General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThomas Franks, the Clintons and "phony" Democratic populists in the New Gilded Age
Once again Thomas Frank ("What's The Matter With Kansas" nails it in Salon Magazine.
Hillary Clinton forgets the 90's -- Our latest Gilded Age and latest Phony Poulists
Excerpt:
"...The same kind of monopoly-building was happening in the 90s in food processing and meat packing. It was happening in oil. It was happening among defense contractors, with the Clinton Administrations active encouragement. And, as we all know, it was happening in the financial sector, a process that culminated in the much-celebrated repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Then there were Bill Clintons beloved free-trade deals; one effect of these, according to Barry Lynn of the New America Foundation, has been to expose our economy to monopolies based overseas, which have proceeded to gobble up sectors like the beer industry, 80 percent of which is controlled today by just two foreign companies....."
"In 1992 the country was basically in flames over the economic effects of Reaganism. That year, Jerry Brown, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and, yes, Bill Clinton all ran as populists who would rescue the declining middle class by one method or another.....
........Governor Clinton, the likely Democratic Presidential nominee, had been searching for months for facts to illustrate his claim that Americas middle class benefited little from 12 years of Republican rule. The explosion of riches at the top struck him as a perfect vehicle. Not only did the widening gap between the rich and the rest of Americans conflict with traditional notions of democracy, but it also went right to the pocketbook sources of middle-class discontent.
In 1992, one might conclude, the nation chose to reverse the plutocratizing effects of neoliberalism. What we got was something elsea soft Reaganism that admitted, the era of big government is over. And thats why, in the months and years to come, we will see Clinton loyalists do all they can to delete that New Gilded Age from memory even as they rail against the current New Gilded Age. Were we to judge Bill Clinton by the standards of 1992, his presidency was something of a failure, eight years of deregulation and New Economy platitudes. If we judge him by the rich rewards that his booming stock market showered on the wealthy, however, his term in the White House was a towering success.
The original Gilded Age ended when Democrats and Republicans came together around the old populist program of financial regulation, antitrust enforcement, income tax, and legitimacy for organized labor. This time around there is no end in sight, because Republicans and Democrats have come together on a program that is almost the oppositedismantling the regulatory state at the behest of the One Percent while assuring an ever angrier public that they feel our pain, that theyre Putting People First, that theyd be great to have a beer with, that Yes We Can. The heart sickens at the thought of these many long years of fake populism, and the stomach turns to imagine how little time there is before we are swept up in it all over again."
IDemo
(16,926 posts)leftstreet
(36,117 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)People voted for it. End of story.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They didn't vote to hand over so much power to the Wealthy and Big Corporations.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I don't think its going to sell though.
Its true that not every policy idea he had and other Democrats had 22 years ago makes sense today, or in hindsight made sense then. But put all together he did quite a lot of good things after 12 years of Republican Presidents.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Clinton was an apostle for Alan (Ayn Rand) Greenspan, and led us on the delusion that Monopolies and the cementing of an Oliarchy is good for us all.
People didn't vote for that. They voted for the illusion that Clinton was a populist and wold fight for them "until the last dog dies." Well the last dog died very quickly once he was elected. He got lucky because there as a bubble that created an illusion of never ening prosperity, even though the termites were munching away at the foundations.
Alas Obama, and now Hillary, are carrying on the same illusions and phony populism.
What Clinton did to broadcasting, for example, is pretty much the same as what Obama is doing to the Internet now.
Obama is doing almost nothing to combat the continued process of Monopoly Building that went on in the 90's and is still proceeding.
Obama is still pursuing neo-liberal (i.e. free-market conservative) "free trade" policies that are likely to dwarf NAFTA, despite the damage they have caused.
And it looks like we might well be in store for more of the same if Hillary becomes the next nominee.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)saying. I want to come back to this thread a little later because I have more to say and read more posts. I'm one who is very unhappy about how we seem to be anointing Hillary much too quickly. It's complicated, but most of all I really wish there was someone else we as Democrats could find as a strong opposition to her candidacy. Watching how she's handling her books tour brings back memories as to why I was never one of her supporters back in '08.
At the same time anyone I want to run now really won't get elected. That is unless Democrats and mostly too many "sheeple" start really paying attention to how we are being "sold" a candidate wrapped in shiny paper with lots of bows on top. Sometimes what's in the box isn't what we ordered!
Cosmocat
(14,579 posts)Hillary is OK ... Not great. but better by FAR any possible Republican.
But, this country and elections, and the presidential is the big one where it includes EVERYONE, people simply are NOT going to make a "head" choice collectively, they are going go with personality or image.
So, we aren't getting a president elected on "policy."
Just not going to happen.
SO, we kind of have to go with the one who can win approach.
Also, it is important to note, this is POTUS, not king.
Barrack Obama would have GLEEFULLY signed a single payer health reform bill, but he knew all along no way one got to his desk.
A President has a lot of power, but end of the day, LAWS are written by congress and you have 535 dipshits creating that mess with the president having very little actual say.
Even with a marked democratic majority, the best we could get for health care reform was what republican's were pushing 20 years ago.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)CTyankee
(63,914 posts)saw what followed would want that back again. And given what the Republicans have to offer, well, I shudder to think what a horror a Republican president would do to us.
Bill Clinton did some good things and he screwed up some things. Among his good things is appointing Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Among the bad things, which he now acknowledges were bad, was DADT and support for DOMA.
While we have to work to pull Hillary more to the left, we shouldn't shrug our shoulders and refuse to vote. But, it is early. I'd hope Elizabeth Warren would gain a LOT of publicity with her message. In a primary, I would vote for Warren over Clinton. In the general if it is HRC against any republican, I would certainly GOTV for HRC.
merrily
(45,251 posts)least according to wiki.
While we have to work to pull Hillary more to the left,
Good luck with that. Aside from the fact that I don't know how to affect any politician, other than by voting him or her out of office if I possibly can manage it, I don't how to compete with ALEC and thousands of lobbyists. Do you?
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)and I see changes happening in he electorate...more and more voters are taking decidedly more liberal views...I think a lot of voters are fed up with GOP do-nothing and tear down tactics...the Tea Party is so extremist, they are driving folks out of the Republican Party...
merrily
(45,251 posts)If I believed that, I'd post here around the clock until I dropped dead.
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)If we're only here to complain and moan, that's not enough. We have to be prepared to act in our own communities and states and nationally. And I think there are lots of people here doing that...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Koko and I had a discussion on this very thread about activism. It's wasn't too bad, either, IMO. Starts around Reply 82, if you're curious.
I just don't think posting is activism.
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)makes a difference.
Years ago, I voted 3rd party in the presidential (I voted for John Anderson way back in 1980 for reasons now unclear to me). It helped Reagan get elected. Never again!
Live and learn. I love DU for what I learn but it's not enough...I need to work for change and try to get progressives elected. I signed up as a volunteer once again for the 2014 and will again for the 2016. I can no longer do walking around canvassing but I can call and I do...GOTV is important...
merrily
(45,251 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I assume you can understand why I don't give your reply much weight.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Compare his post with yours. His post is closer to reality than yours.
BTW, I don't give a fuck how much weight your snarky, condescending ass gives my posts. That's not hard to understand, either, is it?
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)25 years last I heard.
I'll keep posting some kind of substance, the snark and condescension still seems appropriate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and Armstead, though. The issue was why people voted for Clinton.
the snark and condescension still seems appropriate.
Except that it never is, unless you have been insulted first. But, hey, if that is what you need to be happy, go for it. It's not relevant to me, except that I may treat you differently than I would treat you otherwise.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)is a game played by the fringes of both parties. It relies on distortion, cherry picking, non-intellectual emotional noise. Etc. But I completely understand the desire of the fringes to tear down someone who represents compromise. In certain areas, I will even join in. The problem though is we actually do need a President that can accomplish what he/she sets out to do. There were no public policy lies from Bill Clinton, there were misjudgments though. As any President has. I could go pull a list of the good things he accomplished but then you could too, so I won't bother.
merrily
(45,251 posts)few to none of the items on the list is clear cut.
You can cite Obamacare and I can counter that it is a health insurer/health provider welfare program. You can then say he's not a king and I can counter with he would not even try. And on and on. I'm sure you've already seen all that. Hell, even "He got his daughters the dog he promised them" was on one of those stupid lists during his first term and the reality was that Kennedy gifted the dog.
But the huge lists are out there for cutting and pasting, no more than minutes, start to finish. On the other hand, countering every item could take a week or more because you'd have to do the research and write from scratch.
So, the person who posts the list wins, at least in his or her own mind and in the minds of people who already agree with them. I have no idea what they win, but people on message boards seem to think they win and someone else loses.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not a game for me.
But I completely understand the desire of the fringes to tear down someone who represents compromise.
How you characterize people you don't agree with and their efforts may be gamesmanship, though. Good luck. I hope you win whatever it is you think you win by trying to diminish people.
pscot
(21,024 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I usually steel myself for the worst when the My Posts tab goes yellow for a thread like this. So, posts like that are a doubly pleasant surprised. No one yelled at me. No one lied. And on top of that, a nice compliment. Yeayyyy!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I can't say it was my pleasure.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... it relies on the playing out of his policy decisions. Almost all of them bad for everyone but the 1%.
It's clear as day and if you don't get it blame yourself.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)"It's strictly business." Michael Corleone, The Godfather
JMO, but see Reply 120.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He said, "It's the economy, stupid," but he did nothing to insure a long-term improvement in the economy. The "welfare reform" bill has inflicted a lot of misery on a lot of people for one thing. It was great in the good times, but in the bad times, the food pantries could hardly handle the demand. And the number of homeless in my area of town has grown. George W. Bush is partly to blame, but Clinton has to share that blame because some of the worst policies were established during Clinton's presidency. Like I said, the Clinton presidency was like eating at a fast food
joint. It feels good an satisfies for a short while, but you end up sick if you eat there for long.
We need economic policies that break up monopolies. And we need those policies THE SOONER THE BETTER.
Demonizing one of the two largest Parties or the other and sanctifying one or the other works great for both Parties, including for fundraising and LOTE voting. But the country is going to hell, along with the majority of people in it while they get richer.
"One definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different result."
I want a different result, so I am changing my behaviors. It ain't easy, but bit by bit...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of the radio, TV and other communications industries, NAFTA, bill after bill, program after program, facilitated the monopolization of our country. We are just starting to pay the price for the mistakes of the 80s and 90s.
We can't blame the entire problem on Reagan and the two Bushes. Clinton and even Obama have done their share of the damage, encouraged their share of monopolization and an over-reliance on imports and outsourcing.
The Clinton presidency was like eating at McDonalds every day. It felt good going down, but the coming back up has been rough.
Look, I walked my entire precinct, up and down hills to get Clinton elected and re-elected in the 1990s. But he made a lot of policy mistakes, and I don't think Hillary will do any better. It's the philosophy. the economic theory that's wrong.
We need Elizabeth Warren because we need a president who understands the economics of bankruptcy and the economic hardships that our middle and working classes are going through. The Clintons sympathize but they don't understand the economics of it, the nitty-gritty of it. They certainly don't know how to fix it. Obama's worst appointments were Clinton left-overs. We need a completely fresh approach to fixing our economy, and Elizabeth Warren is the only possible candidate that meets that test.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I will take this opportunity to point out that as Warren has changed or learned since the 90's (she was a republican till 95?) So has Bill.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If someone with the political gifts and smarts of the Clintons actually decided to buck the interests of their well-placed insider friends and actually became champions for the majority middle class and poor, it would be a big step forward.
But instead, they're just perpetuating the same old,same old (TPP for example).
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)You can of course disagree.
He campaigned very effectively for Obama in 2012.
The Hillary campaign in 2008 was important in that it helped form the Democratic ticket and brought more attention to the issues.
He admits his mistakes, some would say that is one of the ways we learn.
I think the work he does with his foundation is very important for the middle class and poor.
I think on trade agreements he has been relatively quiet. The fact is, we do need trade agreements, they just need to be done right. He has spoken about how NAFTA could have been improved and that he wanted to do more there but was not able to.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Hillary needs Obamas supporters in 2016. And of course he's been quiet about trade agreements, Hillary drafted the wretched TPP ffs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The repeal of Glass-Steagall was foolish, and a lot of people paid for that foolishness.
Have you read Elizabeth Warren's book A Fighting Chance?
She explains why her views on the world changed.
Elizabeth Warren studied bankruptcy and the factors that cause people to end up in bankruptcy courts. She has the understanding that we need in the White House today.
Bill Clinton was a bit of an improvement over the Reagan/Bush I era, but we have really serious economic problems in this country. They are partly due to the first Clinton era. We need to restructure our tax system so that those who benefit the most from, say trade agreements or superhighways or our military engagements in the Middle East pay their fair share to fund them. We need to find a new way to finance higher education. We need to rethink the economics behind our military/defense system. We need to rethink our economy in terms of how to save our environment, feed and clothe everyone, educate our kids, provide good health care, keep our infrastructure safe, insure economic opportunity while promoting creativity and all that without going broke.
The Clintons are just not the people we need today. They are too closely tied to the Wall Street crowd. Wall Street is a part of Hillary's constituency. Wall Street already has far too much power.
