The Democratic Party, 2019

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:01 am

Sounder » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:02 am wrote:Think tactics; Trump is trying to get the DNC to allay with the 'radicals'. It is wise to not fall for the bait.


Whatever the calculation, Trump will end the winner when Pelosi contemptuously dismisses impeachment and the people who advocate it. Especially the young people of colour.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:10 am

bait? :roll:

The further the Democratic leisureship gets from Trump/GOP ideology and enthusiastically embraces a NGD, the better. The more radical the better.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby DrEvil » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:51 am

Yeah, they should ally with the "radicals", who aren't even remotely radical except in the context of US politics. Everywhere else they would just be standard center-left politicians.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:08 pm

.

Surely we aren't entertaining the notion the Democratic Party will do anything in earnest that would benefit anyone beyond their lobbyists and/or the upper classes?

They do not serve the interest of the working classes or the American outside the 1% and up. A few exceptions exist, but as currently constituted, those exceptions will be kept on the sidelines.


Let them prove me wrong. Those of you holding out hope can hold your collective breaths.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:03 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:08 pm wrote:.

Surely we aren't entertaining the notion the Democratic Party will do anything in earnest that would benefit anyone beyond their lobbyists and/or the upper classes?

They do not serve the interest of the working classes or the American outside the 1% and up. A few exceptions exist, but as currently constituted, those exceptions will be kept on the sidelines.


Let them prove me wrong. Those of you holding out hope can hold your collective breaths.


Be that as it may, it is possible there is some kind of reckoning in the cards for the Dem party... I don't see how this toothpaste can be cleanly crammed back in the tube... And by toothpaste I mean the increasingly strident critique of the party apparatchiks by the Squad and some others. Also the grassroots are getting younger, more independently organized and less amenable to corporate Democrats.

And the absolutely atrocious, haughty and arrogant response by Pelosi, which will not be forgotten, I'd wager. She has already done lasting damage to the status quo.

Who knows, there might be a mighty re-jiggering of the entire US party system in the cards. It has been known to happen.
Last edited by RocketMan on Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:04 pm

We're moving the window.

I'm not counting on DNC for anything, but voters can collectively choose"Sanders" and that would be a net plus.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:04 pm

Even a Sanders candidacy for president would be a major earthquake.

The DNC loathe him and it would come right to the surface.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:25 pm

.

I agree -- and have previously alluded as such within these walls in the recent past -- that there is the potential for hope and change among the younger ranks (the Gravel for Prez movement, social media remaining influential as a means to call out BS, despite the attempts to censor and/or poison the well with disinfo handles, etc), which should make things interesting in the years ahead.

If Bernie is set up as the candidate to go against Trump that would certainly be a noteworthy near-term development that would help expedite shifts/changes to the status quo, regardless of final outcome.

I remain cynical for now.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:43 pm

I try to spice things up by not being consumed by cynicism now and again, but it's fucking hard.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:55 pm

^^^ That's why you're not a Republican!

Ooo!, while I'm here about that "bait" bit. Dude, dead fish don't bite!
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby DrEvil » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:00 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:08 pm wrote:.

Surely we aren't entertaining the notion the Democratic Party will do anything in earnest that would benefit anyone beyond their lobbyists and/or the upper classes?

They do not serve the interest of the working classes or the American outside the 1% and up. A few exceptions exist, but as currently constituted, those exceptions will be kept on the sidelines.


Let them prove me wrong. Those of you holding out hope can hold your collective breaths.


The cynical part of me agrees, but there is always the small hope that the exceptions will become numerous enough to become the norm and force the DNCs hand, like a sane version of the Tea Party. I think the reason they're fighting the left so hard is that they are genuinely afraid of them, and that's a good sign.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:37 pm

.

I say destroy it. Kill it with fire. The younger generations can build anew in their image.

F#ck any option keeping either party alive.


Of course, anything new, however aspirational, will be subject to compromise attempts and/or cointelpro-esque tactics. And then, despite it all, the rebels eventually become the Establishment. Rinse and repeat.

'Tis the nature of the current crop of humans.

There is hope, however. Eventually, some modified version of the current species will eventually take over. Perhaps their genetic makeup will allow for a better ecosystem and sense of global community.

For now, we enjoy the moments we have, we fight when called to do so, but we also keep our fanciful notions in check best we can.

