It's a juggernaut all right.

So is Bernie responsible for Hillary's defeat?

Well sure, at least partly. Clinton was hoping for some sort of despairing vote, that the vast majority of people would resign themselves to her as the lesser of evils when they saw the horrorshow the Republicans generated. Now, sure, Clinton had some compellingly fatal flaws, including her crap record, her crap ground game, her condescension, her quid pro quo schemes and her impunity in saying anything in what are often lame attempts to please everyone.

But we might have looked the other way on all of that and said "at least she's better than the Republicans" were it not for Bernie Sanders entering the race. Sanders, you see, gave us hope -- hope that we might have someone other than Hillary Clinton for our next President. And some of the Sanders supporters took that hope and converted it into a principled stand against Clinton's vast array of negatives.

Of course, only in the Clinton supporter's hilariously warped view of reality is giving hope a criminal offense (while putting classified information on one's private server is totally kewl y'know). The fact of the matter is, however, that the Clinton legions wanted a political reality in which the corrupt behaviors of our politicians were to be viewed as natural, as acts of God like the wind or the rain, and Bernie Sanders disturbed that tidy arrangement. He is therefore, in their view, responsible for Hillary Clinton's defeat.

But let's take a second look at that Jacobin article, shall we, the one the criticized Clinton's ground game (i.e. her campaign), the one that bobswern mentioned in a comment late last night. It's Christian Parenti, very cool writer, I've seen him in person. Parenti concludes that not only did the Clinton ground game suck, which is why she lost the election. (And thus for Parenti Clinton is held entirely to blame for her own defeat.) Rather, the Clinton ground game sucked because the Clinton philosophy sucked:

A point for the Left in all this: the DNC’s ideas are not only bad because they don’t advocate the social-democratic redistribution we would like to see — they are also bad because they don’t work at a purely technical level.

Their arrogance and contempt for the working class produced a flawed political theory, which in turn produced a bad strategy, which in turn produced a tactically inept ground game.

At this point we need to remember that Clinton merely epitomizes what all of the other elites also believe: that what matters is money, that the working class can be sacrificed for whatever narcissistic aim one has in mind, and that markets are more important than people. Thus Chuck Schumer's comments about, well,:

For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Democratic and Republican Party elites are thus the apex of the society of money. They aren't going to be replaced by new, more progressive, elites, either. As Philip Mirowski points out in his book Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste, the whole of society is controlled by these people, who merit the name of neoliberals, and their intellectual control over policymaking is so thorough that there really isn't a planned-out alternative to neoliberal rule.

Now, sure, the deepening of neoliberal rule can and should be resisted. But you can't put all of your eggs in the "take over the Democratic Party" basket if you want to be effective in doing more than resisting, in having a competing, more humane, model of society as something within the realm of possibility. The politicians, the think tanks, the corporate leadership, the nonprofits, the foundations, and pretty much all of the people who manage the society of money are against you, and if you have no backup plan the elites will continue to hand an increasingly authoritarian government to the Republican Party merely to keep it away from you (along the lines Chuck Schumer laid out above), which is what they did in 2010, in 2014, and earlier this month. And the people, the people, will continue to believe this snake-oil sales pitch about the inevitability of the sacred Two-Party System. Anyone here want to guess when the Reps will have 67 votes in the Senate?

So you need a backup plan. Do you all understand, now, why I wrote those "new party" diaries?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

SparkyGump's picture

for the 99% to get the limousine liberals to pull their heads out of their asses. Until they start to feel frightened, the elites will continue the old ball game. smh

up
0 users have voted.

The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.

dance you monster's picture

Frankly speaking, the limousine liberals will never, never, never get their heads out of their asses. Those asses are the plush seats that limousine advertisers boast of. The limousine liberals will side with the limousine conservatives, both groups frightened of losing anything that they have. Fuck 'em, we don't have time for them. Any that actually wield power we need to concentrate on removing altogether.

up
0 users have voted.
SparkyGump's picture

up
0 users have voted.