I support Elizabeth Warren. I really want her to run. She is charming. People take to her easily. She is modest. She grew up in Oklahoma and in spite of her career teaching law at Harvard, she appears to be a down-to-earth very mid-western or western woman who raised a family in spite of hardships. She has a warmth that is captivating. She should be our candidate. I know there is a lot of investment in Hillary, but Elizabeth Warren is the right pick.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)at this link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5142280
If that link does not work, please ask me to find the right video. It is from C-Span and it is Elizabeth Warren's explanation regarding her vote against the nomination of the trade representative to the TPP negotiations.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I know who Elizabeth Warren is. I supported her for Consumer Protection appointment, Senate etc. I don't see her as the best party leader though, or as our strongest candidate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She is great with an audience. Yes. I think she could win.
I think she would win Republican votes. The guy who beat Eric Cantor echoed a couple of the things that Elizabeth Warren has said. Elizabeth Warren is decidedly a Democrat, but her views on banking and some other issues would draw the votes of Americans who want a change from the corruption that is so prevalent in D.C.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Nothing that he did surprised me.
What did surprise me is that neither his media nor other candidates made much of his approval of everything that big business or little business or just any business ever wanted.
There was nothing that suggested he would do otherwise in the White House.
Nor was there anything that indicated that his Walmart Director wife would do anything different, either. And it didn't seem that she had any time to actually practice law as most of us who are now practicing or have practiced know it. She simply didn't have the time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)candidate. Most voters are trusting souls who work hard and raise kids and maybe watch some political debates, President and maybe Governor, and watch some establishment news program for at 6, unless they're feeding and bathing the kids, or 11, unless they conk out from exhaustion first.
And, because that is how they've been indoctrinated all their lives, they think the press is really a government watchdog telling them all they really need to know and politicians are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in modern dress, only maybe not quite so huge figures because God broke those molds after Lincoln got shot.
They believe what they see and hear and don't catch the slanting and imaging. And most of them vote straight party. And still think of Democrats as the party of FDR and LBJ. So, yes, I think a lot of Americans, especially pooor Americans, were surprised when Bubba did things like torpedo welfare.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which was one of the drivers behind the domination of right-wing talk radio today.
And NAFTA - a huge sell-out of the working person in this country, and I would propose one of the reasons for the shrinking middle class we're experiencing now.
And the current "Third Way Democrat" who used to talk like traditional Democrats but economically (and for some, foreign policy) are just as bad as the Repubs. Rather than confront the fat-cats, he catered to them (for the most part.)
He may have done some good things (even broken clocks...), but NAFTA and the Telecom Act created HUGE holes in our society for which we may never recover completely.
And he and the establishment Dems expect me to get all excited about Hillary? GIVE ME A BREAK!
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)in sources of political news. We could have just not allowed that. Because regulating the huge number of channels and shows would have been stupid.
No... It took time, but there is a wider range of opinion now to choose from. I think it will continue to improve.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)A lot of what constitutes "news" today is really opinion. We know where MSNBC and FOX stand. But what of the allegedly "objective" outlets like CNN? Or the AP, for that matter? If we really had a wide range of opinion on our cable channels, then we would see more of the likes of Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, and other true progressives on "mainstream" outlets like MSNBC. We don't, because their message is inconvenient to those who own the mass media outlets. And remember - these are businesses with interests, not charities or non-profits, so you have to really dig past the traditional outlets to get to alternative sources.
Yes, there is an increase in alternate sources of news. But most of these news sources are found on the internet, not in traditional broadcast media.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There is no wide range of opinion on TV.
You don't recognize this? That is sort of weird.
Maybe you should tune in to the Sunday Morning talk shows.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)That post was surreal. I'm not even going to reply to it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You can thank President Clinton...
...for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which was one of the drivers behind the domination of right-wing talk radio today.
And NAFTA - a huge sell-out of the working person in this country, and I would propose one of the reasons for the shrinking middle class we're experiencing now.
And the current "Third Way Democrat" who used to talk like traditional Democrats but economically (and for some, foreign policy) are just as bad as the Repubs. Rather than confront the fat-cats, he catered to them (for the most part.)
He may have done some good things (even broken clocks...), but NAFTA and the Telecom Act created HUGE holes in our society for which we may never recover completely.
And he and the establishment Dems expect me to get all excited about Hillary? GIVE ME A BREAK!
Thank you, eizenmahn. I quoted in full because I want to add this post to my journal. I hope you don't mind. If you do, pm me and I will delete it from my journal.
And then, there was the Fairness Doctrine. Until the Obama administration, Democrats were calling for its reinstatement by the Executive Branch. However, under Obama, the FCC killed it. Whereas before, it could have been resurrected by the Executive Branch, after Obama, it will take an Act of Congress. And we all know, as we knew when the FCC put the nail in the coffin, that it will never pass Congress.
And much more recently, the FCC blew it with the internet, too.
But, sure, let's make believe that only Republicans are to blame for all our ills. That's great for professional Democrats, not so much for ordinary Democratic voters.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the outside. He was a neoliberal on the inside. They voted for outward appearances.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)psychologically speaking, one has to want to learn and has to be receptive to information to accept policy discussions. Most people don't give a shit about that or don't have time to devote to it, so instead they make decisions via the peripheral route...their 'gut feeling' so to speak. This is something Bill Clinton understood. It's something other democrats, especially those on the far left, are going to have to wrap their heads around. The guy quoted in my sig line understood that and made the NDP (a party with socialist roots) the official opposition here in Canada by appealing to those who are only swayed by appearances and sound bites. Sadly, it's the marketing, stupid. (disclaimer: stupid does not refer to anyone in particular, it is a variation of the remark "it's the economy, stupid" for those who would take this personally when it is not meant that way. Thanks.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)became a test for the Presidency. (And the beer summit proved a racist cop and his victim would both have a beer with President Obama, and vice versa.)
bigtree
(86,013 posts)Clinton ran as a centrist and the mood of Democratic voters was that they had grown tired of losing presidential elections to republicans. Clinton offered a roadmap to gaining the presidency, just that simple.
The DNC changed the primary structure to stymie weaker candidates like Jesse Jackson and elevate the southern vote to broaden the party base. In many respects, it worked (although I protested the changes at the time), and we freed ourselves from another term of republican rule.
With Clinton, who everyone knew as a 'moderate' governor from the south, we took the good with the bad; mostly good, tho . . .
* Longest economic expansion in American history
* More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
* Highest homeownership in American history
The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
* Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years.
* Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
* Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
* Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
* Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
* Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median familys income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
* Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Congress passed President Clintons Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There were 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
* Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. A record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded at the time.
* Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president before him. He protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in Americas national forests.
* Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history.
* Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clintons call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion. Instead, a projected surplus of $237 billion.
* Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
* Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)....that inevitable led to the crash of 2008, and the current immense and growing gaps in wealth and power that exist.
I'd suggest you read all of Frank's article if you haven;t. he eplains what really happened better than I could.
Had Clinton actually brought a true balance to the economy, the 90's would not have been so shiny, but we wold be a lot healthier today.
Clinton presided over a glittery facade of economic growth in which the foundations of the middle class were being systematically destroyed by speculative right-wing pirate capitalism, the Growth of Monopolies, deregulation, privatization, the erosion of middle-income jobs, and false beliefs in the "end of recessions" that covered over economic realities.
The same fores that led to the slowdown and crash under GWB were aided and abetted by the Clinton administration in the 90's
Home ownership, doe example, increased in a long running real-estate bubble that ultimately pushed housing beyond the each of many people, and put many into overpriced financing they could not afford. What happened under GW was merely the inevitable popping of that bubble.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Hell you have completely wiped the blame off of Bush. Its all Clintons fault!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sure Bush helped it along, but Clinton set the stage.it up.
If you dont think the financial deregulation that Clinton championed didn't set the stage for the misbehavior in the financial sector, the formation of "too big to fail banks" the bad mortges and housing collapse and the oerall Crash of 2008 -- then I've got nice bridg I'd love to sell you.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)He never ran on, he didn't drive it, the most you can say is he got something he wanted when he went along with it.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/president-clinton-i-was-wrong-listen
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)mild mea culpas ten years later don't make up for the fact that he bought it hook line and sinker.
The second articles proves my point. Tereere a lot of people, including moderate like Dorgan as well as "hair on fire" progressives who warned against that -- and predicted EXACTLY what would happen.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to see the effect that removing a huge level of regulaiton -- and allowing these massive "too big to fail" banks and investment whorehouses to form.
One can only assume that Cinton, who is a very smart man -- chose to ignore common sense and instead aligned himself with the advice of people who stood to gain from that giant con-job that he had placed in his inner circle.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)the problems with shadow banking were already there before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Also he maintains that it was the lack of enforcement/regulation/oversight in the Bush years that resulted in the huge breakdown. Other factors he mentions, he could not have gotten derivative regulations through Congress, although he says he should have tried.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Instead you try to fix it. And if it takes more work to bring the public and legislators (at least democrats and sane Republicans that existed) around, then that's the job of being a leader.
And at least it would have been better to have fought and lost than to actively put in place and support policies that made it worse.
That's the damn problem with that brand of "centrist" Democrat. They buy into the conventional wisdom generated by the right wing corporate propaganda and the "wisdom" of the robber baron insiders, whether through insulation, corruption or political cowardice.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Steagall. Sheer glee. In the photo of that moment, Clinton is flanked by rich, greedy bankers and members of Congress (none of them poor either).
See the picture here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/27/john-reed-on-glass-steagall-then-now/
Too enthusiastic about small government and deregulation, too anxious to please big business and the Republicans and of course that is understandable since who pays the Clintons' bills?
Who will pay for Hillary's campaign?
Wall Street of course, same folks who paid for Obama's campaign.
We need a government that represents the people, not Wall Street. Hillary is not the one.
Bill Clinton admitted that the repeal of some provisions of Glass-Steagall was a bad idea, a mistake. He did not admit the full extent of the mistake.
And then there is the big mistake that Hillary made: voting for the authorization for war in Iraq without really knowing the facts.
Two big, big mistakes, two crucial errors.
And in each time, the mistakes were made because the Clintons wanted to go along to get along. Wanting to be liked that much is a weakness, a serious one. We need a president with the courage to stand up to Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I'll take a break for now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Blamed his advisors--Rhodes scholar, not capable of grasping the concepts? Also blamed Bush's oversight.
BTW, I saw him deny on The View early in the collapse that he had any responsibility at all for it. Joy Behar (who is more knowledgeable than many, but not as much of an in depth expert as she thinks) said something like, "They're saying this is your fault. Is it?" And he said no.
I almost threw a shoe at the TV. (Not really, but it was fun to say.)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Clinton's policies set the stage, but George W. Bush was mostly responsible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Clinton took down the firewall. He knew what he was doing. You posted the photo yourself.
The Gramm concept had been floating around for a long time before Bubba. Reagan didn't pass it, even when Republicans controlled Congress. Nope, it was Bubba who did the spade work.
The repeal become law in November, 1999 and Clinton's term ended January 2001. So, yes, most of it went actually down during the Bush administration. But I don't know of anything that nothing happened during Bush's tenure that Gramm, Bliley, Leach didn't allow.
Clinton took down the door to the house. That was the hard part. Predictably, the thieves ran in and started looting. All Bush did not was not stop them by trying to get Congress to repeal the repeal. Realistically, I am not sure he even could have if he tried.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course that's what he'd do. But, it proves nothing.
I cannot recall now whether it was Harkin or Wyden who recounted how Clinton and Greenspan worked together to get this passed, Clinton saying he wanted it on his desk ASAP. The Democratic vote on the final bill alone should tell you where the then head of the party stood.
This thread, though, includes Clinton's speech at the bill signing, thanking members of his administration, like Treasury and Summers, for their work in getting the bill passed. Did they do that because their boss never championed it? Does the speech sound like he was signing reluctantly?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2127466
All that aside, he didn't veto and, contrary to another meme, his veto would indeed have changed everything with respect to Gramm, Leach, Blilely.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I stand by my interpretation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And even the House numbers indicate how the President wanted the vote to go.
Your interpretation of what? All you did was claim he didn't champion it. He did.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)This was a bill that was driven by the pukes and the dems felt they got the concessions they wanted. At the time the public was still mostly in favor of deregulation just because. Clinton went along with advisors. From his account you can clearly see he was not a true believer (i.e. Champion).
merrily
(45,251 posts)It was sponsored by Republicans. So what? He couldn't have been a sponsor if he wanted to and I am sure he was happy to keep his fingerprints off it as much as he could anyway--while still making sure it passed. So what if Dems "felt" they got the concessions they wanted? That says nothing about his role. You don't get every single Senator voting for something the head of the party doesn't want. You just don't. (But nice job attempting to limit me to the House numbers and spin a strong Dem majority as saying nothing.)
Clinton went along with advisors. From his account you can clearly see he was not a true believer (i.e. Champion).
I already addressed both those points. And, from his account, I see good ole Slick Willie Third Way triangulating as always.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)There is no President that comes out unscathed. And Hillary is not Bill. She has her own compass and her own ideas. Enough.
merrily
(45,251 posts)about Bill and Glass Steagall, only to boil it down to "Vote Hillary anyway."
One of the worst cases of bad faith posting I've seen yet.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But it isn't worth taking the chance to find out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Everyone thinks she's had everything thrown at her that anyone could possibly throw, but that is not so. She was only a secondary target while Bill was in the WH, not the bullseye. I don't know if everything will come out, though, given they seem bent on avoiding a primary. Her involvement with The Family, for example, is something a Democratic primary opponent might mention, but not a Republican general opponent.
And, would Bill have made that remark comparing being a pampered U.S. Senator to being on the plantation or claimed "hard working white people" as his constituency while running against an African American (Pennsy, IIRC). Or bemoaned being broke on leaving the WH? I don't think so. Hell, I wouldn't have done it and I'm not supposed to be a politician.
merrily
(45,251 posts)(Sperling, of "let's do a sequester" fame.)
