten, they know that politicians are scum.

But our freedoms depend on governments and politicians. And among our highest values is freedom. But we hate the scumbag politicians.

How can we entertain such a huge contradiction?

And moreover what the hell are we doing spending time here and discussing and trying to shape politics? Why not be good Americans and spend more time shopping and watching TV?

My dumb attempt at irony.

**
Important point is that hatred of politics and democracy goes back to Plato and it has been a stable of Western thought ever since. The two people I read who point out the importance of politics are Hannah Arendt and Bruno Latour. Bruno makes the case that political speech is circular, not linear. And that society gives politicians the right to lie because of the important jobs they have to do which is to bring people and issues together and create institutions.

Oh Crap. I did it again. I am so stuck on Bruno that I can't help myself. I need a shrink or to get to the chores before my wife comes home from a week vacation leaving me here alone with the dogs.

The abstract to Bruno's article, shown below, is a direct response to the issue of politics.

**
But first back to Richard Powers and here is an interview about his new book The Overstory in which trees are characters.

To what degree (if any) do you consider your work to be a moral or didactic project? Am I mistaken in feeling that The Overstory isn’t just a novel, but maybe a blueprint for being inducted into the “shimmering council” of the trees—something like a viable evangelism? Or does this idea just piss you off?

Goodness—what better way to start an interview than plunging into one of the most highly charged questions in the history of literature! Centuries of great writers have filled volumes exploring the proper position of the literary author along the spectrum of moral detachment and commitment. In the mid-19th century, the warring camps had their spokespeople in Tolstoy, who advocated for fiction that would raise consciousness and make readers into better people, and in Flaubert, who preached a moral detachment, urging writers to be like a remote, objective, hands-off God—“present everywhere and visible nowhere.”

In the last century, when I was growing up, the American version of this war was playing out between John Gardner and Gore Vidal. Vidal was the champion of aesthetic, belletristic freedom—the author who was above the fray, committed only to the free play of exploration and possibility. Gardner, in his controversial and influential book On Moral Fiction, wrote that fiction ought “to test human values, not for the purpose of preaching or peddling a particular ideology, but in a truly honest and open-minded effort to find out which best promotes human fulfillment.” Here’s the interesting thing: Don’t both these positions sound attractive and defensible?

If I were to name the prevailing aesthetic of the present concerning literary fiction, I’d say it leans toward the belletristic. Moral passion hasn’t been cool for some time; much better to gird yourself in irony and fatalistic detachment. Or to put it more sympathetically, contemporary literary fiction strives for the dialogical, where the conflicting moral positions of all the characters in the story are both defensible and flawed. But look at the standout books—the great war novels and postcolonial novels and novels of politics, social showdown and human abuse—and you’ll see a different story. These books know what’s wrong with the world and what it would take to better minister to the human condition...(note his answer continues)....

Thus this work of fiction might play an important part in helping people to realize that they are part of the earth and act to preserve it.

RICHARD POWERS The biggest questions in literature

***

and again I mount my hobby horse with an article from Bruno about politics. He asks the question is politics possible today? Here is the abstract

Political enunciation remains an enigma as long as it is considered from the
standpoint of information transfer. It remains as unintelligible as religious talk. The
paper explores the specificty of this regime and especially the strange link it has
with the canonical definition of enunciation in linguistics and semiotics. The
‘political circle’ is reconstituted and thus also the reasons why a ‘transparent’ or
‘rational’political speech act destroys the very conditions of group formation.

What if we Talked Politics a Little?

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 1:11pm

Fiction is the only way to understand politics

@mimi Just watching a book editor on BookTV

He made the point that politics is entertainment and entertainment is politics.

Hence the best path to understand politics is through fiction

And this is why the journalists get outflanked

(and there are a few other reasons, such as corporate media...)

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 3:00pm

@DonMidwest Watch pro wrestling.

@DonMidwest Watch pro wrestling. Then you'll get it.

—

"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

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 4:07pm

CSTMS

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I do not fully understand your pro wrestling analogy until relatively recently. But now it is clear as a bell and is a perfect analogy. Enjoy the show.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:12pm

@gulfgal98 I wish I could

@gulfgal98 I wish I could enjoy it, but pro wrestling really shouldn't involve members of the audience getting hurt and killed.

—

"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

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:32pm

added without further comment

@gulfgal98

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 6:06pm

@Cassiodorus Exactly!

@Cassiodorus Exactly!

—

"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

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 5:28pm

I wish more people realized this point.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal I know you and I have talked about the politics as pro wrestling analogy but it just makes too much sense.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:02pm

Yup. The real world is faker than professional wrestling.

@Dr. John Carpenter

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:13pm

@The Aspie Corner It is. And, as I

@The Aspie Corner It is. And, as I mention above, it's like a version of pro wrestling where the people in the audience get their bones broken and their blood spilled.

—

"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

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:12pm

@Dr. John Carpenter Yeah, and it's a

@Dr. John Carpenter Yeah, and it's a good time to talk about it, given that our President is a member of the World Wrestling Federation Hall of Fame!

—

"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

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:15am

Heh.

Ohio Democratic @RepTimRyan is telling people he will run for president in 2020, hoping to win “yoga vote” https://t.co/mRezgUhBcs

— The Intercept (@theintercept) July 23, 2018

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:48am

Tim a star at turd way meeting in Columbus

@divineorder @divineorder Actually, the third way. I must have made a spelling error.

I am sure that you want to know what this "leading edge" of how this neo liberalism is going to shape the future of the dims to ensure that money keeps dominating their future.

Opportunity 2020 !!!

This July, in Columbus, OH, Third Way, Winston Fisher, The NewDEAL, and other partners are hosting an invitation-only strategy session for key Democratic leaders. The goal: shape and advance a new economic and electoral conversation.

The discussions will focus on some of the most consequential questions we face: the need—both substantively and politically—for the next generation of leaders to offer a new social contract for the Digital Age, one that ensures that all Americans have the opportunity to earn a good life.

Participants will include elected officials, pollsters, campaign strategists, media advisors, donors, and constituency and labor leaders. They will be from DC and around the country, with an emphasis on the 20 primary and general election battleground states. This is the first such gathering of the 2020 electoral cycle, and it will likely be the only one of its kind prior to the selection of the Party’s nominee.

This event truly will be a strategy session, not a conventional conference. It is designed for people who are interested in sharing their views, insights, expertise, and experience. And it is not right for anyone who believes that anti-Trump animus will be enough to propel Democrats to victory in 2020. Rather, it is for those who think the Party must modernize its economic vision and reimagine how we can advance economic opportunity in the Digital Age.

Such bold re-thinking has been done before. Progressives of the last century envisioned and championed a powerful response to the defining dual challenges of their time: the epic economic changes caused by industrialization and the consequent rise of dangerous and demagogic right-wing politics. Democrats must do so again now, for this century, if they are to win and to govern. Those two challenges will be the foundation of our shared work in Columbus:

Economics:
We will explore a new social contract for the Digital Age, focused on the transformations wrought by technology and globalization, all of which have resulted in a severe concentration of opportunity. Far too many people—residents of urban and rural areas, workers at all skill levels, women and people of color—are wondering how they or their kids will be able to earn a good life. We will unpack and discuss these trends, their impact on Americans, and modern policies to address them.

Elections:
We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

This event is just the beginning of a broader effort to bring a modern approach to the Democratic vision and narrative. Following the strategy session, we will set up an Opportunity Network, so that the leaders gathered in Columbus can stay connected, share their ideas, and work together at every level to help foster this 21st century economic and electoral

Opportunity 2020

***

You might have seen a write up of the meeting

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.: Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement

This is a follow up of The Intercept article on Tim Ryan.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 9:33am

"Turd" is the correct spelling.

@DonMidwest Rec'd!!

#3 #3 Actually, the third way. I must have made a spelling error.

I am sure that you want to know what this "leading edge" of how this neo liberalism is going to shape the future of the dims to ensure that money keeps dominating their future.

Opportunity 2020 !!!

This July, in Columbus, OH, Third Way, Winston Fisher, The NewDEAL, and other partners are hosting an invitation-only strategy session for key Democratic leaders. The goal: shape and advance a new economic and electoral conversation.

The discussions will focus on some of the most consequential questions we face: the need—both substantively and politically—for the next generation of leaders to offer a new social contract for the Digital Age, one that ensures that all Americans have the opportunity to earn a good life.

Participants will include elected officials, pollsters, campaign strategists, media advisors, donors, and constituency and labor leaders. They will be from DC and around the country, with an emphasis on the 20 primary and general election battleground states. This is the first such gathering of the 2020 electoral cycle, and it will likely be the only one of its kind prior to the selection of the Party’s nominee.