The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

have their heads stuck up their asses, possibly irretrievably.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

more of the upper middle class is not.

But there's more than class privilege going on here. There's a frightening blindness, a lack of critical thought, in people whose minds I've admired for years. Highly educated people who should know better on multiple levels--not just because they have degrees, or have academic training, but because they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me protesting Reagan's wars, protesting drug testing and its invasion of our privacy--protesting things that were far milder than anything Clinton represented. It's frightening to me how many people are still thinking in the old paradigm, and apparently making assumptions about Clinton that have nothing to do with a dispassionate analysis of what she's said and done. These are not the handwringing, crying, Hillary-is-wonderful types--they're just marching along as if it's 1991 and a lesser-evil Democrat is up there trying to dislodge the Reagan/Bush regime. They just assume, for instance, that Trump is the one who brings danger of nuclear war, and Hillary doesn't, because Trump is a white male Republican who says a lot of nasty crazy shit into a microphone in front of cameras--and Hillary is a Democrat and a woman, so couldn't possibly be itching for the launch codes.

All that is in total contradiction of reality, and I've never seen these people ignore reality like this before. Is it something in the water?

up
0 users have voted.

"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

Fracking Fluid.
Petroleum distillates
Crude oil
Discarded pharmaceuticals
Radioactive particles from Chernobyl and Fukushima
Aluminum dust from chemtrails
Particulate pollution
Depleted Uranium munitions dust
Pesticides
Fertilizers
Asbestos dust from automotive brakes
Concrete dust from our disintegrating pavements
.
.
.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Citizen Of Earth's picture

I have permanently Demexited.

This professor does a great job of explaining the Tump win. The rustbelt is sick and tired of being ignored by Dems who are pushing more globalization TPP, more deregulation by Wall Street, more elites ass kissing. So the once Dem stronghold, the true blue rustbelt, flipped for Trump. Dems ran a heavily flawed candidate who preached that america is alreay great, it just needs some small tweaks. And then there was Trump.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/

I agree 100%. The Dem party is too far gone to be saved. And that means Bernie or no Bernie. I'm amazed by all the "Listen to what Bernie just said" essays. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

up
0 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Citizen Of Earth's picture

explaining the trump win which he predicted a year ago. Hint: Trumps win is a continuation of a wave of discontent across the globe for neoliberal rule and inequality.
Length 5:48

up
0 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

With apologies to Dionne Warwick:

We'll never fall in line again.

What do you get when when you fall in line
A queen with a pin to burst your bubble
A war-hungry hawk who stirs up trouble
We'll - never fall in line again
We'll never fall in line again.

What do you get when you pick a crook
Who lies and schemes - and cheats all day now
Then cries when she's caught doin' pay-to-play now
We'll - never fall in line again
Don't you know that we'll never fall in line again.

Don't tell us what's it all about
'Cause we've been there and we're glad we're out
Out of those chains, those chains that bind you
That is why - we're here to remind you

What do you get when you fall in line?
Poverty, misery, pain and sorrow
So for at least until tomorrow
We'll - never fall in line again
No, no, we'll never fall in line again

up
0 users have voted.
WaveyDavey's picture

up
0 users have voted.

The people, united, will never be defeated.

mouselander's picture

I have a feeling that song is going to be playing in my head for quite awhile.

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

Excellent parody! Would sound great recorded.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Cassiodorus's picture

So you have an alternate strategy besides "taking over the Democratic Party"?

Please lay it out for us. I'm sure it's practical and has a high probability of success.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Pricknick's picture

Does yours? And why do you have to be condescending to anyone who doesn't absolutely agree with you.

up
0 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Cassiodorus's picture

I am NOT "preaching to the choir." I'm trying to lay the ground for an alternate plan to the "take over the Democratic Party" standard issue that we see from Bernie Sanders and his former team. Here in this diary I'm trying to lay the ground with further reasons why it's important that we have this alternate plan. And I make no claims for the efficacy of my own plan -- I'm too busy with the hard work of finding people who can help me put it together. Nor am I interested in my own identity as a planner -- the important thing is that there BE a plan.