That's the way I roll, at least.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Grizzly » Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:10 pm

F#ck any option keeping either party alive.


^^Agreed.
cointelpro-esque tactics and Strategy of tension ....a balance thereof.
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2879
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:54 pm

Only one candidate has remained unaffiliated with either party in his long political career. Nobody but Bernie.

Sanders runs for president as a Democrat only because he's serious about winning. There is no other way. Once president, he'll be the same democratic socialist he's always been. Nobody but Bernie can say that.

Edit: Okay, maybe Warren, who is looking good, too.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby liminalOyster » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:20 am

This piece very much lessened my suspicions of Warren and strengthened my feeling she's, at very least, authentic.

‘Liz Was a Diehard Conservative’
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like to talk about it, but for years she was a registered Republican. Why she left the GOP—and what it means for her campaign.

By ALEX THOMPSON April 12, 2019

“Fight.” It’s the signature word of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s short but consequential political career.

It’s in the title of both of the books she has published as a senator: A Fighting Chance and This Fight Is Our Fight. In her speech declaring her presidential candidacy in February, Warren told the crowd, “This is the fight of our lives” and, “I’ve been in this fight for a long time.” Her 2020 campaign asks voters to “Join the Fight.” Kate McKinnon-as-Warren on “Saturday Night Live” explained, “That’s the only f-word I know.”

But Warren used to be on the other side of the fight she is now waging. For many years before she entered politics, the woman now at the forefront of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was a Republican.

County governments in New Jersey and Texas, where Warren lived in the 1970s and ’80s, could not locate Warren’s voter registration records, and the senator herself is circumspect about her political past. But records from the time Warren spent living in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts make clear that she was a registered Republican for at least several years of her midcareer adult life. It was not until 1996—when Warren was 47 years old and a newly minted Harvard law professor—that she changed her registration from Republican to Democrat.

Warren has acknowledged her Republican past before, but she does not often discuss it, or else downplays it. In a recent interview over tea at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, she said she assumes the first time she registered as a Democrat was 1996, but added, “I’m not even 100 percent sure what I was registered as.” According to Warren, in the six presidential elections she voted in before 1996, she cast her ballot for just one GOP nominee, Gerald Ford in 1976. She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech; the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.

“I was just never very political,” is how Warren explains her Republican years. “I just never thought much about the political end.”

Friends and colleagues agree that Warren wasn’t much of a political activist in her youth or the early part of her career. But Warren’s intellectual journey is more complicated than the apathy-to-activism route she often presents.

Some on the left have already pointed out the less-than-progressive stances in her 2003 book, The Two Income Trap, including the rejection of a “quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model.” But a review of Warren’s early scholarship and interviews with more than 20 friends and colleagues from her high school years through her academic career reveal a longer conservative track record that has not been fully explored. Warren’s conservatism centered not on social issues like abortion or gay rights, friends say, but on economic policy, the dominant focus of her academic work and now her presidential candidacy.

Katrina Harry, one of Warren’s best friends in high school in Oklahoma, remembers that she and Warren “talked politics a lot, taxes and welfare and such, and I was just a flaming liberal back then.” Harry adds, “Liz was a diehard conservative in those days. … Now we’ve swapped—a 180-degree turn and an about-face.”

“Liz was sometimes surprisingly anti-consumer in her attitude,” says law professor Calvin Johnson, a colleague of Warren’s at the University of Texas at Austin in the early 1980s, who was also her neighbor and carpooled with Warren and her husband, Bruce Mann.

“I remember the first time I became aware of her as a political person and heard her speak, I almost fell off my chair,” says Rutgers law professor Gary Francione, who was a colleague of Warren’s at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 1980s. “She’s definitely changed. It’s absolutely clear that something happened.”

Voting records from the time Warren spent living in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are pictured.
Voter records from the time Warren spent living in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts make clear that she was a registered Republican for at least several years of her adult life. It was not until 1996, when she was 47, that she changed her registration to Democrat.

The story of Warren’s awakening—from a true believer in free markets to a business-bashing enforcer of fair markets; from a moderate Republican who occasionally missed an election to one of the most liberal senators in America vying to lead the Democratic Party—breaks the mold of the traditional White House contender and is key to understanding how she sees the world: with a willingness to change when presented with new data, and the anger of someone who trusted the system and felt betrayed.