This event truly will be a strategy session, not a conventional conference. It is designed for people who are interested in sharing their views, insights, expertise, and experience. And it is not right for anyone who believes that anti-Trump animus will be enough to propel Democrats to victory in 2020. Rather, it is for those who think the Party must modernize its economic vision and reimagine how we can advance economic opportunity in the Digital Age.

Such bold re-thinking has been done before. Progressives of the last century envisioned and championed a powerful response to the defining dual challenges of their time: the epic economic changes caused by industrialization and the consequent rise of dangerous and demagogic right-wing politics. Democrats must do so again now, for this century, if they are to win and to govern. Those two challenges will be the foundation of our shared work in Columbus:

Economics:
We will explore a new social contract for the Digital Age, focused on the transformations wrought by technology and globalization, all of which have resulted in a severe concentration of opportunity. Far too many people—residents of urban and rural areas, workers at all skill levels, women and people of color—are wondering how they or their kids will be able to earn a good life. We will unpack and discuss these trends, their impact on Americans, and modern policies to address them.

Elections:
We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

This event is just the beginning of a broader effort to bring a modern approach to the Democratic vision and narrative. Following the strategy session, we will set up an Opportunity Network, so that the leaders gathered in Columbus can stay connected, share their ideas, and work together at every level to help foster this 21st century economic and electoral

Opportunity 2020

***

You might have seen a write up of the meeting

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.: Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement

This is a follow up of The Intercept article on Tim Ryan.

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 4:29pm

Agree with that spelling! However I don't

@orlbucfan @DonMidwest give two sh*ts about what this dckhd has to say.

I am sure that you want to know what this "leading edge" of how this neo liberalism is going to shape the future of the dims to ensure that money keeps dominating their future.

#3 #3 Actually, the third way. I must have made a spelling error.

I am sure that you want to know what this "leading edge" of how this neo liberalism is going to shape the future of the dims to ensure that money keeps dominating their future.

Opportunity 2020 !!!

This July, in Columbus, OH, Third Way, Winston Fisher, The NewDEAL, and other partners are hosting an invitation-only strategy session for key Democratic leaders. The goal: shape and advance a new economic and electoral conversation.

The discussions will focus on some of the most consequential questions we face: the need—both substantively and politically—for the next generation of leaders to offer a new social contract for the Digital Age, one that ensures that all Americans have the opportunity to earn a good life.

Participants will include elected officials, pollsters, campaign strategists, media advisors, donors, and constituency and labor leaders. They will be from DC and around the country, with an emphasis on the 20 primary and general election battleground states. This is the first such gathering of the 2020 electoral cycle, and it will likely be the only one of its kind prior to the selection of the Party’s nominee.

This event truly will be a strategy session, not a conventional conference. It is designed for people who are interested in sharing their views, insights, expertise, and experience. And it is not right for anyone who believes that anti-Trump animus will be enough to propel Democrats to victory in 2020. Rather, it is for those who think the Party must modernize its economic vision and reimagine how we can advance economic opportunity in the Digital Age.

Such bold re-thinking has been done before. Progressives of the last century envisioned and championed a powerful response to the defining dual challenges of their time: the epic economic changes caused by industrialization and the consequent rise of dangerous and demagogic right-wing politics. Democrats must do so again now, for this century, if they are to win and to govern. Those two challenges will be the foundation of our shared work in Columbus:

Economics:
We will explore a new social contract for the Digital Age, focused on the transformations wrought by technology and globalization, all of which have resulted in a severe concentration of opportunity. Far too many people—residents of urban and rural areas, workers at all skill levels, women and people of color—are wondering how they or their kids will be able to earn a good life. We will unpack and discuss these trends, their impact on Americans, and modern policies to address them.

Elections:
We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

This event is just the beginning of a broader effort to bring a modern approach to the Democratic vision and narrative. Following the strategy session, we will set up an Opportunity Network, so that the leaders gathered in Columbus can stay connected, share their ideas, and work together at every level to help foster this 21st century economic and electoral

Opportunity 2020

***

You might have seen a write up of the meeting

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.: Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement

This is a follow up of The Intercept article on Tim Ryan.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 9:24pm

There is so much wrong with that "brochure"

@DonMidwest

...I would not know how to begin. This paragraph was very telling:

We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

What it tells me is that the Democrats have no clue what's going on around them. If they're pulling a paycheck from party politics, they don't want to know the truth about their center-right corporate party. For example, the one thing that nobody wants to build is a "center-left coalition." Think about it. It's exactly what they've been trying to force on us all along. Most of us walked.

Bad analogies are a symptom of a disordered group mind: "That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters..." Is "brand" another name for a "shovel"? This Dem pop-up think tank shouldn't be digging in the first place; they should be filling in the holes.

They say that the party's path feels "tectonic" to them? Really? It doesn't feel like an earthquake if you're woke. It feels like an endless migration into political mediocrity. Sheesh... the voters aren't "realigning," they're walking away.

Of course the Dems want to "connect policy ideas to core voter values" — so they can use the people's hopes like slogan-promises to fundraise with. They will not carry them across the finish line, however. Wall Street would fire them. Finally, they want to beat back "right-wing populism?" Pulease. The Dems enable "right-wing populism" with their legislative corporate sabotage. But they regard basic human rights, like the people's pressing health care needs, as "left-wing populism" that must be approached incrementally, if at all.

Reform this.

You can get where you want to go without a party. Now you can.

#3 #3 Actually, the third way. I must have made a spelling error.

I am sure that you want to know what this "leading edge" of how this neo liberalism is going to shape the future of the dims to ensure that money keeps dominating their future.

Opportunity 2020 !!!

This July, in Columbus, OH, Third Way, Winston Fisher, The NewDEAL, and other partners are hosting an invitation-only strategy session for key Democratic leaders. The goal: shape and advance a new economic and electoral conversation.

The discussions will focus on some of the most consequential questions we face: the need—both substantively and politically—for the next generation of leaders to offer a new social contract for the Digital Age, one that ensures that all Americans have the opportunity to earn a good life.

Participants will include elected officials, pollsters, campaign strategists, media advisors, donors, and constituency and labor leaders. They will be from DC and around the country, with an emphasis on the 20 primary and general election battleground states. This is the first such gathering of the 2020 electoral cycle, and it will likely be the only one of its kind prior to the selection of the Party’s nominee.

This event truly will be a strategy session, not a conventional conference. It is designed for people who are interested in sharing their views, insights, expertise, and experience. And it is not right for anyone who believes that anti-Trump animus will be enough to propel Democrats to victory in 2020. Rather, it is for those who think the Party must modernize its economic vision and reimagine how we can advance economic opportunity in the Digital Age.

Such bold re-thinking has been done before. Progressives of the last century envisioned and championed a powerful response to the defining dual challenges of their time: the epic economic changes caused by industrialization and the consequent rise of dangerous and demagogic right-wing politics. Democrats must do so again now, for this century, if they are to win and to govern. Those two challenges will be the foundation of our shared work in Columbus:

Economics:
We will explore a new social contract for the Digital Age, focused on the transformations wrought by technology and globalization, all of which have resulted in a severe concentration of opportunity. Far too many people—residents of urban and rural areas, workers at all skill levels, women and people of color—are wondering how they or their kids will be able to earn a good life. We will unpack and discuss these trends, their impact on Americans, and modern policies to address them.

Elections:
We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

This event is just the beginning of a broader effort to bring a modern approach to the Democratic vision and narrative. Following the strategy session, we will set up an Opportunity Network, so that the leaders gathered in Columbus can stay connected, share their ideas, and work together at every level to help foster this 21st century economic and electoral

Opportunity 2020

***

You might have seen a write up of the meeting

Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.: Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement

This is a follow up of The Intercept article on Tim Ryan.

Submitted by WheninRome on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 9:13am

@Pluto's Republic As always, brilliant

@Pluto's Republic As always, brilliant rebuttal.

#3.1

...I would not know how to begin. This paragraph was very telling:

We will also discuss the historic opportunity to build a Digital Age center-left coalition—one that can win not just the White House but expand the map at all levels. That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters, the necessity of connecting policy ideas to core voter values, what history tells us about how best to beat back right-wing populism, and the need for progressive organizations, advocates, and candidates to both mobilize and persuade.

What it tells me is that the Democrats have no clue what's going on around them. If they're pulling a paycheck from party politics, they don't want to know the truth about their center-right corporate party. For example, the one thing that nobody wants to build is a "center-left coalition." Think about it. It's exactly what they've been trying to force on us all along. Most of us walked.

Bad analogies are a symptom of a disordered group mind: "That includes digging into problems with the Democratic brand, the ongoing, tectonic re-alignment of voters..." Is "brand" another name for a "shovel"? This Dem pop-up think tank shouldn't be digging in the first place; they should be filling in the holes.