And I'm not terribly interested in who has and who hasn't "demexited." I'm good with everyone's political identities either way, whether they've demexited or if they haven't. For so many Americans, political discussion seems to be about establishing one's own personal identity. For me, not so much. Thus when I write critical things about the Green Party, it's not because I hate Greens -- after all I am one, and have been one since 1992 -- but rather I'm trying to straighten out for everyone here why it's important that we have a ROBUST alternative to the two-party system, rather than one which merely exists as a coathanger for political identities.

After the election I could read a large amount of "soul-searching" about political identity. People were saying, essentially, "omigod my friends voted for Trump!" This isn't important to me. The important thing for me is to think of ways in which political change can be effected.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Citizen Of Earth's picture

Greens platform contains most of the things I want to see.

And Pricknick is right, your reply is very condescending the way you put it.

up
0 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Cassiodorus's picture

Care to dwell on it some more?

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

blown strategy. Nor do I think we're going to develop one while we are only connected digitally. It is easier to do these things face-to-face, in small or medium-sized groups, (either with each group tackling a piece of the problem, or with each group tackling the problem writ large) and then come together and discuss proposals for action.

I have a few ideas; they are feeble shoots poking up toward the surface. In other words, I see a few steps that have to be taken in order for anything larger or grander to happen.

The best I can do for a large-scale strategy at the moment is that we could do worse than to study the behavior of the Black Panthers back in the 60s and 70s. They had a political arm, but electoral politics was far from the only thing they did. They were concerned with the basic needs of the community. In our time, that would include, obviously, water, food, basic health care, all of which are overly controlled by the ugly, corrupt, power structure. It might also include lodging and a few gestures toward more independent local energy systems.

But to do any of this we have to be willing to form communities and act together, as opposed to acting as individuals or individual families. And before long, we're going to have to face the question of guns and money. Money, as in, they control the money supply and as long as we're trapped in their financial/economic system, we're at their mercy; guns, as in, if we get successful at all, they will likely respond in an ugly fashion.

Despite this rather disheartening response on my part (I wish I had a great strategy in my back pocket that would set everything right), I applaud your continued attempt to get us to build a new paradigm.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

thanatokephaloides's picture

I'm amazed by all the "Listen to what Bernie just said" essays. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

The reason you're seeing all those essays is that Bernie's becoming himself again. Now we've rejected President Goldman Sachs, he can afford that luxury, as well as quite a few others.

Including surviving the total demise of the "Democratic" party!

Smile

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

meme that seems to fit here.

up
0 users have voted.
Song of the lark's picture

About the fact that the general thrust of our civilization has gone insane. The GOP are the guards at the mental hospital who are willing to hold people down strap them in for some therapeutic electro shock. The Dems are the well meaning shrinks who are perfectly willing to prescribe the drugs and lock people up at night- "for their own good" natch! Along come a couple of crazy haired crazy like a fox patients Trump/Sanders and raise hell. Pretty much say simply...hey this isn't right! The various Powers that be better get their act together or this is really going to get out of hand. Think the diarist is correct. May need to start over. Fourth quarter of the fourth turning in the era of the top of the Seneca curve of thermodynamic collapse. Good luck everyone... Practice resistance!

up
0 users have voted.

Ken Keasey's first novel, have you? I didn't know it was even available anywhere by now.

Hillary Clinton is Big Nurse. Why didn't I think of that when I was trying to describe her?

BTW, anyone here who is still posting on DK, please inform those sore losers that us white females didn't vote for their candidate because we know her for what she is. A lot of us have put in time cleaning after various mini-Hillarys.

up
0 users have voted.