Warren herself says that in her early academic work she was merely following the dominant theory of the time, which emphasized the efficiency of free markets and unrestrained businesses, rather than holding strong conservative beliefs herself. Still, she acknowledged in our interview that she underwent a profound change in how she viewed public policy early in her academic career, describing the experience as “worse than disillusionment” and “like being shocked at a deep-down level.”

Her conversion was ideological before it turned partisan. The first shift came in the mid-’80s, as she traveled to bankruptcy courts across the country to review thousands of individual cases—a departure from the more theoretical academic approach—and saw that Americans filing for bankruptcy more closely resembled her own family, who struggled financially, rather than the irresponsible deadbeats she had expected.

It wasn’t until Warren was recruited onto a federal commission to help reform the bankruptcy code in the mid-1990s—and then fought for those reforms and lost that battle in 2005—that she became the unapologetic partisan brawler she was in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, serving in the Senate and, now, stumping on the 2020 campaign trail. “I realize nonpartisan just isn’t working,” she recalls of that second conversion moment. “By then it’s clear: The only allies I have are in the Democratic Party, and it’s not even the majority of Democrats.”

Some friends and colleagues say Warren became radicalized, equating her change to a religious experience, to being born again. “She really did have a ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion when she saw the bankrupt consumers really were suffering—forced into bankruptcy by illness, firing or divorce—and not predators,” Johnson says. Other friends argue Warren’s shift has been more gradual, and that she is not the extremist her opponents have sought to portray her as. “It drives me crazy when she’s described as a radical left-winger. She moved from being moderately conservative to being moderately liberal,” says Warren’s co-author and longtime collaborator Jay Westbrook. “When you look at consumer debt and what happens to consumers in America, you begin to think the capitalist machine is out of line.”

A yearbook photo showing Elizabeth Warren at George Washington University.
After a childhood she describes as not very political, Warren attended George Washington University on a debate scholarship. Above, she is pictured second from left in the front row in the 1967 GWU yearbook as “Liz Herring” (her maiden name). | George Washington University Library

The fact that Warren likely has spent more of her voting years outside the Democratic Party than in it distinguishes her from her 2020 primary opponents. She and Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, share many policy objectives and an inclination to rail against the powerful. The Vermont senator, however, largely decided what he believed 50 years ago and has been remarkably consistent ever since. Warren is ever-evolving, questioning her own assumptions and hungry for new information—even today, as she sets the pace of the 2020 policy debate with detailed new proposals on childcare, taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, and a call for a new era of trust-busting in sectors from tech to agriculture.

“Her worldview is very informed by data,” says Angela Littwin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who was Warren’s student in the late ’90s and became a mentee of both Warren and Westbrook. “What changed [Warren’s ideology] was the stories of ordinary people filing for bankruptcy. That speaks really well of her that she was presented with information contrary to her worldview and adopted it.”

Warren’s ideological and political transformations also occurred well before she entertained running for public office—lending them an authenticity often lacking in politicians who change their policy positions out of self-interest.

“If you had to pick a professor at Harvard to become a progressive icon in a decade,” says Littwin, “she wouldn’t have even been on the short list.”

***

Warren didn’t inherit the Republican Party from her parents or from her home state. Oklahoma was mostly a blue state while Warren was growing up there. Although partisan politics wasn’t much discussed at home, she speculated in a 2018 interview with the Intercept that her parents were New Deal Democrats. Yet Harry, one of Warren’s best friends in high school, distinctly remembers Warren being an “ice-cold Republican,” as she would sometimes tease her. (Warren joked back that Harry had “socialist” friends.)

It’s unclear exactly why Warren chose to become a Republican in the first place, given her family’s background. When I asked her, she said, “I voted—sometimes voted for Democrats, sometimes voted for Republicans—but never thought of myself, never had to frame myself, in political terms.”

In the late 1970s and ’80s, while Warren was in law school at Rutgers and then began her legal career, the right and Reaganomics were ascendant. In legal academia, this manifested itself in part through the “Law and Economics” movement, which sought to integrate the study of economics into law to emphasize efficiency and economic impact. In 1986, Columbia Law School professor Bruce Ackerman—now at Yale Law School—described the movement as “the most important thing in legal education since the birth of Harvard Law School.”