They say that the party's path feels "tectonic" to them? Really? It doesn't feel like an earthquake if you're woke. It feels like an endless migration into political mediocrity. Sheesh... the voters aren't "realigning," they're walking away.

Of course the Dems want to "connect policy ideas to core voter values" — so they can use the people's hopes like slogan-promises to fundraise with. They will not carry them across the finish line, however. Wall Street would fire them. Finally, they want to beat back "right-wing populism?" Pulease. The Dems enable "right-wing populism" with their legislative corporate sabotage. But they regard basic human rights, like the people's pressing health care needs, as "left-wing populism" that must be approached incrementally, if at all.

Reform this.

You can get where you want to go without a party. Now you can.

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:34am

Frank knows the answer to this.

He’s written about how the Dems made a conscious decision to turn away from the working class in the early 70s. Yet he still treats this like some sort of temporary diversion the Dems are going to recover from. This is their long game. This is the Democratic Party. They aren’t going to work to win back the working class because they subscribe to the same “where else are they going to go” mental Frank does. Frank knows this game better than most pundits.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:58am

could this be like Thom Hartmann?

@Dr. John Carpenter who continues to be upbeat to get people active?

while he criticizes the dems he holds them out as the only chance to make a difference

walking a narrow path

Bernie was on Thom's show for something like 12 years every Friday of "Lunch with Bernie" or it might have been "Brunch with Bernie" so Thom played an important role in Bernie's rise to prominence.

Last night I saw an early release of the movie "Dark Money"

Is it mostly about Montana and is a harrowing story of the take over by money in the state which had the strongest campaign finance laws after Anaconda copper ran the state for decades. They don't want corporate control.

It was hopeful by showing how people fought back. A reporter who staked his life on telling the news. A cash of documents that showed up after a drug bust because the documents came from a stolen car

A retired prosecutor who spent 1200 hours or more of volunteer time to lead a case on a corrupt politician. And after reading boxes of documents, it took a former employee to fill in the details so he could understand what was going on.

In other words, this was a miracle to come to the surface. At the same time the Kochs and others are continuing their coup here in the US

Maybe as a several generation democrat, I hold the dims responsible because they should have pushed back on the corruption of elections, and everything else.

But I guess that I continue to underestimate not only money, but economics and how it has destroyed politics.

My favorite polymath Bruno Latour asked a couple of decades ago, is politics still possible?

I could give a link to that article if anyone is interested.

I recommend seeing the movie Dark Money but the crashing of the gates that it should engender is not going to come from the dims.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:35am

Thank you, Don,

@DonMidwest

for this recommendation. I keep thinking the power of imagery is under-utilized. Seeing, and hearing, is believing.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 4:39pm

We need hundreds of people working to counter the fail.

@DonMidwest

Trump's Treasury Department will no longer require most non-profits to report their donors to the IRS. That means:

-The NRA and other special interest groups can spend more dark money.

-Foreign money can more easily infiltrate our elections. https://t.co/DA7QJBeztR

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) July 28, 2018

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 10:48am

Yes of course.

@Dr. John Carpenter The point is that the working class does not need another book to display this message, but rather an alternative to the Democrats.

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 9:20am

CA is a stronghold of political hopes

And now the political actor has arisen from the ashes, or is the ashes, or was predicted and now we are living in the ruins

From the Sacramento Bee

The Carr Fire is a terrifying glimpse into California’s future

“There was literally a wall of flames coming into the city,” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Battalion Chief Jonathan Cox said Friday as firefighters tried to make a stand in triple-digit heat and gusting wind.

This is climate change, for real and in real time. We were warned that the atmospheric buildup of man-made greenhouse gas would eventually be an existential threat.

Still, it is sobering to witness how swiftly scientists’ worst predictions have come true, from the lethal heat wave gripping Japan to the record temperatures in Europe to the flames exploding near the Arctic Circle. And it is terrifying to watch as ideologues in the Trump administration block action on this gathering crisis.

With fires at opposite ends of California, shutting down Yosemite National Park and emptying the mountain town of Idyllwild, the White House is reportedly trying to revoke a decades-old waiver that has allowed the state to impose strict rules on auto emissions, a leading cause of greenhouse gas pollution.

President Donald Trump couldn’t be more wrong, and this irresponsible push just underscores the need for Californians to double down on our convictions. But it also means that the need to plan is even more urgent than we imagine

America as the City on the Hill was after the apocalypse. One that lives after the apocalypse can celebrate Trump as "shaking shit up" and going after scum and protecting us with walls.

Oh well, I am going to post the info on my favorite polymath, Bruno Latour. His book was published in French and translated into German and Italian and should be out this summer in English.

Feel free to skip the rest of this comment as I mount my hobby horse.

Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime
Date: 2018
Publisher: Polity Press
Translator(s): Cathy Porter
Language: English

Description

The present ecological mutation has organized the whole political landscape for the last thirty years. This could explain the deadly cocktail of exploding inequalities, massive deregulation, and conversion of the dream of globalization into a nightmare for most people.

What holds these three phenomena together is the conviction, shared by some powerful people, that the ecological threat is real and that the only way for them to survive is to abandon any pretense at sharing a common future with the rest of the world. Hence their flight offshore and their massive investment in climate change denial.

The Left has been extremely slow to turn its attention to this new situation. It is still organized along an axis that goes from investment in local values to the hope of globalization—and just at the time when, everywhere, people dissatisfied with the ideal of modernity are turning back to the protection of national or even ethnic borders.

This is why it is urgent to shift sideways and to define politics as what leads toward the Earth and not toward the global or the national. Belonging to a territory is the phenomenon most in need of rethinking and careful redescription; learning new ways to inhabit the Earth is our biggest challenge. Bringing us down to earth is the task of politics today.

***

The last paragraph describes that a radical change is needed for all our institutions including politics.

When I was young, graduating from HS in 1960, the future was something to look forward to. Now, the future is in the title of a book, "Living in the ruins." Progress is dead. Unless it is directed to get more connected with the earth and creatures, human and non human.

The jury is out on how this change will happen or if humanity will end with another Easter Island. Our missile silos are under ground and old ones have been converted to some living quarters, or escape quarters, but our monuments like hospitals and churches will decay. I look at the street in my quiet suburb and imagine it all gone but not sure what it will end up being. Or how long it will take.

The damage of mountain top mining is estimated to take 1 million years to recover so my neighborhood will be changed in less time than that.

Oh well, ...

I was at Berkeley 65 -67 and some of the best political speech was delivered on the steps of Sproul Hall from Mario Savio and Jerry Rubin. Will CA lead the move back to the earth?

The Bernie movement has brought politics back from the brink.

But politics, like everything is on life support, and there is not a transcendent single payer to come to the rescue. As Bruno says, science, religion, politics, law, etc. have to come back to earth.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:01am

Easter Island is not a perfect analogy,

@DonMidwest

since they were "rescued" from outside. The Dutch "discovery" of the island was very bad for it in the short term but in the long run may have been the only thing that allowed any of the population to survive.

Pitcairn Island is an even direr example - it was once inhabited, and quite habitable, until inter-island trade involving Mangareva broke down. When the Europeans first found it in 1606 (and re-found it in 1767), there was no one living there and had not been for centuries.

The descendants of the Bounty mutineers and their women barely scraped by, with extensive outside assistance, and even so more people leave for elsewhere than are born.

And now the political actor has arisen from the ashes, or is the ashes, or was predicted and now we are living in the ruins

From the Sacramento Bee

The Carr Fire is a terrifying glimpse into California’s future

“There was literally a wall of flames coming into the city,” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Battalion Chief Jonathan Cox said Friday as firefighters tried to make a stand in triple-digit heat and gusting wind.

This is climate change, for real and in real time. We were warned that the atmospheric buildup of man-made greenhouse gas would eventually be an existential threat.

Still, it is sobering to witness how swiftly scientists’ worst predictions have come true, from the lethal heat wave gripping Japan to the record temperatures in Europe to the flames exploding near the Arctic Circle. And it is terrifying to watch as ideologues in the Trump administration block action on this gathering crisis.

With fires at opposite ends of California, shutting down Yosemite National Park and emptying the mountain town of Idyllwild, the White House is reportedly trying to revoke a decades-old waiver that has allowed the state to impose strict rules on auto emissions, a leading cause of greenhouse gas pollution.

President Donald Trump couldn’t be more wrong, and this irresponsible push just underscores the need for Californians to double down on our convictions. But it also means that the need to plan is even more urgent than we imagine

America as the City on the Hill was after the apocalypse. One that lives after the apocalypse can celebrate Trump as "shaking shit up" and going after scum and protecting us with walls.