Mary Bennett

Thanks for the h/t (mention) Cass!

If I don't communicate with you beforehand, have a GREAT Thanksgiving!

up
0 users have voted.

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

Hasn't he recycled the same thesis every election since 2000 - that by next election demographics will make the Democrat party the permanent majority? Ah well, I'm sure it will happen next election.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed...

In 1968, there was a great debate about the future of the Democratic Party. Robert F. Kennedy sought to win the primary with a “black-blue” coalition of black “have-nots” and working-class whites. He sought continuity in the policies of protecting independent farmers, shopkeepers, and workers, all of which formed the heart of the New Deal—yet he also wanted to end the war in Vietnam and expand racial justice.

But Kennedy’s strategy to merge these ideas disappeared when he was assassinated. When RFK died, Democrats nominated New Deal populist and Vietnam War supporter Humphrey, which split the party between the new-left youth activists and the labor-influenced party regulars—leading to the turbulent 1968 national convention. After Humphrey’s loss to Nixon, Democrats formed the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, also known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which sought to heal and restructure the party. With the help of strategist Fred Dutton, Democrats forged a new coalition. By quietly cutting back the influence of unions, Dutton sought to eject the white working class from the Democratic Party, which he saw as “a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote. ” The future, he argued, lay in a coalition of African Americans, feminists, and affluent, young, college-educated whites. In 1972, George McGovern would win the Democratic nomination with this very coalition, and many of the Watergate Babies entering office just three years later gleaned their first experiences in politics on his campaign.

[emphasis mine]

This is probably the best article I've read on the split in the Democratic Party in my life.

up
0 users have voted.

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

Cassiodorus's picture

& stick around!

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Big Al's picture

to try to compete in an oligarchic political system, then we're in big trouble. There must be a movement outside the electoral process, attempts to try to make gains in this system are futile. Of course that won't stop people, just like it won't stop people from trying to remake or "revitalize" as Sanders put it, the Democratic party, which is really just the same thing. Party politics won't work. So we'll go on divided.
So no, I don't really understand why you wrote all those new party diaries.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

for some form of social organization which would bring everyone to the post-fossil-fuel, post-capitalist social order? Creating that social organization is going to require some form of go-to people, and some form of plan.

My idea of plan is that there be a backup plan, because I know that those people who already have their hearts set on taking over the Democratic Party, and there are apparently many of them, are going to need some sort of backup plan should they at some later point be disillusioned by the whole effort.

Every once in awhile you comment in my diaries. What makes them attractive?

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Creosote.'s picture

do it? How did their leadership emerge -- or the similar parties in Greece, Iceland? Do they constitute a model that could work here? The beginning has to be what CantStoptheSignal suggests, plus Czech-style Samisdat -- with Don midwest's Gaia brought into the equation as well. As we work 18 hour days to survive.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

The Mondragon cooperatives are a good place to start.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

got some ugly baggage.

A "party" that is working primarily with communities of people to help them get what they need (food, water, basic health care, lodging, indie energy, land) and to defend them (things can get dicey here), but that also has a political arm which represents those aims in a larger culture, and sometimes runs candidates for office. There's really never been a better moment for this sort of organization in the United States, not in my lifetime anyway.

I don't know why this idea is problematic--it's like, because it rarely happens in America, it's outside of people's ken. Like it just can't happen, or the option doesn't exist.

As long as the electoral is not the main focus of interest, I don't see what the problem is in having a political arm of an organization, even one that occasionally elects someone (probably at a local level). After the elite spent at least two generations shelling American political culture till it looks like London during the Blitz, one of the few ways to get attention for new political ideas or actions is through electoral contests. Bernie, annoyingly, fumbled the ball terribly (I'm still not sure whether that was purposeful or merely clutzy) in that he had the beginnings of a movement in his hands and threw it away out of some kind of crap loyalty to the Party. If he had used his election to actually start a movement, we'd be getting somewhere.