Actually, I thought Clinton had run on overhaul of the financial system but we didn't realize he meant giving banksters the keys to America's pension plans.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html
In any event, Drogan warned everyone, including Clinton, what would happen and his predictions manifested.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Glass Steagall? Still repealed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When I was a child presidents pretty commonly vetoed bills. It is sometimes just a gesture for the record, but it means something important when a Democratic president vetoes a bill that is not in the interests of working people.
Franklin Roosevelt 635 vetoes
Harry S. Truman 250 vetoes
Dwight D. Eisenhower 181 vetoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
Note that those three presidents presided over either changes that led to some of the most prosperous years, years of great economic growth for America or to the years of that prosperity and growth.
So what if Congress overrides a veto. At least the president stood up for something and people know what the president's values are.
Bill Clinton, 37 vetoes
merrily
(45,251 posts)Contrary to the bs posted here about Glass Steagall, Clinton told Democrats he wanted it on his desk ASAP. No one knows how they would have voted otherwise, but I bet the Senate vote on the final bill would not have been 98-0.
Also contrary to the crap posted here about Glass Steagall, votes change after vetoes more often than not. While I have not seen it broken down, I would say that would be true especially within the same Party as the President.
Apparently, some DUers feel free to post anything, true or not, as long as they think they are furthering their agenda and/or doing what they are paid to do.
And the more slippin' and slidin' I see a persistent poster engage in, the more I have to believe they have some stake in posting beyond that of a casual poster.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)(Except when he chooses.)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Can't be that hostile to his agenda if he's only vetoed two bills.
merrily
(45,251 posts)For that matter, Democrats had strong majorities 2007-09 and they were pretty hostile to Bush. He seemed to get stuff he wanted. Not to mention their many votes for the heinous Iraq War and the Patriot Act, provisions of which even a Republican Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and which even otherwise mild-mannered librarians rebelled against.
And, while I am on that subject, Hillary voted for both, I think.
And not only voted.
I have to wonder: since the vote was (sez Hill) to authorize Bush to proceed IF diplomacy failed, why didn't they wait until he claimed diplomacy had failed before taking the vote, so they could assess? What was the damn rush? Why did they leave it all up to someone they had been berating before 911?
merrily
(45,251 posts)No it wasn't ALL Clinton's fault, and Bush wasn't blameless. Then again, you're the only one who said anything remotely like that. But ask knowledgeably people in Spain and Greece what mortgage derivatives did to their economies.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)He and Greenspan worked together.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)You can realize that the repukes pushed that bill (thats why it had Phil Gramms name on it), that 155 Democrats voted for it, that Clinton was ill advised by his cabinet. Or not. As he describes, the repeal actually allowed regulating things that Glass-Steagall never dealt with. As he describes Glass-Steagall already was not working. You can believe that with THAT Congress and all that had happened before with financial markets that there was not much of anything he could do to prevent what happened on Bush's watch or not.
In my view Clinton has always been faithful to the truth when it comes to his public policy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)he's erred.
For example, he blamed DADT on Powell, when he was the one who got Powell and Morris involved, consistent with his love of Third Way triangulating. No one forced the CIC to cater to Morris or Powell on that--or even to consult them.
And I don't expect an error of the magnitude of near global economic collapse to be the time he breaks his pattern of denials and attempts to shift responsibility. Hell, he even blamed the right wing for lying about Monica--and that is from the mouth of his wife, when being interviewed by Matt Lauer before the truth came out.
He told Democrats he wanted the Bill on his desk ASAP and he did not veto it. Both those things are on him and they paved the way for economic collapse in several nations. Without that, Bush could not have mismanaged the repeal, if indeed he did.
As far as bad advice from his cabinet, who the hell chose his cabinet? Appoint a fiscally conservative Republican or neoliberal or whatever weirdo Summers is and then, you, the brilliant Rhodes scholar claim you just acted on bad advice without understanding anything and therefore you really have no responsibility? And I am supposed to buy that? How gullible would someone have to be?
bigtree
(86,013 posts). . . most of the argument is with the years he was out of office - it should be clear to anyone how Bush and the republicans began their assault on the economy after Clinton left office.
I'm not blaming Clinton for republican mismanagement of the surplus he left them. I think discounting those economic gains has been the entirety of the republican attack over the decades, complete with measures to undo protections and benefits acquired during his presidency.
Only in a political debate could you represent top to bottom prosperity as the cause of the republican economic collapse. As far as I'm concerned, Bush is entirely responsible for mismanaging and sabotaging the economic growth and other economic gains which preceded him.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Did you read the article cited in OP? he stated it far better than I.
But in a nutshell, the hollowing out of the productive domestic economy and the siphoning of wealth upward and the concentration of power in the hands of Corporate Monopolies and Wealthy Oligarchs that started with Reagan and Bush 1 kicked into high gear under Clinton in the 90's.
There may have been a glittery surface to distract us (as in the early and mid 80's), but the erosion of the middle class as already well underway and Clinton made it worse wih things like NAFTA and opening the doors to cheap imports from China, and financial deregulation and media deregulation, etc.
yes there was a high-tech boom and an unnatural real-estate bubble. But the process of exporting American jobs and companies accelerated in the 90's, as the did the formation of horrible monopolies.
Perhaps you have a short memory, but along with the stories of upstart Internet companies being valued at Billions a day after their start-up, there were also stories about abandoned factories and crumbling cities and towns across the country.
While unemployment dipped, most of the new jobs were not high-powered tech jobs, but low paying service positions. Middle class jobs were already beginning to shrink.
Clinton could have addressed those problems. But instead, he floated along the bubble, encouraged our delusions and appointed Wall St. Robber Barons and praised charlatans like Alan (Ayb Rand) Greenspan and gave them the keys.
bigtree
(86,013 posts). . . blaming him for Bush's mismanagement just lets republicans off of the hook. I don't believe a Democratic president would have let the worse happen. That's why we vote against them.
Was Carter responsible for what Reagan ultimately did to the economy?
The Clinton bubble is a myth. It's a way to discount the gains he made and the protections he put in place by assuming republicans had no part in disregarding them and pushing forward with their own agenda.
It's like blaming Clinton for making executive decisions on the environment that Bush was able to reverse. At some point, you have to hold republicans accountable. I'd start the day they are sworn in.
merrily
(45,251 posts)None of the tax increases under Reagan (and the one under Bush)had anything to do with 8 years of prosperity? The fact that we were not in any wars big enough to admit to? That 911 did not happen until he was out of office and there was no massive spending on Homeland Security, beefing up the CIA, NSA, FBI, the military, etc.? The fact that he ended "welfare as we know it?" (So much for top to bottom.) How about the dot.com boom? He didn't cause that, but it sure helped the economy--until the dot.com bust.
I guess Gramm, Leach, Blilely had nothing to do with economic collapse of several nations, including this one, during Bush's term, either, due to mortgage derivatives?
Presidents are in office 4 or 8 years (assuming nothing untoward). But many things influence their apparent success or failure, including what their predecessors did, what is going on in the world at the time, etc. And what they do while in office may not come to fruition until after they leave. No question about that, right? But, for Bubba, we look only at 8 years, full stop--and not even at the not so great parts of those 8 years.
Response to bigtree (Reply #119)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Didn't (and still don't) agree with "the era of Big Government is over."
Didn't (and still don't) agree with welfare reform.
Really (really) didn't (and don't) agree with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
But that being said, as you list makes quite clear, the Good of the Clinton Administration far outweighs the Worst of the Clinton Administration. He was able to accomplish great things even in the teeth of vicious opposition from the Republicans in Congress (sort of like that Obama fellow), and I'd vote for Bill or Barack for a third term if it wasn't for that pesky constitution.
And goddam, the Big Dawg had style:
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't know what could cite for Clinton that outweighs the damage done by repeal of Glass Steagall, which allowed the mortgage derivatives, which led to massive economic collapse in this nation and others.
Reagan probably cut taxes more than Clinton. And so on.
The list game is silly.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)for a year or so. It tastes good when it goes down, but it doesn't keep your body healthy.
Clinton's policies, his deregulation, NAFTA, tax legislation, etc. (and some of it was due to a Republican Congress, I'll grant you that, but the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the law permitting consolidation in the media, TV and radio, and many other bills that Clinton signed contributed to the making of the crash of 2008 and the media parroting of lies, lies, lies in the build-up to the Iraq War.
The Clintons are not the worst people in the world, but we can do better.
And from a pragmatic point of view, Hillary does not have the charm that Bill had, and unless the Republicans pick a real loser, I think she will have a tough time winning the hearts of Americans.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I love the way they blame Hillary for everything they dislike about Bill, yet refuse to give her any credit for the good things that happened during his administration.
The derangement is quite remarkable.
I also think it's funny as hell that people writing these lame little electronic media pieces are doing the same sort of convoluting.
Before we know it, they'll be blaming her for leading Monica astray....
merrily
(45,251 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)voted for him back tben? I am always bemused by those who flog the great masses of unwashed ignoramuses around who was elected to office in the past. You vote at the polls on who stepped up to seek office and the candidate that was approved during the primary season to represent an agreed upon platform using the informatio available yo you at the time. Unless you supported a third party candidate or were to young to vote, you likely voted for Clinton back then. It is easy to scorn the masses--not wise, but easy. Makes it darned hard to attract supporters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I voted for him. I also was an ardent supporter of Obama when he was running.
And yes, despite reservations, I fell for their personas and beliees they might actually support what I believe in -- which is not all that radical.
It;s not a matter of "scorning the masses." One can have an opinion that is not straight acceptance of the Approved Party Line *(trademark). It's more a matter of those in power selling us snake oil.
What, you don't think we can do any better? We deserve these trade deals that hollow out the economy, we deserve rollback of necessary regulatios on corporate power and misbehavior, you believe we should endorse banks that are "too big to fail" etc.?
Believing in policies that have been proven wrong, and thinking tat's what the people deserve is the position of arrogance, in my opinion.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Hindsight is always 20/20. You bring to an situation the information and intuition that you have available to at the time you are making a choice and not afterward. While I have disagreed with both of those presidents at times, I am fully cognizant that it takes more than one person to approve and implement policy. What I struggle with more recently is what appears to be the excusing of Congress for its negligence. Congress flat out gets a pass because people have bought into the notion that...well...they are Congress after all. What was that phrase that Bush used? "...the soft bigotry of low expectations".... While Bush applied that phrase in a cynical and bigoted way, it it whole applicable to Congress, which slides by using card tricks and smoke and mirrors. They no longer craft legislation but engage in endless campaigning. It is rotten at its core and we need to turn seats over in 2014 to people who are actually interested in doing the work of legislating.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)That we are offered only candidates for President supported by the DNC or RNC (or billionaires who can finance their own campaigns, like Perot), somehow estops us from critiquing the winner?
Besides, Bill was the first DNC/Third Way/New Democrat President. Who knew the Party had transformed itself? And Obama didn't mention that he was a New Democrat until after he was elected. We thought he was the alternative to DLC co-founder, Hillary. As he started making his nominations, I started to get a sinking feeling, beginning with Rahm.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)who fall over and over..head over heels in love with the handsome. smooth-talker..
They love to believe what they are told, and even after being burned repeatedly, they are always looking for the next handsome face & smooth line of jive..
merrily
(45,251 posts)than Republicans. We're always looking for the next individual to be our savior nominee at the top, while the Republicans focus on organization and bottom up (and I would add recruitment, p.r., etc.) McCain was sure not the handsome smooth talker by the time he finally got to be the nominee. And the original darling for 2012 (Christie) is no handsome smooth talker, either.
It hardly matters, anyway. Democrats are going to vote for the Democrat and Republicans are going to vote for the Republican and a dozen purple counties or fewer are deciding Presidential elections anymore. A dozen counties or fewer, yet they spend billions on the campaign.
SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up)
However, I have never seen anything like this board. It is like the Beliebers. The true Beliebers. I never saw such unconditional adolescent adoration of politicians by adults.
Someone once told me he became a Democrat because his kindergarten teacher told them to figure out who they liked better, Carter or Ford; and he picked Carter because he liked his smile better. But, he is grown up now and has different criteria. While he is a Lesser of Two Evils Democrat, he is far from a cult worshipper or a fan club member. It's so bizarre, I have to suspect paid posters, or posters with some other kind of economic stake.
Well, actually, it's more than a suspicion. We know all kinds of people, including the government, have put posters on message boards. Why would Democrats not do that with the largest Democratic board on the net?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Speaking of rewriting history, you must not remember all the people screaming about how many jobs free trade agreements would create. People voted for the "Aw shucks, my FTAs will put a pork roast on every table and a truck in every garage." bullshit, instead of the "All the jobs that can be outsourced will be outsourced and you'll be flipping burgers until you're dead." reality.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)you seem to realize. For one thing it was already happening before NAFTA. Studies of NAFTA find a mixed bag of pluses and minuses. It definitely wasn't the cure all it was represented as. China's export boom was one misunderstood piece. Other factors in Mexico seem to have played a stronger negative role than it was assumed they would.
If I were to make one important point, it would be that no economic policy is always perfect. They need to be adjusted based on developments over time. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton both realize that. There was more that needed to be done to make NAFTA work better and it didn't get done.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Come out to Michigan and I'll show you. It means wrecked lives and a country that is severely hampered in its foreign relations by its inability to make its own toothbrushes and socks. No one seems to be able to face up to the problem of deindustrialization as yet. Unfortunately, we may have to sooner than we might think considering what is happening in various corners of the world now.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I have worked in manufacturing my whole life. I am quite familiar with the situation. I also read the 20 year NAFTA congressional report and other studies. So I think I have a broad basis for my opinion.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)You do not write with much concern for the families and the communities that continue to decline. One would think that with such a broad knowledge you would have some clue about the suffering. Apparently, your work in manufacturing requires you to wear blinders at work and to live quite a distance from where the people on the shop floor live.