Oh well, I am going to post the info on my favorite polymath, Bruno Latour. His book was published in French and translated into German and Italian and should be out this summer in English.

Feel free to skip the rest of this comment as I mount my hobby horse.

Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime
Date: 2018
Publisher: Polity Press
Translator(s): Cathy Porter
Language: English

Description

The present ecological mutation has organized the whole political landscape for the last thirty years. This could explain the deadly cocktail of exploding inequalities, massive deregulation, and conversion of the dream of globalization into a nightmare for most people.

What holds these three phenomena together is the conviction, shared by some powerful people, that the ecological threat is real and that the only way for them to survive is to abandon any pretense at sharing a common future with the rest of the world. Hence their flight offshore and their massive investment in climate change denial.

The Left has been extremely slow to turn its attention to this new situation. It is still organized along an axis that goes from investment in local values to the hope of globalization—and just at the time when, everywhere, people dissatisfied with the ideal of modernity are turning back to the protection of national or even ethnic borders.

This is why it is urgent to shift sideways and to define politics as what leads toward the Earth and not toward the global or the national. Belonging to a territory is the phenomenon most in need of rethinking and careful redescription; learning new ways to inhabit the Earth is our biggest challenge. Bringing us down to earth is the task of politics today.

***

The last paragraph describes that a radical change is needed for all our institutions including politics.

When I was young, graduating from HS in 1960, the future was something to look forward to. Now, the future is in the title of a book, "Living in the ruins." Progress is dead. Unless it is directed to get more connected with the earth and creatures, human and non human.

The jury is out on how this change will happen or if humanity will end with another Easter Island. Our missile silos are under ground and old ones have been converted to some living quarters, or escape quarters, but our monuments like hospitals and churches will decay. I look at the street in my quiet suburb and imagine it all gone but not sure what it will end up being. Or how long it will take.

The damage of mountain top mining is estimated to take 1 million years to recover so my neighborhood will be changed in less time than that.

Oh well, ...

I was at Berkeley 65 -67 and some of the best political speech was delivered on the steps of Sproul Hall from Mario Savio and Jerry Rubin. Will CA lead the move back to the earth?

The Bernie movement has brought politics back from the brink.

But politics, like everything is on life support, and there is not a transcendent single payer to come to the rescue. As Bruno says, science, religion, politics, law, etc. have to come back to earth.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by DonMidwest on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 6:15pm

thanks for that update

@TheOtherMaven @TheOtherMaven I didn't realize that the Dutch rescued them

Today, there is no escape from Gaia.

Until Science, Religion and Politics come down to earth, to Face Gaia, and humans realize that they are earthbounds, there will not be a good response to the crisis.

In fact "crisis" is the wrong. A crisis happens then passes. The New Climate Regime will not go away.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:12pm

It wasn't an intentional rescue,

@DonMidwest

hence the quotation marks. The Dutch came, marveled at the standing stone statues, took notes, and went away again. Their estimate of the population was 2000-3000 inhabitants, but they didn't do a detailed head count.

It was nearly fifty years before the next bunch of Europeans followed up on the Dutch reports. They were Peruvian-Spanish, conducted a coastal survey, slapped a name on the place and claimed it for Spain, erected three crosses and went away again. No population estimate.

Four years afterward (we're now up to 1774) came Captain Cook on his ill-fated voyage. This expedition reported many of the statues fallen down, no sign of the Spanish crosses, parts of the land neglected and the whole rather poor, no trees over 10 feet tall, and maybe 700 inhabitants.

Twelve years after Cook (1786), a French expedition under La Perouse made a detailed map of the island, noted that one-tenth was under cultivation, and guesstimated the population as 2000 (did he just copypaste that from the Dutch report, or did Cook seriously underestimate?).

Further visits were very sporadic until Peruvian slave-raiders hit in the 1860s. The population at that time has been guesstimated at some 3000, of which the slavers made off with approximately half. Only a handful ever made their way back home.

European diseases and well-meaning(?) attempts to resettle the islanders further reduced the population, down to a tight bottleneck at one point of a mere 36(!) family lines (total 111 people). But the island was never again completely isolated from the rest of the world, and the population slowly recovered (and has been added to by immigration, so that now maybe half the 7,750 residents can be considered indigenous).

What would have happened had the Easter Islanders continued to be left to themselves cannot be known. But something went horribly wrong sometime between 1722, when the moai were all standing to amaze the Dutch, and 1830, when the moai were reported all overthrown. Estimates of the population at its peak have ranged as high as 15,000 circa 1600, and it is known that numerous animal and plant species (including the Easter Island palm, the only possible source for seaworthy canoes) went extinct somewhere around that time, or earlier. Perhaps they could have struggled on, coming to terms with their depleted environment as happened on Mangareva, or perhaps not.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 4:58pm

Was glad to see a little success for the direct action folks

@DonMidwest

This is big news--and a big morale boost for pipeline fighters everywhere. So many thanks to everyone who is working to Stop MVPhttps://t.co/SroEXXIQEx

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) July 28, 2018

And now the political actor has arisen from the ashes, or is the ashes, or was predicted and now we are living in the ruins

From the Sacramento Bee

The Carr Fire is a terrifying glimpse into California’s future

“There was literally a wall of flames coming into the city,” California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Battalion Chief Jonathan Cox said Friday as firefighters tried to make a stand in triple-digit heat and gusting wind.

This is climate change, for real and in real time. We were warned that the atmospheric buildup of man-made greenhouse gas would eventually be an existential threat.

Still, it is sobering to witness how swiftly scientists’ worst predictions have come true, from the lethal heat wave gripping Japan to the record temperatures in Europe to the flames exploding near the Arctic Circle. And it is terrifying to watch as ideologues in the Trump administration block action on this gathering crisis.

With fires at opposite ends of California, shutting down Yosemite National Park and emptying the mountain town of Idyllwild, the White House is reportedly trying to revoke a decades-old waiver that has allowed the state to impose strict rules on auto emissions, a leading cause of greenhouse gas pollution.

President Donald Trump couldn’t be more wrong, and this irresponsible push just underscores the need for Californians to double down on our convictions. But it also means that the need to plan is even more urgent than we imagine

America as the City on the Hill was after the apocalypse. One that lives after the apocalypse can celebrate Trump as "shaking shit up" and going after scum and protecting us with walls.

Oh well, I am going to post the info on my favorite polymath, Bruno Latour. His book was published in French and translated into German and Italian and should be out this summer in English.

Feel free to skip the rest of this comment as I mount my hobby horse.

Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime
Date: 2018
Publisher: Polity Press
Translator(s): Cathy Porter
Language: English

Description

The present ecological mutation has organized the whole political landscape for the last thirty years. This could explain the deadly cocktail of exploding inequalities, massive deregulation, and conversion of the dream of globalization into a nightmare for most people.

What holds these three phenomena together is the conviction, shared by some powerful people, that the ecological threat is real and that the only way for them to survive is to abandon any pretense at sharing a common future with the rest of the world. Hence their flight offshore and their massive investment in climate change denial.

The Left has been extremely slow to turn its attention to this new situation. It is still organized along an axis that goes from investment in local values to the hope of globalization—and just at the time when, everywhere, people dissatisfied with the ideal of modernity are turning back to the protection of national or even ethnic borders.

This is why it is urgent to shift sideways and to define politics as what leads toward the Earth and not toward the global or the national. Belonging to a territory is the phenomenon most in need of rethinking and careful redescription; learning new ways to inhabit the Earth is our biggest challenge. Bringing us down to earth is the task of politics today.

***

The last paragraph describes that a radical change is needed for all our institutions including politics.

When I was young, graduating from HS in 1960, the future was something to look forward to. Now, the future is in the title of a book, "Living in the ruins." Progress is dead. Unless it is directed to get more connected with the earth and creatures, human and non human.

The jury is out on how this change will happen or if humanity will end with another Easter Island. Our missile silos are under ground and old ones have been converted to some living quarters, or escape quarters, but our monuments like hospitals and churches will decay. I look at the street in my quiet suburb and imagine it all gone but not sure what it will end up being. Or how long it will take.

The damage of mountain top mining is estimated to take 1 million years to recover so my neighborhood will be changed in less time than that.

Oh well, ...

I was at Berkeley 65 -67 and some of the best political speech was delivered on the steps of Sproul Hall from Mario Savio and Jerry Rubin. Will CA lead the move back to the earth?

The Bernie movement has brought politics back from the brink.

But politics, like everything is on life support, and there is not a transcendent single payer to come to the rescue. As Bruno says, science, religion, politics, law, etc. have to come back to earth.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 9:40am

Used to be we would make fun of Televangelists...