This points up the main problem with electoral contests: they so often are focused entirely around one individual that they're laughably easy to derail, corrupt, etc. Bernie should have put people in place for when he was taken down/co-opted; he should have assumed he WOULD be taken down/co-opted; it's what I would have done had I been in his position. You have to assume that the leader will be lost. The leader position, properly done, is a sacrificial one.

Cass is definitely right about one thing; if you don't want a party, you're going to have to come up with another form of social organization to do whatever work you want done. Or, you can go the route libertarians and some forms of anarchist go, and just advocate for individual freedom and take unscripted, individual, spontaneous actions, but if you're going that route, I won't be going with you.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

Cassiodorus's picture

And please keep posting.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"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

thanatokephaloides's picture

Think Black Panthers. Or, I'd say, Sinn Fein, but they've also
got some ugly baggage.

That's an occupational hazard of:

A "party" that is working primarily with communities of people to help them get what they need (food, water, basic health care, lodging, indie energy, land) and to defend them (things can get dicey here), but that also has a political arm which represents those aims in a larger culture, and sometimes runs candidates for office.

Once you get into the "defend them" territory, the ugly baggage always appears. That's because those who benefit from the status quo are always all too willing to employ their access to legally approved violence to prevent change, and asymmetrical warfare is always a very evil, nasty business. Hence Sinn Fein's baggage -- and doubtless that of the Islamic "terrorists" as well. Sow to oppression (the wind), reap nasty asymmetrical warfare (the whirlwind).

But no requirement exists to resort to violence here. Long ago, just within the memories of the oldest living Americans, both political parties employed "ward heelers" whose job it was to keep the constituent masses happy (and happy to vote for their party and politicians). You had almost any sort of life problem, the ward heelers had help available for you. I've actually seen the term spelled "ward healers" in writing; in fact, I didn't know the "ward heeler" spelling was correct until I was in high school. (My maternal grandparents, who taught me all about them, used the alternative spelling.) But the fact remains: once upon a time, both American major political parties did this, did what you suggest, actually treat the common people as if they mattered by helping them get what they needed.

Cass is definitely right about one thing; if you don't want a party, you're going to have to come up with another form of social organization to do whatever work you want done.

More to the point, "to do whatever work" society needs done. Which, of course, is why the objections in the first place; the people's work is definitely not getting done.

Or, you can go the route libertarians and some forms of anarchist go, and just advocate for individual freedom and take unscripted, individual, spontaneous actions, but if you're going that route, I won't be going with you.

There are other sorts of anarchists besides the American-style "libertarians" (who really are nothing of the kind). Anarchosocialists and anarchomutualists (most of whom/which are the same people) maintain that a society can be organized and meet the needs of the society and all its individual members without requiring any to lord it over the others.

It appears anarchopedia dot org is down again. Elsewise I would send you there to check it out. But some asshole(s) seem to have it out for the site for some reason. (dammit!)

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

I do know that there are many forms of anarchism, and not all of them are the bomb-throwing variety that most Americans imagine, nor the ultra-individualistic variety that some libertarians espouse (though it seems there's a debate about whether what the libertarians espouse can be called anarchism of any kind)!

As for the ugly baggage, I'm aware that most such organizations walk a knife's edge, and even with the best people running them with the best intentions, it often gets ugly. You can either have what we've been seeing in South Dakota lately, or you can try and defend people from having that happen to them--and then you're in an armed conflict. And of course, it's also easy for people running those orgs to figure "If I gotta do the time, why not do the crime" since they're going to be criminalized by the establishment anyway. And sometimes (no point denying it) it gets uglier than it needs to be, b/c, as you say, asymmetrical warfare is really ugly and people going through it are under extreme stress--also any bastards that happen to be around (on both sides, establishment or counterculture) often try to take advantage of said asymmetrical warfare to either grab power or make a buck.