As to the problems that come for a country unable to manufacture a good part of what it consumes, we have become incredibly dependent on China, which has made threatening moves toward our treaty allies South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines. How are our politicians to think clearly about China if many items voters want disappear from our stores?
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)to the US. While the situation is grim or slightly less grim than a few years ago, my main point is that NAFTA or no NAFTA we would be in a similar situation. The only way to maintain manufacturing in the US is to be competitive. This will require continued technical innovation. There is no easy way.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)because tariffs would exist and transportation would not be so easy.
Big money saw a way to make big profits with cheap labor, lack of any organization of workers, lack of enforcement of labor and especially environmental laws. Workers can be made to live in odious conditions while people at the top pocket the money.
Before NAFTA, et al, we managed to avoid the race to the bottom for a huge percentage of US workers, and you know it.
You're obvious part of the top people who have managed to insulate himself culturally from world-wide competition--so far.
A few jobs have come back, but it is 1 for every one hundred that went to Mexico or China. And we continue to import people from other countries for more competition unlike everywhere else.
I find it revolting that someone like you is allowed to post on Democratic boards since you have benefited and now cheer on for the decimation of what real Democrats built in this country.
Go away and don't bother me with any more of your self-serving blather.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I want to tell you where to go too.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)by silencing someone who doesn't agree with you.
You put yourself in the position by posting here to run into someone who does not buy your story, and isn't afraid to tell you why.
And what do you do? You threaten.
How brave.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I am not threatening you, just stating the obvious.
I am not too insulated fyi, you don't know shit about me except that I don't agree with you.
Trade shit is about the most complicated issue there is. There will be disagreement.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)issue there is because the plants all went to Mexico and China. The social costs are beyond belief, and it doesn't sound like you're aware of them, let alone paying for them.
If we hadn't become so dependent on overseas cheap labor, trade would not be so complicated for you, and would be better for a whole lot of people. That's what you can't understand.
We will undoubtedly be unable to push back against Chinese and perhaps Indian aggression in the future just as much as our friends in Europe are unable to do much to counter Russian real aggression now. If you actually pay attention to anything other than your ever so complicated trade issues, you'd know that the Finns and the Swedes are becoming interested in joining NATO, but NATO may be useless without Russian energy products.
The Europeans became too dependent on Russian natural gas an oil and are fast developing a taste for cheap Chinese stuff.
Meanwhile the Chinese harass our treaty allies in the Western Pacific and threaten the sea lanes. It is possible that they control access to the Panama Canal. Go ahead and laugh at that one, but it might actually matter some day to have a hostile power in control of the only water route between Norfolk and San Diego that doesn't run around the tip of South America.
So I will continue to run about with my hair on fire. You just run along and study your complications.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)There is a need to blame something or change something.
I have moved like 5 and 1/2 times to get a job. Cross country type moves. The 1/2 time is because I ended up quitting once when I saw what a joke the new job was. Never finished the move.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Moving for a job is not that much of a hardship if you have a job to move to. Many people do it. It's when you are more than ready to move for a job and there isn't one there is a problem.
I want to move back to Michigan to be closer to my elderly Mom--I'm her only child. But I can't because there are no jobs for which I could be hired. I will go out and not work at some point. I've already had to do that twice for two year-long stretches.
You will never admit that the trade agreements that we have weaken this country tremendously for most of the people who live there.
I'm tired of arguing with you.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Millions are anchored to a place with few options. All because of deregulation that Clinton should have vetoed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sperling (of Obama sequester fame) worked to get passed and that Clinton told Democrats to get on his desk ASAP.
And then, he didn't veto. But, why would he? He wanted it.
navarth
(5,927 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Muskegon is dead, and despite the happy talk, Grand Rapids is too.
The Muskegon Heights school district was farmed out to a charter operator. The charter operator was not prepared for the equivalent of an inner city school that had fallen apart. MH ninth graders read at the fifth or sixth grade level and the 9th grade materials they were to study from were far too difficult and basically had to be discarded. Now that charter operator is out and another one has come in. I can't imagine that it will be any different.
Muskegon Heights and Muskegon used to be filled with manufacturing plants of all kinds. There were huge plants that made large auto components, even engines for the tanks that we sent to Vietnam. There were also small specialty manufacturers that required skilled workers. A few of them are doing okay, but they don't produce enough decent jobs to keep things going. It's a minature Detroit. It's just all so sad, and when some poster comes in talking about how complicated trade negotiations are and how we have to compete against the rest of the world, well, it just irks me to no end. You, I think, understand.
navarth
(5,927 posts)All too well. So sorry to hear about Muskegon. Imagine if we hadn't allowed the Benedict Arnold Corporations to send all the jobs overseas...
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The poster with whom I had my back-and-forth didn't seem to get it, and seemed surprised to be called on it.
navarth
(5,927 posts)It can happen on your own home ground with somebody who is assumed to be on your side.
I thought some more about the Muskegon area; it occurred to me that we Detroiters, being constantly pointed at for our troubles, can forget that other towns in Mich. can be suffering as well.
We're all in it together. There are some in the suburbs of Detroit that have needed to understand that for decades and still need to understand it today.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Detroit is just the largest.
I understand the situation with respect to the suburbs. It was the same way when I was in college with them back in the '70s.
merrily
(45,251 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)It's nice to know that others see things the same way.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)In the present environment competitive means little more than lowest pay, least environmental protections, worst labor standards, minimal taxes, most nonexistent regulation on practices, and maybe a pile of cash as direct incentives or stuff to write off.
Any and all innovation is then sent to such locations for actual production.
The phony baloney concept of hundreds of millions of us innovating and inventing away the live long day is well beyond ridiculous, a fairy tale to trick folks into swallowing their livelihoods going bye bye with dreams of feet on a big desk, in the corner office bringing home a pile of money and not wanting a shower when they got home while the foreigners do the hard work and come up themselves is a farce.
It will never happen because it is statistically very improbable and structurally prohibited by the economic system in place. Straight up a lie for the benefit of the elites, increasing the scale, scope, depth, and pace of extracting wealth and plunder of real value.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Is not to enforce standards with trading partners but to use tariffs?
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)trading is some overriding prime directive. If you can't get fair trade then none at all will do as far as I'm concerned and I'm not above cutting you out of the trade route security and we do use that leverage but not for the benefit of the American people but rather for the wealthiest few and the interests they control.
Shit, a little less trade and maybe we could have more work, might even make some stuff that requires some people. Some very silly, exporting the raw materials and buying back finished product.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)better trade agreements? It seems pretty clear to me, that trade agreements shouldn't try to do too much initially, and be reviewed and re-approved on some regular schedule.
The problem with not doing them is that everyone is. Clearly we would lose markets by not pursuing them imho.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)How fucking tragic.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)that would work in a Presidential Election?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I had a feeling......
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)BYE!
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)I also don't give a damn if "we" lose markets because we don't reap the rewards or if we do they are fool's gold.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)maybe it would be more than a fringe dream. But that would depend on the candidate of course. Not that I agree with your idea of trade policy anyways.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And if we had access to all the resources of Congress and the White House--all the consultants we want, all the staff, etc., we would be on a level playing field with them.
It's a dishonest debating ploy to suggest that, either a poster comes up with a better solution than all of D.C. and distills it into a reasonably-sized post in ten minutes, or the crap to which the country been subjected since Dems went Third Way is somehow valid.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)and DADT, as well.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In conclusion, Clinton and Obama are the best of all possible worlds unless you want a perfection that no human could possibly achieve.
See?
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)don't believe most of the memes on this thread that the centrists are posting, which, as I posted to Cali, includes just about every party line meme I've seen on this board. I guess the OP really hit a nerve.
But, if all your points really do boil down to, only centrists who repeal Glass Steagall can win elections, why not argue that from the jump, rather than tell a poster that he can't grasp banal platitudes like nothing's perfect? Why waste your time and everyone else's? Cut to the chase.
I'm so bored with people who move the goal post every other post. Trying to have a discussion is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
In fact, isn't your real bottom line, "Vote democrat, no matter what?"
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Keep that in mind.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There may have been centrist or contradictory elements, but even Eisenhower was more liberal than many Democrats today. LBJ screwed up in Vietnam, but he was liberal and if it hadn;t been for that he probably would have been considered as successful on the liberal side as Reagan was on the right.
And Reagan was NO centrist.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And the country rejected him. And then his teabagger state was about to reject him, too, so he went further right.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Eisenhower. First he wouldn't be elected in any other time than he was. Also his policies were a product of his time.
Reagan was transformative, but he wouldn't have been able to sell his bullshit if it wasn't for the conditions at the time. He was for things that todays Republicans are against. I would not call him a centrist but I don't think he was the mastermind behind a lot of his policies anyways. He was more of a puppet.
You can really only do direct comparisons of politicians that are active in the same time and dealing with the same issues.
And lastly re-read what I said. I was limiting the statement to Democrats. LBJ took advantage of the opportunities he had. He was great when there was the opportunity to be great.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Don't you people ever get tired of pushing memes that are untrue?
Obama defeated Ciinton by portraying himself as well to the left of centrists. The fact that he governed as a centrist has nothing to do with what got him elected. And the climate in the country is shifting. You and the DNC need to keep that in mind as well.
Besides, I would wager that about 80% of the country never heard of the DLC and has no idea that the party has changed. All they know is Democrats--FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, yadda yadda. New Deal, Fair Deal, Social Security, unions, civil rights, Great Society. Not mortgage derivatives.
Each party could run a hobby horse and they would get roughly the same number of votes, just based on the bitter partisanship that has been ginned up by both sides. So, please don't tell me that only a centrist can win. It's imaginary.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I love this. People really do not know.
"Besides, I would wager that about 80% of the country never heard of the DLC and has no idea that the party has changed. All they know is Democrats--FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, yadda yadda. New Deal, Fair Deal, Social Security, unions, civil rights, Great Society. Not mortgage derivatives."
That is why Democrats can fuck us over so effectively.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I don't know where you get this Obama portrayed himself to the left of Clinton.
That is absolute nonsense, made up from whole cloth, pulled out of your ass, bull crap.
Post one example of an actual policy difference from 2008 primary that you think supports it. I won't hold my breath.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As I said, what he did after he got into office was different from what got him elected.
Also helping to get him elected: things he did in Chicago that made him seem liberal, Hillary's reputation, deserved or not, as a neocon, his 2002 speech on the war in Iraq vs. her pro-War vote, etc.
Fact is, he was perceived as more liberal and, in fact, people voted for the most liberal seeming candidate, not McCain and not Hillary.
ETA: Excuse me for being such an ass as to comply with a demand in such a rude post as the one you addressed to me. It won't happen again.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)if your sensibilities are offended or you reply.
Obamas no mandate plan was going to cover less people. That is not too the left, its stupid.
Obama never took a position on the Public Option that was different than Hillary. You might have imagined he did though. Ask the strong Obama supporters here that have all that detail.
merrily
(45,251 posts)someone got elected, which is a matter of voter perception, not a matter of whether a policy is smart or not. You wanna know how Democratic voters felt? Look at the replies of woome and Enthusiast.
You asked for one difference. I gave you several. Apparently, nothing is sufficient.
Look. As must be amply obvious to you, I don't think you are posting here as I am. I think you have some kind of stake in pushing for Hillary that is different from most other posters here who are pushing for Hillary.
Either way, I don't think discussing matters with you is ever going to lead anywhere. As I said the other day, it's like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall, not a characteristic I find when posters are discussing or debating in good faith.
And as also must be amply obvious to you, I didn't give a damn about your reactions to my posts from the very first self-superior reply you made to me. Not only are you arrogant and dismissive, but I don't trust you.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is the first thread I've seen with posts from this persona.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the name was familiar. The answer was no. However, the poster added there are people who seem to show up only at primary and election times. He was also all over another thread about Hillary. I think it was about her broke comment. (I wonder which homeless shelter they stayed at?)
At any rate, as I said, when I am posting with an ordinary hobby poster like me, the goal posts don't keep moving with every other post. There may be disagreement, even unresolvable disagreement, but I don't get the feeling of slipping and sliding. And, when I do get that feeling, I do get suspicious.
ETA: Another board, to the left of this one, has been noting for years that posters no one has seen before (they either still post here have for a long time or used to post here for years), appear here with thousands of posts.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Because they had such a choice in Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, RMoney, etc.
democrank
(11,112 posts)Call a spade a spade.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Republicans and Democrats have come together on a program that is almost the oppositedismantling the regulatory state at the behest of the One Percent while assuring an ever angrier public that they feel our pain, that theyre Putting People First, that theyd be great to have a beer with, that Yes We Can. The heart sickens at the thought of these many long years of fake populism, and the stomach turns to imagine how little time there is before we are swept up in it all over again."
In other words, we're being played and lied to and treated like fools by bipartisan thieves.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Barack Obama is a conventional politician with conventional views. I voted for him in 2008 fully aware of that fact. Hillary Clinton is a more hawkish and slightly more right-wing version of Obama.
I'm way, way, way to the left of Obama, but I voted for him in 2008 anyway. Not because I fantasized that he shared my environmental ethics or my outlook on America's role in the world, but because he was a better choice for me than John McCain.
I think that a significant chunk of the American public is way to my right, and way to the right of the typical DUer. I see this in my day-to-day experience and I see it in the results of public opinion research published by the Pew Research Center and other major public opinion research groups.