Who would proclaim that doom and apocalypse would descend upon us if we didn't send them money.

They don't do that much any more.

Apparently they went into politics.

Edit: Whoops, wrong video.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95SWMqzM_Sg]

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 10:35am

American voters don't understand how systems work.

Even when the machinations are laid bare for all to see, they just ignore it and blame individuals or outside forces ruining a system we plebs were taught worked for everyone when we were children. The capitalist system has never been great, or even decent, even in its supposed Happy Face Capitalism phase from the 1940s to the 1970s. If you're using lines like this:

"No, no, that's not capitalism, that's the Deep State."

"That's not capitalism, that's crony capitalism/corporatism."

"Teh illuminati wants to kill all Kris-Chins and force teh NWO/One World Commie/Soshlist/Muzlamic Gubmint down our throats."

"Israel/The Jews control the US."

Then you don't understand how it works.

Yes, different capitalist factions vie for dominance over the pale blue dot and the finite resources contained within it, but at the end of the day, they all serve the same goal: Profit by any means necessary.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:58pm

@The Aspie Corner You obviously only talk

@The Aspie Corner You obviously only talk to right-wingers about the Deep State. Left-wing people who talk about the Deep State understand that, of course, there's a handshake deal between the Deep State and the 1%, the owners and the enforcers/goons.

—

"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

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 3:38pm

You're talking on their (RW) terms re: "Deep State"

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Left-wing people who talk about the Deep State understand that, of course, there's a handshake deal between the Deep State and the 1%, the owners and the enforcers/goons.

Using such a term implies that there's some nefarious outside force at work ruining or gaming the system. However, that's been the nature of it since at least the day 'Murica was founded. You don't need a 'Deep State' to explain that anymore than you need 'Cultural Marxism' to explain the consequences of unchecked imperialism and the drive to keep profits up at every last cost.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 7:08pm

@The Aspie Corner We've had this

@The Aspie Corner We've had this argument before, and I suspect our disagreement is insoluble.

No, the term "Deep State" is not owned by the right wing, nor do I intend to cede it to them.
No, it does not suggest that something "outside the system" is doing something nefarious; far from it. Actually the image conveyed by "Deep State" suggests something deep (heh) within the State, a State beneath the visible State; the word "deep" both implies "at the center rather than the edges" and "at the foundation, fundamental." In fact, "Deep State" implies just the opposite of what you're suggesting. The people who believe that something nefarious is being done from outside the system are mostly Russiagate supporters, with some xenophobic Trumpistas trumpeting their own version of "everything bad must come from somewhere else."

I suspect what you probably object to is the notion that something particularly horrible was conjured up post-WWII, and put on steroids at the end of the sixties, and again in the eighties, and again in 2001. You want to believe that the United States has been in the same steady state of horrible evil from its beginnings to now, and that, therefore, objections to specific events, or even remembering or mentioning specific events, is at best silly, and at worst right-wing.

However, evidence clearly lays out a trajectory of worsening conditions, at least from 1968 on. You can start with the 1968 Democratic convention, go on to the Powell memo, go on again to the partnership between the first Reagan administration and the CIA which, Robert Parry discovered, began in 1983. Although rummaging through the doings of the Clinton administrations is highly distasteful, you can see where Bill Clinton got rid of the notion of posse comitatus, where he developed the Democratic Party into an actual, active weapon to be used against organized labor (as opposed to a bunch of corrupt schmucks who mostly paid lip service and didn't do much), where he approved of basically every corporate merger that ever existed, where he endorsed the labor-destroying NAFTA deal, and, of course, where he deregulated the banks. Apparently, he would have decimated what was left of the New Deal had it not been for the Lewinsky scandal. The Patriot Act also first came to light during his administration, which is why it was ready to go on Sept. 11th.

I assume I don't need to chronicle the doings of the George W. Bush administration, or anything since, but if I have to, I will.

You want to say "It was always all evil, so none of this matters." In other words, nothing was lost, and if you think something was, then you must be a shitty right-winger. But plenty was lost. Papering over that loss serves the powerful who engendered it. Replacing history with essential blanket statements serves neither the revolutionist nor the reformer. And it's quite possible, easy even, to both believe in the trajectory I just described, and also believe that profound evil has been part of the United States from the beginning. It's quite possible, easy even, to believe in the trajectory I just described, and hate capitalism.

I don't expect to convince you; nor are you going to convince me. But my specific analyses of the rich and their goons and their plots should hardly threaten an enemy of capitalism. If you find them superfluous, just don't read them.

Regardless, I am neither a right-winger nor a dupe. The words "Deep State," though used by right-wingers, are also used by left-wingers, and as I said before, I see no reason to cede more ideas and words to people who have had things almost entirely their way since this propaganda-fest started when I was 12.

—

"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

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:05pm

You are exactly right.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Don't know how you got there, exactly. But the fact is, it is not really a secret at all. They know who they are and those of us who can see know who they are. They've been here a very early, in terms of investment. Forming a nation came much later. This latest phase, however, began about 1910 and it continues in earnest with all the same people and their descendants. They intermarry a great deal. They get along fine with the communists, the fascists, and the capitalists. They are not particularly ideological beyond their circle, but are involved with politics in order to make major changes, like depopulation or war. There are several places where they bottleneck and collect: a certain few universities, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the central banking system. Media and Intelligence are the powers that protect them and brainwash the rest of us from birth. Intelligence has been used to guide their investments.

As you know, they are not the Deep State, but co-exist. None of them give any of us a thought. Our domestic politics are low level and pedestrian. They pay no attention as long as we are productive and pay all of the nation's expenses on their behalf. Where else are we going to go?

I always wondered if the people we elect to Congress ever see the reality. I've discovered they never figure it out, or if they do they suppress it. Presidents know, but they have been pre-selected since the 1900s, as are key presidential appointees. Intelligence provides presidential oversight to the oligarch Families. The people are kept in line via media programming and the country's army of trusted "investigative journalists" along with other cultural influencers and entertainers. The Deep State has some points of entry and overlap in Presidential appointees, intelligence agencies, the think tank cartel, and the bureaucracy, particularly at the State Department and the Pentagon. I suspect, however, the Families regard many of them as ideological morons.

I think we all see it, if we are one of the observers, in slightly different ways. I could see how it worked; see its effects. But this year everything changed when the Russia Hoax backfired and threw the doors wide open. It's been breathtaking, just watching it in action.

#7.1.1 We've had this argument before, and I suspect our disagreement is insoluble. No, the term "Deep State" is not owned by the right wing, nor do I intend to cede it to them. No, it does not suggest that something "outside the system" is doing something nefarious; far from it. Actually the image conveyed by "Deep State" suggests something deep (heh) within the State, a State beneath the visible State; the word "deep" both implies "at the center rather than the edges" and "at the foundation, fundamental." In fact, "Deep State" implies just the opposite of what you're suggesting. The people who believe that something nefarious is being done from outside the system are mostly Russiagate supporters, with some xenophobic Trumpistas trumpeting their own version of "everything bad must come from somewhere else." I suspect what you probably object to is the notion that something particularly horrible was conjured up post-WWII, and put on steroids at the end of the sixties, and again in the eighties, and again in 2001. You want to believe that the United States has been in the same steady state of horrible evil from its beginnings to now, and that, therefore, objections to specific events, or even remembering or mentioning specific events, is at best silly, and at worst right-wing. However, evidence clearly lays out a trajectory of worsening conditions, at least from 1968 on. You can start with the 1968 Democratic convention, go on to the Powell memo, go on again to the partnership between the first Reagan administration and the CIA which, Robert Parry discovered, began in 1983. Although rummaging through the doings of the Clinton administrations is highly distasteful, you can see where Bill Clinton got rid of the notion of posse comitatus, where he developed the Democratic Party into an actual, active weapon to be used against organized labor (as opposed to a bunch of corrupt schmucks who mostly paid lip service and didn't do much), where he approved of basically every corporate merger that ever existed, where he endorsed the labor-destroying NAFTA deal, and, of course, where he deregulated the banks. Apparently, he would have decimated what was left of the New Deal had it not been for the Lewinsky scandal. The Patriot Act also first came to light during his administration, which is why it was ready to go on Sept. 11th. I assume I don't need to chronicle the doings of the George W. Bush administration, or anything since, but if I have to, I will. You want to say "It was always all evil, so none of this matters." In other words, nothing was lost, and if you think something was, then you must be a shitty right-winger. But plenty was lost. Papering over that loss serves the powerful who engendered it. Replacing history with essential blanket statements serves neither the revolutionist nor the reformer. And it's quite possible, easy even, to both believe in the trajectory I just described, and also believe that profound evil has been part of the United States from the beginning. It's quite possible, easy even, to believe in the trajectory I just described, and hate capitalism. I don't expect to convince you; nor are you going to convince me. But my specific analyses of the rich and their goons and their plots should hardly threaten an enemy of capitalism. If you find them superfluous, just don't read them. Regardless, I am neither a right-winger nor a dupe. The words "Deep State," though used by right-wingers, are also used by left-wingers, and as I said before, I see no reason to cede more ideas and words to people who have had things almost entirely their way since this propaganda-fest started when I was 12.