Thank you *so much* for your info on ward heelers (I like the alternative spelling better!) This is exactly the kind of historical info I need, because political life in America is being shrunk, funneled through an ever-narrowing tube down to one inevitable point of conclusion. The powers of reductivism are mighty right now, and they're erasing history like the dickens. Even recent history, like, say, eight to ten years ago! Sixteen years ago, the Bushes committed election fraud and illegally installed G.W. and that history has been successfully rewritten to the following tune: Sixteen years ago, a man named Ralph Nader ran an ill-conceived campaign for selfish reasons, and because of his selfishness and that of his followers, George W. Bush won the election. /facepalm

So I need all the info I can get from the past to find what I suspect are vast swaths of American political life that have simply been wiped out of existence, or lied into invisibility. I remember some of what's been erased, having been born in 1968, but far from all of it.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

earthling1's picture

OMHO, we must wield our wallets like swords.
If anyone here on this site is still using one of the To Big To Fail Banks, you're not part of the problem. You ARE the problem. Move your money or payoff/refinance your loan.
If anyone here still supports cable tv, you are not part of the problem. You ARE the problem. These are propaganda outlets that stifle legitimate debate or ideas.
If you are still using a credit card everywhere you go, you are not part of the problem. You ARE the problem. Use cash everywhere. Hold greenbacks, because they ( the Billionaire class) are.attempting to vacuum them all up and force the rest of us to go cashless, all digital money.
For at least 10 years never vote for an incombent.
We need a complete sweep of every politician out of our government. This will serve three purposes;
It will throw a wrench in the gears of current power.
It will force the Billionaire class the buy off all new puppets every election.
It will force the Billionaire class to hire ( revolving door ) all the incumbents thrown out of office.
Furthermore, divide and conquer the big banks, one at a time. Starting with Wells Fargo.
Citywide, countywide, nationwide slash law enforcement budgets in half, effect major layoffs. Do not restore funding until police unions accept adverse lawsuits to be paid with police union pension funds.
This would be a good start.

up
0 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

Bisbonian's picture

I paid off my loan (originally financed by a small bank, but Wells Fargo bought them...then closed them, leaving the building empty), I opened a new account with a Credit Union, changed over all my auto-payments, got rid of my old credit card, and just last week, finally closed down my WF account for good. Our local grocery only takes cash (love them!), so that's what we use. Big fan of Edward Abbey, too...and wrenches.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Bernie (and Trump) followed the same basic playbook that Obama and Edwards utilized against Hillary in 2008.

If Hillary could not make the necessary adjustments after eight years, whose fault is that? (I more or less said this in TOP for a long time).

up
0 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

this year than in 2008 and 2012? People including quite a few young Berniacs stayed home. The folks voting Green Party/Stein did not affect the eventual outcome. The idjits voting for the clueless Johnson are a different story. And he is clueless! He couldn't name 2 world leaders?! SMH!! That's a BIG reason why we have a hairballed brained, crummy Reality TV carnival barker as POTUS-to-be.

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

thanatokephaloides's picture

The idjits voting for the clueless Johnson are a different story. And he is clueless! He couldn't name 2 world leaders?! SMH!!

And didn't know what or where Aleppo was! ??!!??

Wink

up
0 users have voted.

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/09/graph-shows-hillary-clinton-lost-...

These were the negative coattails Sanders supporters (like moi) kept warning about during 2014-16. http://caucus99percent.com/content/its-not-rocket-science

Even in the primary, Hillary got fewer votes than she got in 2008. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-rece...

Speaks volumes, but the Republican politicians who put a (D) after the names will always blame liberals for an election loss, especially a Presidential election loss, even if they have to lie through their teeth. Heaven forbid it be the fault of the candidate, the campaign, the coronation, etc.

up
0 users have voted.