A picture of a young Elizabeth Warren sitting at a table with other women.
Colleagues from her early years as a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin recall Warren, second from left, as “surprisingly anti-consumer” and “believing much of what the corporate folks say about how the free markets work.” | Tarlton Law Library Digital Collections

The movement and its campus programs were fueled in part by funding from wealthy conservatives and corporations eager to inject some business-oriented thinking into the relatively liberal environs of elite American law schools. John Olin, a multimillionaire business tycoon who backed many conservative causes, began funding one of the movement’s intellectual founders, law professor Henry Manne, in the early ’70s and poured $68 million into Law and Economics programs at schools across the country in the late ’80s. “Economic analysis tends to have conservatizing effects,” James Pierson, the longtime director of Olin’s foundation, which distributed the funds, once explained to the New York Times.

A key component of the Law and Economics movement were frequent “summer camps” or “Manne camps”—conferences for law professors and judges hosted by Manne’s Law and Economics Center. The camps received funding from more than a hundred corporate donors, many of whom would later become favorite targets of Warren. In her first years as a self-described “baby law professor,” Warren attended a Manne camp, which she describes vaguely in A Fighting Chance as “an intensive course for law professors who wanted to learn more about economics.” It was there that Warren met her second husband, Bruce Mann, a fellow law professor.

“As we’ve always said, something good came from Law and Economics,” Warren says now. “I found my sweetie. That should be a good country-western song don’t you think? ‘I Found My Sweetie at Law and Economics Camp.’”

Warren joined the faculty at the University of Houston in 1978, and soon jumped to the University of Texas at Austin, where colleagues recall Law and Economics having a strong influence early on. “She did begin, as a student and as a young lawyer, sort of believing much of what the corporate folks say about how the free markets work, and they have to be left free to do what they want,” says Doug Laycock, who had the office next to Warren’s at UT-Austin and is married to Warren’s longtime co-author, Teresa Sullivan, a sociologist who later became president of the University of Virginia.

A paper by Elizabeth Warren is pictured, entitled: "Regulated Industries' Automatic Cost of Service Adjustment Clauses: Do They Increase or Decrease Cost to the Consumer?"
In a 1980 paper she wrote at the University of Houston, Warren argued that utility companies were over-regulated, and described the arguments of consumer advocates on the other side of the debate as “fallacious” and based on “unscrutinized, long-accepted conventional wisdom.” | Notre Dame Law Review via HeinOnline

In 1980, one of Warren’s first papers as a full-time professor at the University of Houston took on one of the most divisive political issues of the time: utilities. A decade of energy crises and nearly unprecedented price hikes had made government-sanctioned monopolies a popular target for populist politicians. As Arkansas state attorney general in the late ’70s and then again in his gubernatorial campaigns in the early ’80s, Bill Clinton made utility companies the poster boy for corporate greed and political corruption. In the 1982 gubernatorial race, Clinton attacked his Republican opponent as “soft on utilities, tough on the elderly.”

In her paper, however, Warren argued that utility companies were over-regulated and that automatic utility rate increases should be institutionalized to avoid “regulatory lag,” in spite of consumer advocate concerns. “Eliminating regulatory lag will end the need for frequent rate hearings, and will, thus, reduce the administrative costs of regulation,” she wrote. On the other side of the debate were consumer advocates, whose arguments she described then as “fallacious” and based on “unscrutinized, long-accepted conventional wisdom.”

Steve Mitnick, editor-in-chief of the trade publication Public Utilities Fortnightly, reviewed the paper at Politico Magazine’s request and said he was shocked Warren had authored it. “That is such a pro-utility paper. It’s, like, awesome,” he told me. “She would never say this today. … If you’re a utility, you love that thing.” Barbara Alexander, a longtime consumer advocate in the utilities sector, also reviewed the paper, and blasted it: “What struck me was her lack of presentation of the consumer viewpoint and the underlying policies governing rate-making. She simplistically makes conclusions without any analysis of actual facts, just economic theory.”

In Warren’s prolific career, the article, originally published in the Notre Dame Law Review, has had a relatively long shelf life and has been cited in cases before the Ohio and Louisiana state Supreme Courts. The Texas Court of Appeals cited the paper approvingly in 2006.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ent-226613
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Joe Hillshoist, norton ash and 17 guests