Submitted by Snode on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:14am

The democratic party is just a construct

a system. Still think it could be taken over or disrupted. 1968 the party bosses and the upstarts both learned a few things. How about an "Occupy the democratic convention" demonstration and a "Take back YOUR Party" slogan, calling out the entrenched "leaders". It's one thing they're not used to dealing with, being humiliated, and it's humorous to see them deal with it. I don't know how this could be done on the state level, though.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:56am

You argue like the Democrats are made of nothing.

@Snode The Democratic Party is of course made of money, and the big money comes from the Federal government, which prints the money and gives it to the same interests which keep the already-rich in ownership of the two parties. "National defense" and "industrial subsidy" are basically slush funds for these people. When the headline on page c23 of your local paper tell you that the Pentagon has lost so many trillions of dollars, that just means that the money has gotten to its intended recipients.

The idea of "taking over the Democratic Party" thus appears as an attempt to claim some of that money. The elites who run the Party have constructed the Party itself to deny that attempt. Their election-rigging efforts (not to mention the superdelegates who lay in wait should election-rigging not work) in the '16 primaries should have given us all a first-hand look at the internal operation of the system.

The folks who run the Democratic Party's system are perfectly happy to hand the whole of government over to their self-proclaimed opponents should the system experience a significant failure anywhere in its workings. Or maybe the DP elites will just hand it over should they happen to support policy imperatives that they feel the Republicans are better equipped to fulfill -- that's what happened under Obama, when the Democrat leadership gave up 900 state legislative seats for reasons which nobody bothers to ask them about.

To a certain extent the choice to "take over the Democratic Party" appears as arbitrary. Any countervailing force will have to run against both parties if it is to win anything of significance. You might as well try to take over the Republican Party, or for that matter the Green Party. What makes this choice more than arbitrary is the choice itself has attracted the attention of the owning class and its political servants, who are thereby alerted to the nature of the games being played within the structures they've created.

And that's not to mention the propaganda efforts being put forth so far. The biggest of these efforts, today, appears to be to center around getting Team Democrat to support Team FBI. Team FBI, in turn, puts forth half-hearted efforts to place Mike Pence atop the throne of power while gathering massive files on anyone whose beliefs are slightly out-of-line. Maybe there are a couple of Bernie supporters who have noticed this; Bernie himself seems to be going along for the ride.

Generally, then, "taking over the Democratic Party" looks to me like a diversion from the real work to be done, i.e. building a party responsible to the people rather than to rich donors.

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by EdMass on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 1:35pm

See SC Janus Decision

@Cassiodorus

End of mandatory contributions to DNC, SEIU, etc.

AFSME Reps no longer have offices in public buildings nor "time off" to handle Union Business.

If you were enthralled by Citizen United, you're really gonna love this.

You're Gubmint in action

#8 The Democratic Party is of course made of money, and the big money comes from the Federal government, which prints the money and gives it to the same interests which keep the already-rich in ownership of the two parties. "National defense" and "industrial subsidy" are basically slush funds for these people. When the headline on page c23 of your local paper tell you that the Pentagon has lost so many trillions of dollars, that just means that the money has gotten to its intended recipients. The idea of "taking over the Democratic Party" thus appears as an attempt to claim some of that money. The elites who run the Party have constructed the Party itself to deny that attempt. Their election-rigging efforts (not to mention the superdelegates who lay in wait should election-rigging not work) in the '16 primaries should have given us all a first-hand look at the internal operation of the system. The folks who run the Democratic Party's system are perfectly happy to hand the whole of government over to their self-proclaimed opponents should the system experience a significant failure anywhere in its workings. Or maybe the DP elites will just hand it over should they happen to support policy imperatives that they feel the Republicans are better equipped to fulfill -- that's what happened under Obama, when the Democrat leadership gave up 900 state legislative seats for reasons which nobody bothers to ask them about. To a certain extent the choice to "take over the Democratic Party" appears as arbitrary. Any countervailing force will have to run against both parties if it is to win anything of significance. You might as well try to take over the Republican Party, or for that matter the Green Party. What makes this choice more than arbitrary is the choice itself has attracted the attention of the owning class and its political servants, who are thereby alerted to the nature of the games being played within the structures they've created. And that's not to mention the propaganda efforts being put forth so far. The biggest of these efforts, today, appears to be to center around getting Team Democrat to support Team FBI. Team FBI, in turn, puts forth half-hearted efforts to place Mike Pence atop the throne of power while gathering massive files on anyone whose beliefs are slightly out-of-line. Maybe there are a couple of Bernie supporters who have noticed this; Bernie himself seems to be going along for the ride. Generally, then, "taking over the Democratic Party" looks to me like a diversion from the real work to be done, i.e. building a party responsible to the people rather than to rich donors.

—

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by EdMass on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 1:47pm

FYI. I'm snarking here. It happens.

@EdMass

—

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by Snode on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:40pm

Well, maybe so

@Cassiodorus but in 1968 it was half party/ half protest and the object was to change the democratic party. We thought it did, but were naive. Most people think that the dems are already advocating for what we're talking about. They don't realize it's a sham that the dems can't seem to be able to do anything right. But look at the platform...it's all right there. In 1968 the PTB set in motion a police action on demonstrators who were nominally democrats, if they were old enough to vote. So, no, I do not think the democratic party is made of nothing. I think Pelosi and Schumer would call out law enforcement, and LE would over reach. They always do. The saying was "The whole world is watching". If the world saw violent reaction to people demonstrating for what was already supposed to be part of the democrats platform it would show who the d's really are. Or the dem leadership would try to negotiate. Either way it would put the spotlight on the dems and I don't see how they could avoid having to make a stand. That is the disruption part.

How long to organize and develop another "third party"? I mean, aren't the same things you mention as barriers to attempting to taking over the d party the same forces that will come to bear in starting a third party, esp. if it's looking viable? As you said, the democrats, and republicans, are not made of nothing. With the dems we're not going to be given a seat at the table, maybe it's time to just take it. It doesn't seem to have been tried for a long while.

#8 The Democratic Party is of course made of money, and the big money comes from the Federal government, which prints the money and gives it to the same interests which keep the already-rich in ownership of the two parties. "National defense" and "industrial subsidy" are basically slush funds for these people. When the headline on page c23 of your local paper tell you that the Pentagon has lost so many trillions of dollars, that just means that the money has gotten to its intended recipients. The idea of "taking over the Democratic Party" thus appears as an attempt to claim some of that money. The elites who run the Party have constructed the Party itself to deny that attempt. Their election-rigging efforts (not to mention the superdelegates who lay in wait should election-rigging not work) in the '16 primaries should have given us all a first-hand look at the internal operation of the system. The folks who run the Democratic Party's system are perfectly happy to hand the whole of government over to their self-proclaimed opponents should the system experience a significant failure anywhere in its workings. Or maybe the DP elites will just hand it over should they happen to support policy imperatives that they feel the Republicans are better equipped to fulfill -- that's what happened under Obama, when the Democrat leadership gave up 900 state legislative seats for reasons which nobody bothers to ask them about. To a certain extent the choice to "take over the Democratic Party" appears as arbitrary. Any countervailing force will have to run against both parties if it is to win anything of significance. You might as well try to take over the Republican Party, or for that matter the Green Party. What makes this choice more than arbitrary is the choice itself has attracted the attention of the owning class and its political servants, who are thereby alerted to the nature of the games being played within the structures they've created. And that's not to mention the propaganda efforts being put forth so far. The biggest of these efforts, today, appears to be to center around getting Team Democrat to support Team FBI. Team FBI, in turn, puts forth half-hearted efforts to place Mike Pence atop the throne of power while gathering massive files on anyone whose beliefs are slightly out-of-line. Maybe there are a couple of Bernie supporters who have noticed this; Bernie himself seems to be going along for the ride. Generally, then, "taking over the Democratic Party" looks to me like a diversion from the real work to be done, i.e. building a party responsible to the people rather than to rich donors.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 8:11pm

It seems a bit of a stretch to me --

@Snode to label the protesters in Chicago in '68 as "Democrats." Certainly the victims of the police riot that ensued were Democrats -- many of them consisted of delegates on the convention floor. Perhaps you could add a section to the Wikipedia entry on the protests to voice your own opinion on this? Anyway, as of today it's not there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protes...