Given the utter lack of any questioning by the part of the DNC and elected leadership, on how the campaign was run and the policy positions, I assume the Clintonistas , neoliberals, and the donor class are still in charge. It goes back for me to when Bernie spoke to House democrats after Hillary was declared the official candidate and he was roundly boo'ed.

up
0 users have voted.

Interesting that Huffpost had an article about how people on the ground were complaining about lack of support. In the article the state leadership of the lost states just did a bunch of excuse making. It seems the rot went down to the state leadership level as well.

up
0 users have voted.
Pricknick's picture

is well pronounce at the head, the rest is just a matter of time.

up
0 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

mouselander's picture

Not to keep harping on this, but money is basically the fuel that keeps the political fires burning. Expecting politicians to go against the wishes of their donors is about as realistic as expecting a prostitute to have sex with a customer who offers $1 in payment in preference to one who offers $10,000. Great if you can swing it, but the probability of failure is high.

This data from opensecrets.org illustrates the reality of campaign funding quite dramatically.

Donors1.JPG

Donors2.JPG

See the problem? Less than one half of one percent of the population is responsible for over 70% of all political donations. And it goes without saying that the tiny fraction of big donors is not exactly contributing the money out of the goodness of their hearts. It's an investment, pure and simple, and they expect, and invariably get, a handsome return on their money.

So when Senator Dick Durbin blurted out in frustration "they [the banks] own the place [Congress]", he wasn't just engaging in hyperbole. For all intents and purposes, they do own it, along with a small number of others who reside in the highest economic strata. As the Gilens and Page study made clear, America's "public servants" could actually give a flying fuck what the general public wants. To quote the late, great Charles Finley: "Money talks and bullshit walks."

One of the most valuable things to come out of the Bernie Sanders campaign was incontrovertible proof that it's not necessary to reside on big donors or special interest money in order to run a serious and competitive political campaign. Therefore it is wise to be extremely skeptical of any politicians who present themselves as reformers, and yet embrace the current financing system, propose ineffectual tweaks, or are silent on the issue altogether.

If you take money for sex you're a whore - if you take special interest money to finance your political career, it means you're in a slightly different branch of the same profession.

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

Roy Blakeley's picture

The embracing of Wall St. by Bill Clinton and his ilk, was not a good strategy for winning elections, but it was a great strategy for getting money--a real gravy train for Democratic consultants and Democratic politicians who were well compensated with jobs, high paid speeches, board memberships, etc. after they left office. Bill and Hill have $100,000,000 I am told. Working class people, the former core of the Democratic Party, may be screwed. The climate may be screwed. We may be killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world, but Democratic functionaries are doing very well, thank you.

up
0 users have voted.
mouselander's picture

One phenomenon I've observed during my lifetime: As the profession of politics has become progressively more lucrative, we're seeing a lot fewer of the plain-spoken Midwestern types like Harry Truman, and a lot more of the Ivy League hustlers like the Clintons and Barack Obama. They don't come to serve, they come to cash in. And of course power and fame also have their own seductive appeal.

According to this CNN piece from 2/5/2016, the Clintons managed to pull down over $153 million over a roughly 15 year period, solely from paid speeches. Needless to say, if those at the top of the food chain are being compensated this generously, it's a safe bet that even the small fry are doing very well for themselves.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders' charges.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

She then challenged him: "If you've got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received."

Jeez, love her or hate her, you gotta admire that gal's spunk! And who could possibly believe that just because a handful of fat cats pushed your net worth into nine figure territory, that would have even the slightest impact on opinions you might hold, or policy initiatives you might pursue?