From my perspective as radically-minded person in the Deep South I am surrounded every day by military and law-enforcement worhshipping, anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-business, right-wing, Christian conservatives.
I don't think our politicians have misled anyone, certainly not me. I think they generally represent the aggregate views of their constituents. I think that conservative arguments and beliefs, which I disagree with strongly, have convinced more people than my own radical leftist ideas.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is not that people are inherently more right wing, at least on issues of the economy and power.
I live in the northeast and growing up, the default position for many hardassed bue collar working people was liberal and Democrat.
The needs and aspirations of working peope have not changed all that much. Divisive issues like abortion and race and "cultural differences" helped to break up that coalition -- but a lot of the reason such issues superceded real issues of oney and power is because the Democratic politicians stopped selling liberalism and jumped on the right-wing snake oil bankwagon.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The left tries to make fact-based arguments with logic and reason. The right makes colorful arguments that appeal to emotion and morality (or a skewed, perverted version of morality).
The right-wing message machine has been at it for more than 30 years. They've won. The proof is in the pudding.
The left needs to abandon complex arguments involving statistics, facts, and logic. They don't work. The left needs to speak in strong, plain language about morality, right-and-wrong, fairness, etc.
Americans understanding of common civic and human values have been perverted by the right for many decades. Change, if it comes, will take a generation or more.
merrily
(45,251 posts)communication, while the left is supposed to be so much smarter than the right.
The left tries to make fact-based arguments with logic and reason. The right makes colorful arguments that appeal to emotion and morality
And why do you suppose that the smarter group hasn't caught on? The concept that punchy slogans are effective is not exactly a new one.
The right-wing message machine has been at it for more than 30 years. They've won. The proof is in the pudding.
Won what? What proof? What pudding? They and their ideas poll poorly. They resort to things like vote caging, exploiting religion, etc. They are not winning because a majority of people want wars, no semi-affordable way to put their kids through college, dead fellow Americans piling up outside emergency room doors for lack of insurance, etc.
String Fiesta
(13 posts)Liberal media has to be sought out. Conservative media has to be deliberately avoided. Fox news provides its content to cable providers for free, to ensure its messaging is the most prevalent.
merrily
(45,251 posts)message, once you formulated it. The other poster and I were posting about the formulation stage.
However, FCC deregulation contributed to the proliferation of RW media and, no, that was not all Republicans. Neither was allowing companies to get bigger and bigger and bigger until only four or five mega corporations owned most medial
So, again, Democrats have at least some responsibility.
You'll almost never get me to agree that all our problems are the fault of the big bad Republicans and Democrats are flailing around helpless to aid themselves or the country. It's not true.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Relentless reinforcement through repetition is an important part of the right's formula for success. It works. Over time, it reshapes how the brain conceptualizes ideas like "freedom", "fairness", "the public good", etc.
The spread of right-wing ideology has been facilitated by a intensely focused, well-organized, well-funded, well-connected, cabal of hard-core right-wing ideologues. Over the past 30 or so years they built a well-connected messaging machine fully integrated with a network of so-called pseudo-intellectual "think-tanks" and pseudo-academic, ideological colleges and universities. Their messaging machine is professional, well-connected, and knowledgeable in the art and science of influencing belief. They shape the narratives, frame the terms of the debates, and methodically and deliberately reshape how the brains of millions of Americans embody and conceptualize basic ideas such as morality, virtue, civic values, government, etc.
I'm not trying to get you to accept the idea that Democrats are flailing about helpless. I'm trying to get you to recognize the size and depth of the challenge.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Step One. You decide what you are going to say and how you are going to phrase it. That's messsaging.
Step Two. You get your message out to others. That's dissemination.
We were discussing slogan vs. long explanations, Step One, not discussing dissemination, Step Two.
Relentless reinforcement through repetition is an important part of the right's formula for success. It works. Over time, it reshapes how the brain conceptualizes ideas like "freedom", "fairness", "the public good", etc.
Duh? But, again, the discussion was not about that.
I'm not trying to get you to accept the idea that Democrats are flailing about helpless. I'm trying to get you to recognize the size and depth of the challenge.
Most appreciative. Bless your heart. (DU seems to be having a run on people this week who assume the rest of us post here about baking biscuits and tractor pulls, waiting for them to show up and educate us about the basics.)
On the other hand, guess what?
The spread of New Democrat ideology has been facilitated by a intensely focused, well-organized, well-funded, well-connected, cabal of hard-core center right ideologues. Over the past 30 or so years they built a well-connected messaging machine fully integrated with a network of so-called pseudo-intellectual "think-tanks" and pseudo-academic, ideological colleges and universities. Their messaging machine is professional, well-connected, and knowledgeable in the art and science of influencing belief. They shape the narratives, frame the terms of the debates, and methodically and deliberately reshape how the brains of millions of Americans embody and conceptualize basic ideas such as morality, virtue, civic values, government, etc.
And yet, Democrats they still don't come up with punchy slogans, vs. long winded explanations which is, yes, is all the original discussion was about.
Yes, I get that the budgets are different, but Obama raised well over half a billion in 2008--enough to have him made a replica of Air Force One, among other things, and a billion in 2012. And that's without soft money. Meanwhile McCain went under McCain Feingold (though he cheated some, but not by all that much) and Romney raised less than Obama.
How much does it cost to buy a punchy slogan (which Obama did have) and how much air time can you buy before you shove regular programming off the air and piss off people to the point where they spite vote against you?
You know what costs no campaign dollars? Running the government for a majority of the people, instead of for your biggest donors. That's how Roosevelt got re-elected until he literally dropped dead. That's how Democrats kept control of Congress for so long after Roosevelt. And that's why control of congress or the house keeps flipping back and forth since New Democrats took over the Party.
You know what the biggest challenge of today really is? Getting someone who really believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people into power, despite the New Democrats who control the party now.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Normally I would never use the phrase "I was trying to get you to..." in an online conversation, and once again, you've reminded of why that is. I foolishly picked up on a phrase that you used in your preceding post. Your indignation is misplaced.
America has been pushed, pulled, and led to the right for more than 30 years. It's not an accident but a well documented, deliberate effort that began in the 1970s with Lewis Powell and the US Chamber of Commerce. The Heritage Foundation was one of it's earliest creations, but it has grown to include more than eighty, large, non-profit groups dedicated to the vision outlined in the "Powell Memo".
Right-wing ideology has corrupted and perverted our most basic civic values. The infection is widespread. The Republican Party and the vast majority of it's supporters are incurable infected. The Democratic Party is sick, but may possibly be cured.
The hope is in the younger generation, who appear to reject right-wing conservative ideas in growing numbers. But for the millions of Americans already infected, as for example the overwhelming number of conservatives who responded to a new major Pew Research Poll that "poor people have it easier than others" they're lost causes, for the most part.
Personally, I'd abolish private ownership of land, rescind most corporate charters, open our borders, and dedicate the mission of public government to protecting people and the living environment.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't think our politicians have misled anyone, certainly not me. I think they generally represent the aggregate views of their constituents.
That is repeated again and again by politicians and therefore here, but it simply is not true.
If people are polled on issues, without labeling the issues as conservative or liberal or anything else, and if they are polled before anyone cranks up the propaganda, people poll more left than right.
For example, shortly after Obama was elected the first time, over 70% of Americans polled of both parties--over 70% of both parties--indicated they wanted a public option in a health care bill (which meant they also wanted a health care bill). The same majority, over 70% of both parties--said they wanted taxes raises on income over 250K a year.
The problem is not that a majority of constitutents are rightist on economic issues. Or that a majority of constitutents are demanding wars out of the blue. Or defeat of Warren's student loan bill. It's that the vast majority of very rich people are rightist on economic issues and make money from wars and they buy the politicians.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)When the bullet meets the bone, its made by Lockheed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It feels kind of thankless sometimes -- especially when even people on places like DU seem so resistant to change -- but part of it is simply getting information and discussion out there about these things.
The one thing i can say is better than in the 90's or the 00's is that at least more people are more aware of these things, and there is more momentum for change.
I think if that process continues, and enough people stop accepting the unacceptable, that will lead to actual reform and positive change.,,,or at least offer a fighting chance for that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And that is where I get into trouble on message boards.
There are so many billions of dollars at stake for them. So many well-organized, well-funded organizations like ALEC. So many lobbyists willing to make big donations.
Posting at DU is not going to change any of that that. Neither is calling your Congressional Rep or your Senators or the White House, though you may give them a giggle. Neither is your little 50-500 person demonstration.
And get even a little obstreperous, and you may find a bullet in your head. Or get your life ruined, like a high schooler who tried to attend the early days of OWS in NYC and got himself an arrest record he was terrified might keep him out of high school. And, of course, a vet in Boston and a vet in Oakland landed in the hospital. For demonstrating peacefully.
OWS did a lot in my opinion because it changed the national conversation.
We can do things like boycott because, now, we're talking money. (But good luck getting the left to agree on anything.)
Aside from that, I honestly don't know what we can do. And, I consider posting a hobby or pastime. Especially here where the views on both (all?) sides are pretty ossified.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Conversations in real life. letters to editor, etc.
Nothing is an all inclusive answer but everything can add to the drip,drip,drip
merrily
(45,251 posts)time since the New Deal. With drip drip, I don't think I can live until something changes significantly. If it ever does again. (Things are very different now than they were in 1934, 1964 and 1994. )
I think, at this point, they are quite confident that there will be no revolution and, if anyone tries, they can put it down before sundown. That was not the case in 1934 or 1964, but they are ready for anything now.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Some attitudes changing but not yet visible consistently. Small movements in pockets of the country here and there and larger ones pushing against Keystone, Fracking and Monsanto who don't get the coverage in the MSM.
I remember the early 60's when we didn't quite get there there was something coming that would bring some change, for awhile, for the better. Maybe we are re-visiting that time and we will be able to accomplish some of what the 60's movements tried to do that was positive which birthed the anti-consumerism movement and led to consumer activism for protection and expansion of food, water and product safety standards. Also, the environmental movement was birthed there along with a push for civil rights which in many ways succeeded with Obama elected as President and has led now to the LBGT rights movement making huge strides. But, the counter is that women's rights and children's rights (over-medication, poverty) are taking a toll and more work needs to be done for focus there.
Eventually people will notice the crumbling society around them. The empty stores the towns without resources (Detroit having to petition the United Nations for Water for those who have no money to pay water bills) the constant grinding of ordinary citizens under police military style tactics and the general depravity of our media and the dumbing down of our children with "teach to the test" programs. etc.
We are back to Wall Street Won and "My 401-K is back" mentality but look at the cost to average Americans. We see preparations being made for funding for more war-like actions riseing again while our roads, bridges and infrastructure haven't gotten the promised repair because the push to Privatize it all, as the solution, seems to have some strong support with the usual crowd.
It's hard some times, and depressing, to deal with it when one remembers what we could have done and what we couldn't do because the "Deep State" was working in the background dogging us for every gain to take whatever they could to satisfy their ideological global corporate interests backed up by hand-picked conservative judiciary and media whose agenda is in full support having been freed of concerns for the public good by FCC Deregulation. In so many ways we seem to be backtracking...yet, there are these baby steps forward to try to keep building on.
Hopefully this is a very bad patch we have to get through. The growing realization that exuberance of electing the first black President would not bring the wide Democratic/Progressive Wave of Change in policies instituted after terrible Bush years is probably a positive rather than a negative. And, the realization that the economic policies from Reagan through Bush (including Clinton) were the cause of what we are suffering through may lead to a new movement among the young indebted with college loans and forced to work for low wage jobs with little hope of ever getting out from under it all may lead to the political change that was started growing into a movement for "THE PEOPLE."
Maybe that's the only true hope ...that we can build on some of the good that was started in the 60's and dig out of this with help of the young who like the youth of 60's movement...will demand change and have the energy to work for it. We might not see it coming yet...but, as you mention OWS gave us a frame..."The 1%" and it was all worth it for that. "They" couldn't shut down the message even though they shut down the places where the message was revealed. Maybe the message will continue to grow beyond what brutal force can deal with?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Iching has also reminded me that local is the way to go and I have neglected that stupidly.
As far as the 60s, I don't see them as most people do. I think the PTB was fearful that the civil rights movement--not all of which had problems with violence--the Black Muslims, the hippies, the anti-war, anti-draft group that weren't hippies could easily form a coalition around 1) stop killing people of color in Vietnam; 2) stop the draft; 3) give everyone equal rights and 4) give us more economic justice.
Later, the fiscal conservatives and neocons who thought a volunteer, more professional military would serve them better than the draft opposed the war and the draft too, but not by demonstrating publicly. That was back room stuff. And I believe that was what actually stopped the war and the draft, not the demonstrations.
But, I'm also willing to say it was 11 years of demonstrations that finally stopped both, not that the conservatives accomplished it quietly and it only looked like demonstrations finally wore down Congress. It happened a long time ago and it's long moot.
Though most of both programs were dismantled, we still had Social Security and Medicare--and you know what was happening with them during Obama's first term, before OWS, even though they were supposedly untouchable, even during Bushco's reign.
Thing is, it's not the 1950s, the 1960s or the 1970s anymore. So many things have changed, especially the need of the PTB to fear an uprising. And the nature of the Democratic Party. And the nature of lobbying. And the nature of big business. And the cost of elections. Many, many other things, too, but I don't think the strategies of the 60s are going to work in 2014. (And maybe it only seemed to people that they worked in the 60s.)