Anyway:

How long to organize and develop another "third party"?

Yeah, you know, after the Whigs lost the 1852 elections in convincing fashion, the antislavery Whigs worried their little hearts out about how long it would take to organize and develop another "third party." They all got together and said, "gee we better vote Whig in 1856, because proslavery Whigs are better than proslavery Democrats. Lesser of two evils y'know." Right? And that's why the Whig Party is in power today, right?

No, wait! That's not what happened at all. The Republicans formed a "third party" in 1854, they gained the White House in 1861, and slavery was abolished four years later.

Of course, the big difference between the Democrats of 2018 and the Republicans of 1854 is that the Republicans of 1854 had a cause, ending slavery, whereas the Democrats of 2018 don't seem to have any cause at all outside of money. It's not that there aren't any necessary causes out there: mitigating climate change, ending police shootings of Black bystanders, enacting single payer, ending war, phasing out capitalism, and so on -- it's just that the Democrats don't seem to own these causes to the extent necessary to bond together in any sort of new political party.

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by Snode on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 9:56am

Ok, you're right, my statement was anectdotal

@Cassiodorus Saying they were "democrats" was incorrect, they didn't drop the voting age yet, so being under 21, we didn't count. The people who I knew were like me, grew up with JFK, saw stopping nuclear proliferation,civil rights, the war on poverty, the Peace Corps as positives (it was even covered in middle and HS) and then there was the war. So I would say d leaning. They also knew the republicans wouldn't care. The guys I knew that went to Chicago were older brothers of friends, affable stoners waiting out the draft. 1/2 party 1/2 demonstration. Still maintain it jolted the d party enough to be forced into change. The defection of southern democrats did the same. I think change can be done, somehow. Or I'm just living in the past.

As for third parties, I don't know about Whigs, but I know about Anderson and Perot, and the obstacles put up since up by r's and d's to having a skunk at their 5 o'clock cocktail hour. If you're going to third party, it's the same game and rules, it'll still run on money. How many years would it have to be sold before people started buying? I would join it in a minute if it existed, but I don't think I'm going to be alive to see it.

" whereas the Democrats of 2018 don't seem to have any cause at all outside of money. It's not that there aren't any necessary causes out there: mitigating climate change, ending police shootings of Black bystanders, enacting single payer, ending war, phasing out capitalism, and so on -- it's just that the Democrats don't seem to own these causes to the extent necessary to bond together in any sort of new political party."

This is 100%, absolutely true. but the democrats DO claim to own these causes, and I'm saying maybe it's time to MAKE them own the causes in a very public way. OWS is the closest thing we've had in years (maybe it was just ahead of it's time) and it was through the Obama Justice dept that greatly increased the restrictions on assembly and free speech (zones, cages) in response. Charlotte was another instance (but it didn't confront the government) that brought a spotlight and the attention of the world. It drew lines in a very public way. I think that's where their fear lies, in confrontation, because they only have one response.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 11:43am

The Whig Party

@Snode formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson, whom many here will remember because his face is on their $20 bills. At any rate, the Whig example is meant to show that "third parties" are not as impossible as a lot of people imagine, and that urban legends about the sacrosanct "Two-Party System" are doubtless a product of past attempts to graft "third parties" onto the Democratic Party (see e.g. the Populists) or of "third parties" centered around individuals (e.g. Ross Perot, or Theodore Roosevelt). The Republican Party worked as a "third party" in 1854 because it was neither of these things.

As for the Democrats:

but the democrats DO claim to own these causes, and I'm saying maybe it's time to MAKE them own the causes in a very public way.

The Democratic Party's claim to owning any causes left of Augusto Pinochet is based on good old-fashioned insincerity. We are going to make people sincere? At any rate, if we're going to form a new party, it should be to contest the Democrats' insincerity, and their tendency to paper over the difference between progressive fantasy and grim reality with disingenuous crap. An obvious example of this would be the ACA -- candidate Obama promised us no insurance mandate and a public option, and instead we received a mandate to buy insurance we can't afford to use unless, of course, we're forced to use it.

I suppose I should write a diary here on "why I'm not a progressive," but to me it's just too obvious -- arguing that we can have a few nice shiny promises in addition to the same old capitalist reality, which is what Bernie Sanders does, is a joke. Sanders wasn't going to make good on his promises anyway -- even with a Sanders Presidency the foreign policy wouldn't change a lot and the changes in domestic policy would have been shot down by a bought-and-paid-for Congress, mindful of capital's ability to crash economies (e.g. Venezuela) for political reasons. The system needs to be replaced, wholesale, with something better.

This is the light in which Sanders makes sense -- he tells a funnier joke, and in so doing he's gotten a lot of people to wake up to the fact that their politicians don't promise them anything. And that's a good thing. But these realizations serve the same purpose as the political jokes they used to tell under the Soviet regime (e.g. "under capitalism, man exploits and oppresses man; under Communism it's the opposite"). They serve to dispel our belief in the existing system without offering anything better. It's time we realized that such laughter is the best we can do without finding anything better than being "Democrats" or "progressives" or "liberals."

A better system isn't going to rely merely upon "votes," and especially not on "votes" which have been manufactured out of thin air with the use of Diebold-purchased voting software. A better system will happen when we replace capital with something better, and so we should start now. Creating co-operatives and communal properties doesn't, however, let us off the hook as regards voting. With voting we will still need something better than "being Democrats."

#8.1.2.1 Saying they were "democrats" was incorrect, they didn't drop the voting age yet, so being under 21, we didn't count. The people who I knew were like me, grew up with JFK, saw stopping nuclear proliferation,civil rights, the war on poverty, the Peace Corps as positives (it was even covered in middle and HS) and then there was the war. So I would say d leaning. They also knew the republicans wouldn't care. The guys I knew that went to Chicago were older brothers of friends, affable stoners waiting out the draft. 1/2 party 1/2 demonstration. Still maintain it jolted the d party enough to be forced into change. The defection of southern democrats did the same. I think change can be done, somehow. Or I'm just living in the past. As for third parties, I don't know about Whigs, but I know about Anderson and Perot, and the obstacles put up since up by r's and d's to having a skunk at their 5 o'clock cocktail hour. If you're going to third party, it's the same game and rules, it'll still run on money. How many years would it have to be sold before people started buying? I would join it in a minute if it existed, but I don't think I'm going to be alive to see it. " whereas the Democrats of 2018 don't seem to have any cause at all outside of money. It's not that there aren't any necessary causes out there: mitigating climate change, ending police shootings of Black bystanders, enacting single payer, ending war, phasing out capitalism, and so on -- it's just that the Democrats don't seem to own these causes to the extent necessary to bond together in any sort of new political party." This is 100%, absolutely true. but the democrats DO claim to own these causes, and I'm saying maybe it's time to MAKE them own the causes in a very public way. OWS is the closest thing we've had in years (maybe it was just ahead of it's time) and it was through the Obama Justice dept that greatly increased the restrictions on assembly and free speech (zones, cages) in response. Charlotte was another instance (but it didn't confront the government) that brought a spotlight and the attention of the world. It drew lines in a very public way. I think that's where their fear lies, in confrontation, because they only have one response.

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 6:12pm

@Cassiodorus We should be

@Cassiodorus We should be advocating for forming a second party, not a third. We call it the duopoly, but it's really a cartel.

#8.1.2.1.1 formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson, whom many here will remember because his face is on their $20 bills. At any rate, the Whig example is meant to show that "third parties" are not as impossible as a lot of people imagine, and that urban legends about the sacrosanct "Two-Party System" are doubtless a product of past attempts to graft "third parties" onto the Democratic Party (see e.g. the Populists) or of "third parties" centered around individuals (e.g. Ross Perot, or Theodore Roosevelt). The Republican Party worked as a "third party" in 1854 because it was neither of these things. As for the Democrats: but the democrats DO claim to own these causes, and I'm saying maybe it's time to MAKE them own the causes in a very public way. The Democratic Party's claim to owning any causes left of Augusto Pinochet is based on good old-fashioned insincerity. We are going to make people sincere? At any rate, if we're going to form a new party, it should be to contest the Democrats' insincerity, and their tendency to paper over the difference between progressive fantasy and grim reality with disingenuous crap. An obvious example of this would be the ACA -- candidate Obama promised us no insurance mandate and a public option, and instead we received a mandate to buy insurance we can't afford to use unless, of course, we're forced to use it. I suppose I should write a diary here on "why I'm not a progressive," but to me it's just too obvious -- arguing that we can have a few nice shiny promises in addition to the same old capitalist reality, which is what Bernie Sanders does, is a joke. Sanders wasn't going to make good on his promises anyway -- even with a Sanders Presidency the foreign policy wouldn't change a lot and the changes in domestic policy would have been shot down by a bought-and-paid-for Congress, mindful of capital's ability to crash economies (e.g. Venezuela) for political reasons. The system needs to be replaced, wholesale, with something better. This is the light in which Sanders makes sense -- he tells a funnier joke, and in so doing he's gotten a lot of people to wake up to the fact that their politicians don't promise them anything. And that's a good thing. But these realizations serve the same purpose as the political jokes they used to tell under the Soviet regime (e.g. "under capitalism, man exploits and oppresses man; under Communism it's the opposite"). They serve to dispel our belief in the existing system without offering anything better. It's time we realized that such laughter is the best we can do without finding anything better than being "Democrats" or "progressives" or "liberals." A better system isn't going to rely merely upon "votes," and especially not on "votes" which have been manufactured out of thin air with the use of Diebold-purchased voting software. A better system will happen when we replace capital with something better, and so we should start now. Creating co-operatives and communal properties doesn't, however, let us off the hook as regards voting. With voting we will still need something better than "being Democrats."