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

the time he left office early in 2000 and December 31, 2007. Unless they've been shredding their money, their combined net worth should be much more than 100 million by now. However, they may have put money in trusts for Chelsea and her children or stashed it elsewhere. Her candidate's financial disclosure caused quite a flap in 2008, which she probably tried to minimize before 2015. If you recall, she was trying to pretend she could relate to poverty by claiming they had left the Oval Office broke. That blew up in her face, so she ran an ad about her deceased mother being so poor her teacher brought her a sandwich for lunch every day. (Another Hillary story no one still living can possibly disprove, like her alleged attempt to join the military.)

up
0 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

Bad options are easy to criticize even if they are the best we have. If you have ever voted in NY or NJ, you might notice that there are many parties. All were started with the best of intentions, but they are of little consequence. I voted Green and contributed to Stein's campaign, but I was terribly disappointed in her campaign. If there was a time to break through, this was the year, but she got maybe 1% of the vote. There was no innovation in her campaign and no martialing of the outpouring of support for Bernie. Third parties were relatively successful in the 19th century and this led the Democrats and Republicans to stack the deck against them. The problem with all this is that we don't have 50 years to build new parties or revamp the Greens. Anthropogenic climate change is happening, it is getting worse and it will be disastrous. Reversing the 40 year deterioration of the Democratic Party is another bad option. Schumer et al. are a lost cause. The DNC is a lost cause and their corporate media stooges are contemptible and a real barrier to progress. Advance any of these articles and you will be an easy target for criticism, because all of them are bad. Among the bad options, however, I think the refurbishment/takeover is the one that has the best (albeit bad) chance of succeeding in a time frame that can avoid the worst aspects of climate disruption.

up
0 users have voted.

Jill Stein got 14,000 votes. Write-ins were 12,000, probably for Bernie, but I kept telling people that write-ins are not reported unless they are for a registered candidate. So, were 12,000 for Bernie or Mickey Mouse. No one knows, but 26,000 for Stein would have put her at 3% instead of 1.4%.

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

MsGrin's picture

They've said so since the middle of the primary.

I voted Jill to try to get matching funds created for the Greens. Not this time, apparently.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

mhagle's picture

Local Green Party groups doing monthly non-partisan Green Good Deeds. Plant gardens, greenhouses, help install solar and small wind, weatherize homes, create car pools, whatever. Always put an article in the local news. Run candidates in local elections.

up
0 users have voted.

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

Pluto's Republic's picture

I've been giving it a lot of thought, mainly because, as much as I wanted to topple the Party, I am increasingly aware that it can't be reformed. There are structural issues and an elaborate web of laws and regulations that preserve the duopoly. And the money involved and the contacts made for lobbying purposes are legion.

For Plan B, I favor creating a proto-party. And rather than making it all things to all people, it would be most effective as a vote spoiler/accelerator if it just has a single, tightly united constituency.

Since neither Party supports this constituency, I propose the Workers Coalition or Labor Party — with a solid platform that focuses on workers entirely of all shapes and sizes.

Did you know that the US has almost NO labor laws, and what is there is a disgrace when compared to the 40 most developed nations in the world? There's you platform outline, right there. Education of workers is a big thing. Show them that they are working on a plantation. Because they are.

The proto-party means starting it as a coalition, which is much easier to create, then later evolving it into a Party with candidates. Worker's votes can control any election as we've just seen. So it would be powerful at inception. Most important, there is a hunger out there among workers for this kind of uber-union.

When the Party evolves out of the coalition, it can expand its focus, but there is a lot of expanded potential as it is. For example, the Workers Coalition is really the best hope for bringing national health care to the American people. Remember, it was a workers coalition that brought employer health care to America in the first place.

This coalition has teeth. It can destroy any candidate it has a mind to. Old fashioned stick and carrot politicking with moar instant karma.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Cassiodorus's picture

I suppose these ideas will acquire wheels at some later point. Until then, happy Thanksgiving!

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Bisbonian's picture

No! I am! people here in Bisbee have told me so. And then, one of them (an ex-friend) told me to OWN IT! So I do. I own it. I defeated Hillary! And all I did was vote for Jill Stein. Pretty powerful, I guess.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

can't blame Bernie for that. many of us were against her before Sanders ever came along.

up
0 users have voted.