Whenever I give my real thoughts, some hippie or group of hippies wants to strangle me, as do people who believe that their demonstrations and their internet petitions are going to trump billions upon billions in campaign donations, but that is honestly how I see it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)and...I was not a Hippie in the 60's...but (where I was was dealing with noticing and dealing with it at an Academic Institution) living through that time and seeing the changes for positive that weren't apparent because the MSM just did the NOISE...with the Drugs, Flowers and the Rest...when one lived through it...the changes were important that happened and the "NOISE" obscured much of it....but the "NOISE" did, in a way, call attention that folks couldn't deny.
So....I well understand what you say...but in my view "from the bridge" that makes me think that some good will come out of turmoil once it's processed and that CHANGE doesn't come without some attention by those who need their voices heard.
I was really just hoping to ask you Not to Give Up on Hope.... I just think we might build on some of the Positive Changes the 60's Movement made going forward building on Environmental Movement, Food Safety, Right of People to decide whether they are Fracked or are forced to eat Monsanto, DuPont and the rests GM and Pesticide ridden food and the rights of us to have access to CLEAN WATER and Cleaner AIR WE BREATH, OCEANS free of OVERFISHING and POLUTION, plus over our PRIVATE LIVES through affirmative LEGISLATION PROTECTING (and reinstating) our BILL OF RIGHTS that Protects those RIGHTS..from NSA Collecting every bit of our Personal Data and even Rights to Vote and how our Vote is Counted along with Access to Voting.......and so much more.
That's where I go back to the 60's that wasn't about Hippies on Drugs bombing things and making a mess with their altruistic ambitions. It was much more than that....because that's all the MSM wanted to report.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It was my shorthand for people who took part in quite a few peace marches, maybe civil rights marches in the 1960s. Not necessarily the druggie, Haight Ashbury types--"not that there's anything wrong with that," or the "Can you spare some change?" group.
The persistent demonstrators could have been accountants, for all I know. I do know for certain that some were doctors and lawyers. And members of the military, etc. And some kids of multimillionaires, too.
The ones I mean are the ones who believe with 100% certainty that they fought the peace and civil rights battles for 5, 10, 15 years and finally won. When I tell them maybe it only looked as though they won, maybe the same things would have happened if they stayed home, they get furious. I don't blame them.
Same thing for those who go to a lot of demonstrations today, though most demonstrations today seem kind of puny. Even those who don't demonstrate, but keep telling us to call the White House or sign this internet petition or call our Rep. If any of that did anything, the bill that went to Baucus would have had a public option.
No one seems to want to even consider for a minute that they may need to change their M.O. What was good enough for the 1960s (or so it seemed) is going to do wonders in 2009-2016 and maybe forever. Or so they seem to think.
Um, how is it been working for us, so far? If I ask, that, someone will point to some vote or other of his or her rep. However, that doesn't mean the rep changed his or her vote because of calls and internet petitions. It was how the rep was going to vote all along.
Not to mention the damned D.C. kabuki. "Here, Emma, this vote is going to pass no matter what. You live in blue state, so go ahead and vote No. " or "Gee, the Dems out there want this vote to pass, but screw that. Let's make sure it's damn close, though, so it's looks like we REALLY tried. If you are in a solid blue state, or very, very popular, vote no and help out your fellow Dems in the pale blue states who have to vote yes or get primaried next time."
Anyway, the bottom line is, whatever did or did not work in the Sixties, that was a long time ago. It's not working today, so we have to find things that might work. At that point almost everyone is pissed at me and I get reamed as negative. Why? Because I think we should stop doing things that don't work and try to think of things that might?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I guess I just see some activism differently. Because MSM and the times we live in has powerful people who don't want to call attention to the "Actions of the People" by reporting on the actions of citizens so as to demoralize them and make them give up...because what they do isn't important because it hasn't made ANY CHANGE.
I think the change is come from below...building on what started in the 60's but it won't be visible change at first...it will be incremental and not even show up as much of the best of the late 50's Civil Rights Movement and the 60's Movements didn't seem to make change until it DID.
So...we just have a different view about whether activism is important or it's time to try something new in the way of activism that's more targeted in some way we haven't yet envisioned.
merrily
(45,251 posts)what kind of activism?
Demonstrations, marches, signing internet petitions, calling your Rep? Don't get me wrong, I do do some of that, even though, as I am doing it, I ask myself why am I doing this when I don't think it will matter. The answer is, because I can't help myself. But, I don't think that will do the job.
Some of the things that have occurred to me:
Two huge websites, one for the US, one for the world. Not to discuss anything but what is going on in activism at the moment and maybe to exchange ideas on the most effective kinds of activism.
Economic boycotts.
Demonstrations, but really big ones. It could be local for everyone. "Show up at your town halls with signs next week at lunch hour," for example.
Ten people show up at a town hall, pffft. Five or ten people show up at every town hall in the country, though--maybe something gets shaken up? Maybe by the tenth week or so, media will even admit it's happening?
Iching and True Delphi are good evangelists for acting local and I really want to do more of that, too.
Anyway, those are some things I Have been mulling.
And so on.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Every Monday when NC Legislature is in session.
It's getting folks attention when Professors, Doctors, School Teachers and Ordinary Citizens are Protesting and ready to go to jail for it.
We shall see how it goes...but Reverend Barber has huge support. And it's ongoing and movement is spreading to SC and GA.
-----------
In North Carolina, "Moral Monday Movement" Marches Forward
http://www.workers.org/articles/2014/06/10/north-carolina-moral-monday-movement-marches-forward/
By Workers World staff on June 10, 2014
By Ben C.
Raleigh, N.C. It came on the heels of a powerful sit-in at the office of North Carolinas Speaker of the House Thom Tillis on May 27, during which 11 fast food workers and four clerics were arrested after nearly 12 hours of sitting in at the speakers office. This time the Moral Monday movement rallied nearly 1,000 people at the North Carolina Legislature called the General Assembly on June 2 around the theme of environmental and health justice.
On the Sunday night before the rally, both houses of the legislature unexpectedly announced that they would be out of session on Monday a clear move to avoid the growing resistance of the people of North Carolina, expressed through the Moral Monday movement.
Speakers at the rally addressed a broad range of topics: the long history of illegal dumping of waste on communities of color across the state; a bill to open the state to hydraulic fracking that was racing through the North Carolina General Assembly; the states coverup of numerous violations of environmental regulations by Duke Energy and other corporations, including Dukes recent spill of tons of toxic coal ash, and the denial of Medicaid by the far-right cabal that has taken power in the state.
MUCH MORE ABOUT WHY North Carolina is Up In Arms over Republicans Take over CONTROL of State House and Senate for first time in over 200 Years.
http://www.workers.org/articles/2014/06/10/north-carolina-moral-monday-movement-marches-forward/
merrily
(45,251 posts)The OP might have hit way too close to home.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)This has been a great thread to read so far.
merrily
(45,251 posts)we can have our own Gang of Five.
navarth
(5,927 posts)SamKnause
(13,112 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Anyone else remember the HOPE we had for Bill Clinton after the Reagan years? Thomas Frank describes the experience perfectly...
I always thought it was clever that Obama's campaign message was re-branded as"Hope and Change You Can Believe In." These days, I wonder if we Dem voters have a compulsion to fall in love with the man and the message, carefully crafted for our ears, but in doing so tend to 'give a pass' when policies we wouldn't have voted for seem to be the result.
Perhaps we need to focus more intense scrutiny on the background, voting records and associations of our candidates before we vote for them and less to the campaign hype, media manipulation and what we hope for them to be rather than what they are. Unfortunately we voters don't have much choice these days in picking who runs for President or even the ability, nationally, to hear policy views from diversified voices who might want to run as Third Party Candidates.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Clinton was Hope and Change, Obama was CHANGE and HOPE. See?
Large countries need proportional representation. That is the only approximation of democracy. All else is Choose the Boss of the Same System Either Way.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is the opposite of accountability. It means, just keep waiting, and just keep voting. If you think good thoughts long enough, maybe someday youll get that million bucks, or that single-payer healthcare system.
And thats probably why this stuff springs so goddamned eternal. After 30 years of these pseudo DemocratsDemocrats who fundraise like Republicans, Democrats who govern like Republicans, Democrats who basically become Republicans (for example, Zell Miller, the creator of the HOPE Scholarship)its easy enough to understand why elected officials love the concept. Hope means, forget about how you got taken last time. Think positively. Maybe this next Democrat is the one who will finally act the way you think Democrats ought to act. And when he doesnt, hope means you need to stick with him anyway, because . . . well, because hes the one who carries hope in his back pocket and all.
At any rate, hope is a virtue they mainly recommend for you, the Democratic voter; with their funders and bundlers, the relationship is a little more contractual. For them our Democratic leaders undertake to perform certain actions; it is only for the rank and file that they recommend a diet of wishes. If we complain about this state of affairs, they will no doubt tell us that results in this material world arent everything. Theres something philosophical and ennobling about hoping for things. Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him, says Job of the Almighty.
When confronting our earthly leaders, however, the situation ought to be a little different. We shouldnt have to hope. We should expect politicians to deliver.
Expecting results from Democratic politicians can get you run out of DU on a rail.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Just got back to the thread to read it...and bookmarking...because we will probably need it for re-read and reference at some point in the future the way things are going.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes wanting to stop the Wealthy and Powerful Corporations from taking over everything is just exactly like FR.
And disagreeing with a politician is the same as "hatred."
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Therefore it is safe to say that Osama and those on Du who are critical of the the Clintons are the same, right?
Wotta buncha BS
progressoid
(50,008 posts)Some members of DU and FR also dislike the police.
Some members of DU and FR also dislike Ralph Nadar.
Some members of DU and FR also dislike the TSA.
Some members of DU and FR may both dislike them, but for completely different reasons and motives.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I'm gonna use that next time someone on here shit-talks Ralph Nader.
"Why don't you go back to FR? They hate Nader over there too! You're just helping Rand Paul anyway!"
merrily
(45,251 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you need one of these...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Both Democrats and Libertarians claim to love free speech. So, Democrats are exactly like Libertarians, right?
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)And they are all in the minority.
Most liberals support the Clintons. More liberals (in the real world, not in the DU bubble) support Hillary than do moderates or conservatives.
And let me guess what the next reply is going to be: "But those people can't be REAL(tm) Liberals!"
merrily
(45,251 posts)Politics should be about goals and ideals, not about whether someone likes Clinton or Obama. Are we going to have a political party or a Beiber fan club? Hell, even the tweens aren't as unconditional with their admiration of their tween idols as some here are with Clinton and Obama.
BTW, it's pretty arrogant--and insulting to me-- to assume that you can anticipate my reply.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)on everything, then they are worthy of as much scorn as you'd give to your opponent.
And there's the problem right there. It's about goals and ideals, yes, but it's also about who can deliver on those goals and ideals. Not everyone can do that. Choosing a candidate is not just about what they believe, but also their ability to get the job done. Everyone has beliefs and goals; not everyone can get elected to public office, much less to the presidency. And even the ability to get elected doesn't guarantee the ability to govern well. Ted Cruz got elected but I'd hardly say he's effective.
So take someone like Bernie Sanders. I think he's fantastic. I agree with him on many, many things. Would it be great if every voter and every politician in this country was a Bernie? Of course; but that's not reality. A 74-year-old socialist from Vermont is not going to get elected president no matter how right he is on the issues.
When I support someone for office, I look at where they stand on the issues, but then I also consider their chances of actually winning and being effective in office. The purpose of a campaign is to WIN, not just to make a statement. Anyone can make statements. Not everyone can win an election.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the unconditionally adoring types. It's stupid, pointless and a waste of a great day because they refuse to consider anything but the memes they've constructed out of bullshit and repeat over and over.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)of Obama, the person, while defending his indefensible policies. and posting crap about how liberals are as bad as freepers. "the adults" are not impressive at all.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)How could I when the vast majority of liberals support Obama and Clinton? And when I stand among them?
President Obama is the best kind of Democrat: a liberal who knows how to get things done. I can see why Senator Kennedy, another great pragmatic liberal Democrat, supported him so strongly.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)heck, I'm not even sure with the "centrist" liberal bent of the Democratic Party today that they'd have the stomach to start something like the EPA or give it any teeth. Now that it's there they support it -- although by negotiating these "free trade" deals they are undercutting it.
Medicare? Forget it. Way too radical.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)What some claim as "liberal " now is truly laughable. Really.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't see it now, but I thought I gave that reply already. If I did, no matter. It's worth repeating.
cali
(114,904 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Liberals in this country OVERWHELMINGLY approve of the Clintons. So much so that liberals overwhelmingly back Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Those are the facts.
The constant Clinton-bashing you see on DU and FR -- whatever the motives -- is not something seen out in the real world.
cali
(114,904 posts)logic, but your digressionary skills are fabulous, dear!
And yes, I see dislike of Clinton in the real world- but then I live in Vermont which is actually full of thinking, intelligent progressives.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)No, I don't hate Clinton and she will likely get my vote if she is the nominee. I would just rather see someone I believe to be more of a populist get nominated.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)But I DO see more knee-jerk reactions to anything Clinton from Democrats/liberals here on DU than I do from Democrats/liberals out in the real world.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I don't see hate from any of the Democrats that I know or read articles from. I see great disappointment and criticism of policies of Democrats that are closer to Republican ideals and philosophy than to what we hoped our Democratic party could sustain after FDR's philosophy and legislation guided the party for years.