—

"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

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:54pm

@Cassiodorus And that's not to

@Cassiodorus And that's not to mention the propaganda efforts being put forth so far. The biggest of these efforts, today, appears to be to center around getting Team Democrat to support Team FBI. Team FBI, in turn, puts forth half-hearted efforts to place Mike Pence atop the throne of power while gathering massive files on anyone whose beliefs are slightly out-of-line. Maybe there are a couple of Bernie supporters who have noticed this; Bernie himself seems to be going along for the ride.

Excellent analysis. May I tweak it?

Not Team FBI, but Team Security State. That's why it has as much to do with foreign policy as domestic, and why Russiagate is such a big deal.

#8 The Democratic Party is of course made of money, and the big money comes from the Federal government, which prints the money and gives it to the same interests which keep the already-rich in ownership of the two parties. "National defense" and "industrial subsidy" are basically slush funds for these people. When the headline on page c23 of your local paper tell you that the Pentagon has lost so many trillions of dollars, that just means that the money has gotten to its intended recipients. The idea of "taking over the Democratic Party" thus appears as an attempt to claim some of that money. The elites who run the Party have constructed the Party itself to deny that attempt. Their election-rigging efforts (not to mention the superdelegates who lay in wait should election-rigging not work) in the '16 primaries should have given us all a first-hand look at the internal operation of the system. The folks who run the Democratic Party's system are perfectly happy to hand the whole of government over to their self-proclaimed opponents should the system experience a significant failure anywhere in its workings. Or maybe the DP elites will just hand it over should they happen to support policy imperatives that they feel the Republicans are better equipped to fulfill -- that's what happened under Obama, when the Democrat leadership gave up 900 state legislative seats for reasons which nobody bothers to ask them about. To a certain extent the choice to "take over the Democratic Party" appears as arbitrary. Any countervailing force will have to run against both parties if it is to win anything of significance. You might as well try to take over the Republican Party, or for that matter the Green Party. What makes this choice more than arbitrary is the choice itself has attracted the attention of the owning class and its political servants, who are thereby alerted to the nature of the games being played within the structures they've created. And that's not to mention the propaganda efforts being put forth so far. The biggest of these efforts, today, appears to be to center around getting Team Democrat to support Team FBI. Team FBI, in turn, puts forth half-hearted efforts to place Mike Pence atop the throne of power while gathering massive files on anyone whose beliefs are slightly out-of-line. Maybe there are a couple of Bernie supporters who have noticed this; Bernie himself seems to be going along for the ride. Generally, then, "taking over the Democratic Party" looks to me like a diversion from the real work to be done, i.e. building a party responsible to the people rather than to rich donors.

—

"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

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:57pm

@Snode Until somebody comes up

@Snode Until somebody comes up with a new strategy that looks like a plausible way to "take over" an organization that looks increasingly closer to a crime family and its adherents than anything else, I'm out.

—

"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

Submitted by Bob In Portland on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 11:34am

Don't get overcritical of Frank

He has diagnosed the problems with the Democratic Party. His book, LISTEN LIBERAL, was the greatest expose of the neoliberal takeover of the Democratic Party that reached the mainstream before the debacle of the 2016 election.

He may not have the solution, I sure don't, but he identified the problem.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 1:15pm

In 1896 --

@Bob In Portland Svante Arrhenius "identified the problem," by specifying the mathematical relationship between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and increased average global temperatures.

It's an inverse logarithm -- as co2 levels multiply, average temperatures increase. So for instance if you look at the graph, you'll see that an average co2 increase of about 50% corresponds to an average temperature increase of about 4 or 5 degrees Celsius.

Arrhenius, given his circumstances, did not panic, as civilization in his time was not extracting and burning the Earth's fossil fuel reserves at anywhere close to the rate our civilization is doing. But, still, we've known all this stuff for 120 years. We've "identified the problem" for a dozen decades now.

Now, in our case, the effective solution to our society's continuing addition of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere is to find some means of shutting down all fossil fuel extraction efforts. I suppose it could be done after a grace period in which the society focused upon alternative energy sources and other substitutes for fossil fuels. The problem of course is that the fossil fuel reserves would be denied their commodity values should our society decided to shut down its fossil fuel extraction efforts. Nobody, therefore, is advocating an effective solution that would mitigate climate change, just as nobody in the US is advocating any effective solution to the problem of the Democratic Party.

The point, in climate change as in US politics, is that "identifying the problem" is already old news. For US politics, the problem is the Democratic Party, and the effective solution is the one Jane Sanders identified at the Left Forum: "If the DNC will not change then there will be a third party" or something like that. So identifying the problem is fine; getting behind an effective solution is another matter entirely.

—

“The loyal Left cannot act decisively. Their devotion to the system is a built-in kill switch limiting dissent.” - Richard Moser

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 5:01pm

My view in the most basic terms

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus My take.

Thomas Frank has been very good at articulating the political problem in terms that the average person can understand. And for that I am grateful because not everyone understands the political problem and those who are beginning to try to understand it need to be able to access information in an easily digestible format which I believe to be Frank's strength.

However, Frank's solutions fail because they fall right into line with perpetuating the problem. This is because he is still promoting working within the system and advocating for the Democratic party to somehow change. Lately when I have seen videos of him speaking, I cringe for that very reason. Working within the current system will not lead to any solution so we are still left in the hamster wheel going nowhere while everything around us burns.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Bob In Portland on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 11:39am

@Cassiodorus I said, "[Frank] may

@Cassiodorus I said, "[Frank] may not have the solution, I sure don't, but he identified the problem."

Vernon Parrington, an historian from long ago, wrote: "We must have a political state powerful enough to deal with corporate wealth, but how are we going to keep that state with its augmenting power from being captured by the force we want it to control?"

That is the question, has been since the rise of corporations a hundred-fifty years ago. In the war against fascism the roots of our own fascism were born. The OSS, then the CIA and all its iterations are the most absolute web of secret police ever assembled. They are protected by secrecy laws, their funding is secret, they have infiltrated every branch of government, they have infiltrated, often created every political movement. Anarchists recognize this but are foolish enough to think that anarchy is safe from infiltration.

We see government departments created to aid the citizenry "adjusted" to help the oppressors they were supposed to contain.

It just seems to me that attacking Frank for identifying the problem without offering a solution is not particularly useful.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 07/28/2018 - 2:52pm

Well...

I hate to say it, since so many people I know were inspired by Frank, but his message It's all about the 90% vs the 10%, baby has always struck me as damage control for Occupy. One of the cleverest forms of damage control is delivering a message very close to the dissident's own message--but one which will still lead those who believe it in a direction profitable to the establishment, or, at the very least, in a direction away from something the establishment really doesn't like.

What does the establishment dislike most? A class-based argument that analyzes power wisely and sees the chasm-like divide between the very richest and everybody else. Which is true. There is a chasm between the 1% and the 9% that comes after them, much like there's a chasm between the board of a corporation and the head of HR.

The politics the establishment dislikes most is based on that divide and no other. How do they usually suppress such thinking? Through deflection. What is the most effective form of deflection? Emphasizing other divides between the bottom 99%.

—

"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

Submitted by Tall Bald and Ugly on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 10:55am

Liberals?

Fuck THEM.
I'm a LEFTY!
A liberal gets upset over the Name of a cruise missile(tomahawk). I question Having a cruise missile.
A liberal cites 'all 17 (non)intelligence agencies'. W.T.F.!?! We have SEVENTEEN(!) Spy Agencies?!?

C'mon, it's Fun! You try it!

—

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

Submitted by wendy davis on Sun, 07/29/2018 - 7:21pm