The "Hate" is the distraction the clever Republican OPS put out. They do false attacks on Dems and their antics (for instance during the Clinton years) with Starr Commission and endless smears against Hillary which tend to cover up for the policies which are going on that they are in favor of. It's almost a smokescreen to hide from the public that Republican Policies are being enacted while the Dem President has to deal with the distractions. The Republicans are very clever at using "hate tactics and fake or overblown scandals" against Democrats.
The question is: Why are the Republicans so successful in spreading hate, lies, ridiculous scandal mongering, vicious unfounded attacks which in the end gets exactly the kind of Legislation they want crafted and enacted? And WHY are Democrats so incredibly unsuccessful in dealing with their tactics.....? unless it's because those who get in power on the Dem side often agree with Republican policies and look on the Republicans as just silly "Noise" while the Dem Base gets worked up focusing on Republican "Hate" (as you call it) and doesn't spend time on holding Dems the voted for accountable for the Republican Policies they are working for.
It's the smokescreen...and it has been working very successfully for quite a while now. And, when you post "Clinton Haters" you fall right into the very tactics that are so distracting for the health of our political system going forward.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Wonderful post.
frylock
(34,825 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)I would think the more correct word for me, at least, would be not trusted
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't know how to love or hate someone I've never communicated with for two minutes. Even one minute.
As far as trust, I don't think I can ever trust another politician. I am going to squint at every single one of the fuckers in all parties for the rest of my life. (I am coming to the conclusion that we should never elect to public office anyone who wants to be in public office. So, there's a bit of a Catch 22.)
So, like, hate and trust are out of the picture for me. I guess I will just have to give my vote to the ones I mistrust least and hope for the best.
But this whole like hate thing sounds so primary school to me. I can't believe how much stuff on this board revolves around that.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Most, if not all, people fudge, omit, speak technical, white, or even blatant lies etc. That is just a reality but the problem is when they do it to better themselves at the others expense. Sometimes this happens by accident, sometimes by habit but some of those other times it is done with prior planing and knowledge. Sometimes even worse, it seems to me, is when it's done with malice and contempt.
Pure political ambition is no excuse and is not a mistake. It often happens when a person puts goals and ambitions above the well being of others. When and how it might happen again is only a debate in foolishness
merrily
(45,251 posts)Obama fudged in 2008 (to give him the benefit of the doubt), so what happened? He got to run without a primary in 2012 and got re-elected.
Not by as large a majority as he was elected in 2008, so he lost some support. No doubt he cries about that to the White House staff regularly.
And, of course, he's not the only one by far. He's just the most recent President.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)The plutocracy will chose what choice we have. I wouldn't see how it's too important to get all worked up about any of it. The only thing that gets me is the step over the line to has others being killed for something you no isn't true. Not the promises or the promises about ideas.
To give a lunatic, dry drunk, AWOL, dropout,etc. the authority to do something stupid, how does that rate?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so be it. Apparently you dont agree. You want to continue the status quo and see more American literally die because of the gross inequality in this country. Anything but stand up to the authoritarian oligarchs that run this country. Our founders would not be happy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Who but plutocrats would have kept abolition of slavery out of the Constitution and restricted the vote to about 3% of the then population of the colonies, only white male who could afford to own land AND pay a poll tax?
They set up the electoral college to elect the President and Senators were elected by state legislatures--also made up of plutocrats, at least more plutocratic than others. State legislatures also got to vote on ratification of the Constitution. The people got to vote only for Reps, but the Senate got to vote on ambassadors, treaties, convictions in impeachment, etc., as well as the ability to kill things passed by the House.
We've been brainwashed all our lives to practically worship these people, most of whom were wealthy, especially the slaveowners, slaves being the single most valuable thing in the colonies. But, I'm over the brainwashing.
True, they could have overthrown the British, then set up another monarchy, if they wanted. Instead, they invented something that had never existed in human history. (They did want to make Washington "President for Life," but he refused--and that's close to another monarchy with a Congress, instead of a Parliament.)
I'll give them brilliance. Geniuses, yes, but they weren't egalitarians by any means. And they feared "the mob," which is why the Senate got more powers than the House.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)penniless. They were elitists but then all of our leaders were elitists. Most were against slavery but they knew that they couldnt get the southern colonies to join the union if they excluded it. What they did went far beyond what had previously been done for a representative democracy but you are critical because they didnt go farther.
merrily
(45,251 posts)they exercised power. The majority of all colonists lived AND died penniless. The Framers were way richer than most colonists and most of them did not even die penniless. A few of the more famous ones did, yes. But all the Framers are no longer household names. A wiki on the Framers exists. I recommend it.
And, those that died penniless or in debt, probably did so because they lived lavishly, beyond their considerable means. As I said, a slave was about the most valuable thing you could "own" then and, at one point, Jefferson had about 300, a few of his very own children among them. Then, that would have put him in Buffet territory today. However, he spent and spent.
Most of the Framers were not against slavery. Your post reads as though all or most of the Framers who Northerners who could not make the South knuckle under. However, representatives of the Southern colonies were very much part of the Framers. A couple of the most important, Jefferson and Washington, were slaveowners, as were most of the Southern contingent.
John Adams (Massachusetts, yeayyy) advocated against slavery, yes, but he caved. Moreover, I don't know how many of the Framers were like Adams. (BTW, the Founders were a larger group than the Framers. For example, neither Paul Revere nor John Hancock were Framers, but they were prosperous Founders, and, as to Hancock, another Buffet of his day.)
Flip the paradigm: How many poor tenant farmers or carpenters were among the Framers?
What they did went far beyond what had previously been done for a representative democracy
Which my post very clearly credited them with (but they almost did create another monarchy).
but you are critical because they didnt go farther.Not really what I said. I said they were geniuses, could have given us a monarchy, but didn't, but they were not egalitarian. Bottom line: I have no reason to think they would have been unhappy with neoliberals.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)"Hatred," really? Truth is, they so totally do not matter to me as people. Very irrelevant.
What about hatred of All Things Oligarchic? FR is actually for oligarchy.
Let's get past the personalities, already!
merrily
(45,251 posts)some posters have some kind of financial or other stake in that personality, beyond the stake of the vast majority of ordinary Democrats.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)to the laughter of many "serious people."
It is kind of funny to see many of those themes (and this one in particular started well before any of us used it), become common. I wonder what serious people will do now? Never mind, what they always do.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)because the shit I read here these days don't
work like it use to
The veil of our reality of the 'system' has been stripped by our years seeking the truth no matter where it takes us and each peal of the onion reveals another layer....which some still look at in its golden outside of the onion..
It must be an existential thing with me and a touch
of humanity and spirituality.
If ignorance is bliss.....I am blistered now and can't go back
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I stop at CPAN hearings, and City Hearings, hell, later int he day I need to go to County for the vote on the budget. Most people here will only repeat what WAPO tells them, but complaint about WAPO at the same time...
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)None of this happened because of obama or Congress.
Pot
fair wage gains
helping the poor
Schools
gay marriage.
act locally think globally
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)covers the policy level of local, and some national issues.
People here miss things like going over budgets. It matters little what level, those are political documents, as well as economic vision documents.
Most folks do not do that.
http://nadinabbottblog.wordpress.com/
yes, we do some sports, chiefly soccer, since we can. And lets be honest, we all need a break. But we also have done far more into the local discussion on raising the minimum wage than most media
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe we all should start spending more time in the state forums?
I actually know less about what goes on in my state than I know about what goes on in D.C. And I know less about what goes on my city than I know about what goes on in my state. It probably should be exactly opposite.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's amazing they got away with it so long.
merrily
(45,251 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)now turn to my wonderful board of supers.
They were closed when I got there, got the website, so watching now...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And directly on point.
cali
(114,904 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Were you a Hillary supporter and switched, or have you always been skeptical about her halo?
(Serious question, despite the phrasing. I am going to try harder to the posts of you two Cali posters straighter in my mind.)
cali
(114,904 posts)Just think of me as Eva- that's my real name.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, if you want me to call you Eva, I'd be glad to.
I think every centrist meme, talking point, etc. I've ever seen on this board has been posted on this thread.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)and, Bubba, the first New Democrat President. Reagan may have announced the end of big government, but it was Bubba who bragged on having ended "welfare as we know it."
We now have our second New Democrat President. And apparently, a third--the wife of the first-- was slated to be our next nominee with no primary fight, though the message that we want a primary--preferably not a sham, either, thanks, seems to be seeping into the viscera of the Party.
Just for the sake of accuracy, though, dismantling of the New Deal began under FDR himself and de-regulation began under Nixon and both got progressively worse with time and increasing greed and callousness.
Carter was proud of his de-regulation record; and he did do quite a bit, including replacing the Bankruptcy Act of 1934 with the Bankruptcy Code of 1978, which, among other things, omitted the 1934 Act's provisions for investigations to see whether officers and directors had been negligent or fraudulent.
I find it difficult to forgive the Clintons for their role in the New Democrat transformation of the Democratic Party, or Bubba for DOMA, NAFTA, triangulating everything, including, but not limited to, DADT, etc. But, fucking repeal of Glass Steagall nearly killed us and a few other countries.
(I had posted this on the dupe thread that is locked now. So, if it seems out of place or repetitive now, given other replies on this thread, I apologize.)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It was a very deliberate change, one they even advertised proudly at the time as a strategy to win elections.
New Democrats and their platform advocate a deliberate fusion of conservative economic and liberal social issues.
I post about it from time to time for those that don't realize they are nothing more than socially liberal Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495257
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.
The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats, one reason I found Obama's statement that he was, policy wise, closest to an 80's Republican refreshingly honest and at the time I gave him kudos for his honesty.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In reality, it was more of a strategy to make sure it didn't matter too too much to financial markets who won elections.
Carroll Quigley was a prof of Bubba. At one time, Bubba cited Quigley and JFK as the two biggest influences on him (meaning Bubba). And Quigley said that the worst thing for financial markets is change.
Assuming we can believe Slick Willie on this, that would explain a lot.
Oh, and btw, financial markets could care less about the pro-choice v. pro-life issue, so if the major differences between parties are culture wars, financial markets are uber cool with that.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It was indeed a way to sell it, and such social justice issues were obviously carefully chosen to allow people to see a "difference" that was worth voting for on each of the "sides" while making sure no issues important to the Oligarchs would be challenged by either party.
Of course they don't care about choice or marriage equality, neither of those issues interfere with installing the gilded age they long for and have effectively recreated for themselves. It also allowed the uniparty's two branches to keep some of their long time voting blocks intact.
There is a treason you no longer see socially moderate Republicans, they call themselves Democrats now and have very effectively taken over the party for the right while relegating actual Democrats to the sidelines and deriding them as "fringe" or extremists.
Their strategy however evil is a complete success, the neogilded age is here (as evidenced by the wealth disparity numbers) they merely have to finish off the destruction of the safety nets and the already greatly weakened unions to complete their mission, both parties will perform the required Kabuki to accomplish that very soon unless actual Democrats gain enough power to delay it a bit longer.
I have recently realized the experiment to tame Capitalism by compromising with it via progressive taxation and strict regulation has failed. FDR made the compromise to save Capitalism with New Deal policies and the tactic did work for a few decades creating a vibrant and healthy middle class, but without Indigenous Communists snapping at their heels, the compromise is over and very unlikely to be re-instituted leaving Capitalism to degrade to it's most destructive form. I unfortunately do not have any solutions however.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hi, Dragonfli. I agree about FDR. Indeed, around the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, the elongated lump, Dick Gregory, played some footage of candidate JFK on the Meet the Press.
When asked why he thought Democratic would be good for the economy, he said something to the effect that it had been Democrats who had saved capitalism in America. He didn't look too happy to be saying it and he lowered his voice, but he said it.
The Great Society, I believe, was to stave off a possible revolution. I posted on this thread to Koko more about that.
I don't know that we will be getting rid of capitalism any time soon. However, I don't think even DU today is the DU I started reading a few years ago. More posts against the DLC types. During Obama's first administration, it was about the Cat Food Commission, the Grand Bargain Committee and exactly how much they might cut Medicare and Social Security. Now, Hillary is trying to figure out how to convince people that she is not part of the income equality problem without putting her foot in her mouth. So, there is a shift. I really do think that OWS made a difference.
The anemic recovery, too. Oh, sure, Wall Street's great, but Main Street's working two and three jobs--if lucky enough to get any job at all.
As for solutions. Massive economic boycotts are one possibility, if we could swing that. (I think the harder part is convincing a lot of people that something needs to be done, but I think they are on our way to that.) Another is the one Iching just reminded us of on this thread. Go local. We have a lot better chance of getting something done in a city or town than in D.C. Things like that.
Indeed, I wish DUers would talk more about that than whether Bubba was a good President or our current lame duck is the best President in all US history or not. Both issues are moot at this point, in terms of our future.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bigtree
(86,013 posts). . . Tsongas was the populist in that campaign.
This is revisionist, intellectual, cherry-picking babble that's just dropping names to make it seem relevant.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)campaign.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)for laughs and giggles
This is what should concern you........because you will see them again visiting the white house. if some get their wish.
This was a propaganda coup on the big screen on national TV
merrily
(45,251 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)by a historian it paints a true picture.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)that I can't even address it.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)I am a fan of how Bill kicked Repuke ass
I am disgusted with how America has drifted right over the last 35 years.
The economic platform of the 90's was a product of the times. As the Democratic platform for 2016 will be a product of more recent times and history.
Who will best present our party's platform to the people, that is the question. Who will kick the shit out of the Repukes?
merrily
(45,251 posts)How long do you think that will keep working?
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)with welfare deform? Kicked their ass with DOMA? Kicked their ass with NAFTA? Kicked their ass with a pass on Iran-Contra? Kicked their ass with GATT? Kicked their ass with most favored nation status for China? Is he kicking their ass paling around with Poppy and the fam?
I'll give you a clue, no charge, no purchase required.
You don't kick the other team's ass by dunking on your own goal over and over.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)any other years you care to share. Who is it for 2016?
Because before I talk politics I want o know if the person on the other end has a realistic grasp of politics.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)But it is no secret that I voted for Bubba four times as a start on your weird diversion, that is more than would seem necessary to discuss your own point, which makes me think you aren't speaking in good faith.
Seems weaselly and stinks of dishonest debate. Who does that and who the fuck frames as seeing if the other person has a realistic grasp of politics? Don't have a "just trying to get a feel on where you are coming from" or a "just want to check your thermostat" or something?
To be honest, my vibe on your politics is that your mentality is a better fit for allegiance to a sports team or two, I find it a great outlet for part of my mind but that kind of loyalty and joy of victory along with the agony of defeat are a piss poor marriage with self governance and determination to the tune of being an oxymoron.
Oil and water might not mix but at least they can exist in the same universe.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)DU complaints about Clinton which you have again raised. Over and Over the same fuckin shit. Its 2014 last I checked. Bill is not even running. Get over it already. The rest of the country thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread. We should be using that to our advantage. Like Obama did. Not trashing his 22 year old record that at the time was the best way to take back the WH.
SO if I am going to get into further discussions on this subject, I really don't want to waste time doing it if the other party is obviously close minded or just repeating something they read and they aren't really interested in discussing it.
As I have said, Clinton laid out his strategy very clearly from the beginning. There was no fake populism. Fuck the author of the article in the OP. I mean I like it when he goes after repukes fine, but he is doing Dems a disservice here.
1992...Democrats were tired of losing badly and Clintons plan looked like the best chance to stop the fucking bleeding. Yes it was about taking some ideas from the other side and doing them better, while still pushing for normal Democratic priorities. I think he did try to do too much (made too many deals) in his second term, but there is no doubt his approach was popular with the majority of voters.
I think liberal/activist Dems, should definitely cut him more slack though. Why? It could have been a hell of a lot worse. Clinton's economic record is a bright spot that Democrats will be pointing to for years to come. It came at a time and in a way that makes it clearer than ever which party is fiscally responsible and the best manager of the economy.
Welfare Reform was decided in the election. Details had to be worked out. If a Dem did not propose some kind of reform see continued blood letting of Democratic Party. The people wanted reform of that program, we had already lost that part of the fight.
Above in I think post 103 you can listen to Clinton explain Glass Steagall himself. As far as NAFTA, there is more bullshit thrown around then facts. Read the 20 year Congressional report (easy to find with google). On all the trade shit, I have already indicated this thread my general opinion. If our economy is not creating jobs than people are going to be hurtin trade agreements or not.
As far as DOMA, I am a straight male, it was not an issue I was tuned into. But recently I heard it discussed by a liberal panel, and it was brought up that no one was talking about gay marriage at that time as anything that would happen in the next 10 or even 20 years. I don't know, like I said, not something I paid lot of attention to. So is it a case where people are just finding some shit to complain about?
I don't take these criticisms of him meeting with GHWB on a few occasions very seriously. IS that really a problem for you?
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)I still see no Republican asses kicked, all you have done is explain why we got our asses kicked from your perspective.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)After Nixon's strong victory over McGovern, the DNC repealed a lot of reforms that McGovern had made and tried to institute Super Delegates, in case we fools ever nominated a liberal again. They managed the former, but not the Super Delegates.
After Reagan, they did manage the Super Delegates. (However, there are obvious political problems with allowing them to override a primary, even though they have that power.)
Also, the conservadem Congressional caucuses and the Clintons formed the DLC. And that was the end of the Dem Party "as we know it." Now, it's New Democrats and we traditional Democrats suddenly became the far, far, far left. Lord only knows what the Socialists and Communists are considered, if traditional Democrats are the far, far, far left, but why worry about reality? They have memes.
Now, they are trying to do away with contested primaries entirely. None in 2012, but at least Obama was an incumbent. The attempt to anoint Hillary and allow her to become the nominee without an authentic primary is utterly appalling, IMO.
I think they are getting that message. And there may be a primary. It better not be a damn sham to placate us, though. That's all I can say.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Bush junior just last month went with Bill
to the basketball playoffs showing them laughing and all buddy buddy.
It was a propaganda coup with a WAR Criminal
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)you can find the crowd that came with them.
It ain't pretty if you know your Bush Crime Family
merrily
(45,251 posts)Speaking of visuals:
As to Carter, the phrase "distanced himself" leaps to mind. And Bubba puts his arm behind his back, to show he's no more eager to smoosh in with Carter than Carter is to stand near him.
But they're grinning!
Meanwhile, Obama looks as though he's trying to charm Poppy, too.
Oh, to have been a fly on the oval wall that day.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Worked in 2008 but it was just an act as we all now realize. What we need is an actual trust busting regulator willing to confront the new guilded age like Teddy Roosevelt did the last.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)clearly someone with a brain wrote it.
K&R
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He also did a brilliant analysis of why so many people vote Republican, despite the obvious contrast between GOP conservative policies and their own economic self-interest.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)(actually, i might even have read the book but i read so much it's hard to keep track)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am posting the link again so that I can put it on my journal and cite to it in Hillary Clinton threads. It points precisely at the problem with a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
Fool me once . . . . as George W. Bush once tried to say.
We have been fooled for the past 34 years. I for one am tired of it.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/hillary_clinton_forgets_the_90s_our_latest_gilded_age_and_our_latest_phony_populists/
merrily
(45,251 posts)As I posted upthread, just about every center right meme and/or false claim that I've seen on this board since I started lurking has been posted somewhere on this thread. Seems like the OP hit a nerve.
That alone is worth a few kicks, but the substance is good, too.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)That's what's starting to keep me up at night, especially as retirement looms.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I figure many of us will be commuting from the nursing home to some kind of job when the time comes.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)This country will be unrecognizable.
I'm envisioning a Golden Girls (or Boys) situation in my home -- two or three of us, max. Anything but a nursing home, as long as my health holds out!
merrily
(45,251 posts)the country hardly seemed to notice.
"These are not the droids you're looking for and these are not the cuts we're making."
"Oh, in that case, do whatever you think best. And, goodness, where are my manners? Thank you so much for your service. God Bless America"
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Possible cuts to Social Security, pensions a thing of the past, and according to Vanguard, the 2010 median account balance was about $27,000.
Ownership Society, suckers!
merrily
(45,251 posts)in for a rude awakening remains to be seen.
Right before Obama got inaugurated for the first time, he gave an interview to WAPO about his intention to cut entitlements.
The first budget he sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies for the poor, while oil prices were increasing. (Crude was not increasing--it may even have been decreasing--but the price of home heating oil was increasing.)
The first big thing he did after passage of Obamacare was assured was appoint the Cat Food Commission. When the recommendations of that Commission did not go anywhere, he proposed The Grand Bargain Commission. As it got too close to re-election season, the WH proposed the sequester. Then came OWS. But, he still got re-elected.
merrily
(45,251 posts)just your garden variety DUer, or do you think some pros are on the job? Don't name any names, just yes or no.
BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Hell, I need references though. lol./
merrily
(45,251 posts)Yes, I know of thousands of kinds of paying jobs. And, the government has thousands upon thousands jobs classified. Whole books of kinds of paying jobs. What kind of job do you profess to be looking for and what's your work experience?
But, what's your answer to my question?
Any pros on this thread? Professional posters, professional campaigners, any time of pro when it comes to pitching candidates or Dems in general? Or just all people who post for the sheer joy of posting, with no intent to shill, promote, etc.
navarth
(5,927 posts)My sense of smell has been pretty accurate through the years, but it's really hard to know for sure. My own reason for posting is as a pastime, but I do a lot of lurking as well. I learn a lot on DU.
The pros will never reveal themselves voluntarily IMO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I've posted it twice on this thread, directly to him. Those are about the only two posts of mine on this thread to him that he didn't try to refute. He's even tried to refute my posts to other posters.
Not that I would necessarily have believed a denial, but I think no response at all to one post on this topic (now fairly high in this thread) and the above exchanges might be telling.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Anything can be denied on the internets. I can't say whether the poster you're referring to is a shill or not, but I've been enjoying your posts very much.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Pros. Lots of that going around.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The reaction by most ''thinking mammals'' to the very idea of Clinton.....
- Actually at this point in human DNA evolution, it's become instinctual in all but the recessives......
mia
(8,363 posts)Interesting reading, nevertheless. I wonder what or who is the malicious intruder.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No alarm bells go off on my computer
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The Clinton's have championed policies that benefit middle class and poor people.
There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary knew the better answer when she talked about their financial struggles. It's not hard. "We've worked hard, and have had some luck that has allowed us to live a comfortable lifestyle and to focus energy on policy and issues that we feel are important."
"We were in debt when we left the white house, but had the good fortune to be able to recover from that more easily than most people would have."
I don't understand why it's so hard to admit that things are easier for them because they have experience and star power that enables them to make a lot of money. That doesn't offend me at all.
Pres. Clinton did a better job with it than Sec. Clinton. She isn't necessarily known for her communication skills the way her husband is, but she knows better. I sympathize somewhat when people talk about her comments being taken out of context, but I don't think that excuses it. She surely can recognize comments that have potential to be spun in a way that makes her look bad. It was out of touch, but worse- it was just stupid.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Personaly, I'm willing to give her a pass on her comments about their own status. We all put foot in mouth at times.
But the policies and messaging she and her husband have pushed and supported are damaging in the long run to the economic interests of the majority, and they create an illusion that stymies actual change and reform that is needed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)How did sending jobs overseas help the lower paid working class?
Money traveled faster to the top of the pile in the years since Clinton (and Bush and Obama) took office than it ever has at any prior time in human history. That is no accident, but a result of their policies.
ewagner
(18,964 posts)What Franks says is mostly true but it's not because Clinton actually set out to improve the lot of the 1% or for that matter to enrich corporations..
In my opinion those were by-products of his political stock-in-trade "TRIANGUALTION"...
He used that method of giving the conservatives something they wanted in return for one thing he wanted and one thing the "both" wanted...but it was naive...the conservatives always took more than they gave and they fought him and sabotaged him every inch of the way anyway.
In short, I don't think he stopped the wave of the conservatives much at all...maybe he slowed it down a little.
Franks is right about the effects but wrong about the intent.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Triangulation is a political strategy that is somewhat cynical.
Compromise is a good-faith effort to negotiate differences. One side wants zero funding, the other wants 25 percent increase and they split the difference.
Personally, I believe in comprimise as an ideal. If the GOP had not turned into such stubborn unyielding buttheads, I'd have been a support of Obama's efforts at compromise, for example.
I think a bigger problem with the Clintons and with Obama is they have bo0ught into a systemic problem, which is that they ssociate too much with the wrong people to gain and keep power. They rely too much on the advice and worldview of the Oligaarchs, and lose touch with what is really needed to protect and improve the lot of the majority.
ewagner
(18,964 posts)I too see "triangulation" as cynical and in my public positions (local-yokel elected official) I look for reasonable compromise when ever I can because it's a way to get things done as opposed to stalemate and winner-take-all politics.
but.
Compromise assumes that both sides get something of value ...equal detriment as the law books like to say...
the classic is, "You get to cut the pie but I get the first piece"
That's the goal of compromise...incentives to give as good as you get.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, I used to read there a lot before Fromm decided to do other things or whatever reason he gave publicly for closing down the DLC. However, if the stuff were still up, you'd see many echoes of it in Clinton's actions and Obama's. He didn't stop the wave of conservatives. He forced it to go further right.
And he was not trading with conservatives. He was triangulating. For example, as CIC, he could have put into effect orientation equality without any negotiation at all; and he did not need to get Congress to pass it, which he did only to cover his own ass. Nor did he get anything for signing DOMA. Or for urging Democrats to get Gramm, Leach, Bliley on his desk ASAP.
I think he did things, first, to assure his own election. First President in history to put a political "Situation Room" for that purpose into the White House. Second, he did a lot simply because he believed in them, and some of those things were conservative. And that's the one most Democrats never want to look at. And then, yes, some things were compromises and some were the result of the Contract with America Congress.
Atman
(31,464 posts)It's amazing. It's not about the horrible conditions in slaughterhouses, it's all about how companies like Tyson literally took over the food industry and put small farms out of business. In the 90's. The Tyson's , from Arkansas, were friends with which president?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)farmers (adding to their already huge pork processing ops) and then sold off the business to China last year. Under this President. Although there wasn't much he could do about that but, I wonder how the labor relations will be with China owning most of our pork producers. Not that those workers had much protection in the first place, though.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
polichick
(37,152 posts)that's falling for the propaganda.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)But it's likely either one would put Warren at the top of the veep list.
merrily
(45,251 posts)When the first woman is trying to win a general for President, it's not a time to put another woman on the ticket. Hillary will triangulate, not double down.
Even Sanders might not do it. That would mean two candidates from New England and that is not a good thing anymore. You have to appeal to other parts of the country. In fact, some think another Northeasterner will never become President.
And I don't think Sanders is running to win. I think he is running to endgame Hillary and whoever else runs, if anyone, into going left.
Besides, who cares really, who is VP?
polichick
(37,152 posts)and Warren is a natural and powerful ally (doesn't hurt that she's a woman).
imo Clinton will consider Warren because she needs a real populist on the ticket - if not Warren, another real populist will be chosen.
Like it or not, veeps count, especially in this gun-mad country.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts).