The Democratic Party, 2019

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby RocketMan » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:45 am

https://newrepublic.com/article/155011/ ... 5zm1U4nkNE

These union-busting bastards...

ThinkProgress Was Always Doomed

ThinkProgress was not shuttered because it loses money. It certainly did lose money—political journalism is not exactly a cash cow!—but it was not a business of any kind: It was an arm of an extremely well-funded nonprofit think tank. If the Center for American Progress, as an institution, was interested in sponsoring journalism, CAP would’ve sponsored it. CAP isn’t, and here we are.

ThinkProgress was notable for its editorial independence from its think tank parent (which its editorial union had enshrined in their contract), and for how often that editorial independence got the site in trouble with its think tank parent, which on a few occasions led that parent to violate the spirit of that editorial independence.

It was always odd for a mainstream liberal think tank to have an independent journalism arm—“independent thought” is the last thing the people and institutions who fund think tanks are paying for—but you have to remember that in the Bush years, everyone thought independent journalism was politically useful to the Democratic Party, and would remain so indefinitely. Regardless of why anyone believed that, it has turned out instead that truly independent liberal journalism can be something of an annoyance for certain institutional actors within the Democratic Party. They really couldn’t have known, at the time, that their little bloggers would go on to do things like offer criticism of the Israeli government or pepper Hillary Clinton with questions about Iraq.


It is perhaps not entirely coincidental that the independent media arm of the Center for American Progress was deemed inessential around the same time that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee codified (and hardened) its policy of blackballing vendors who work for primary challengers, around the same time that the head of the Democratic National Committee went to the mat to prevent presidential candidates from participating in a climate debate, and so on and so on.
-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: 2475
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Grizzly » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:48 pm

But but, Boris and Natahsa!

Image
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:16 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:15 pm

.
Attachments
Screenshot_20190913-201400_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20190913-201400_Chrome.jpg (135.52 KiB) Viewed 505 times
Screenshot_20190913-201813_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20190913-201813_Chrome.jpg (328.99 KiB) Viewed 507 times
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Grizzly » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:15 am

Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate who would beat Trump:

Tulsi is a Democrat (meaningful to Democrats)

Tulsi is a woman (meaningful to some Republicans)

Tulsi is an active veteran (meaningful to some Republicans)

Tulsi is pro-cannabis Decriminalization (meaningful to some Republicans)

Tulsi is the one and only officially/actively advocating the end of Bush's multi-trillion dollar Wars of Terror™ (meaningful to most Independents)

Tulsi is the one and only officially/actively advocates dropping of all charges against both Snowden and Assange (meaningful to most progressives)

Tulsi is the one and only officially/actively advocating the audit the Federal Reserve™ (meaningful to most conservatives)

Republicans™ will usually vote Republican™

Democrats™ will usually vote Democrat™

Warren, Sanders, Biden, etc. won't win-over any Trump supporters. Game Over.

Unlike any other candidate, Tulsi Gabbard has what it takes to sway strategic pendulums.

But the Democrats™ won't give her the ball. So ...welcome to Trump2020.
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:00 am

OK, I like Tulsi just fine, but how does Sanders routinely carry rural Vermont, then?

Bernie's rightfully righteous anger would play very well in a general election against Trump, IMHO. I want the Democratic candidate to get into a shouting match for a change. There are millions of American males who continually vote for whichever candidate yells the loudest, err, projects the most "strength." Sanders does extremely well with independent voters, and especially white male independent voters. That's why he trounced Clinton in both West Virginia and Wisconsin. And that's why almost every Demopublican argument against him is a facile attempt at dismissal, a personal attack, or a facile attempt at dismissal wrapped in a personal attack.

Warren is the DNC's last stopgap against the ever increasing popularity of Sanders' policies. That neoliberal centrists are willing to endorse Warren simply because she will play ball with the corporate hierarchy that currently rules the USA with an iron fist shows me that Sanders' ideas have already won because both his ideas and his priorities are unassailable. Wealth inequality has gotten out of control. Healthcare costs are indeed astronomical in order to benefit a tiny percentage of us at the direct expense of all the rest of us. Student debt has become the modern equivalent of voluntary servitude. And we need to move away from fossil fuels to more sustainable and less environmentally toxic energy sources yesterday.

Like it or not, because of the absurd voting proclivities of white males, Sanders is far more electable than Warren is. The corporate oligarchs who actually control the USA know this and are therefore doing everything in their power (short of assassination, at least to date) to make certain that anybody, anybody, anybody but Sanders gets the Democratic party nomination. Our billionaire overlords strongly prefer 4 more years of Trump's plutocratic ineptitude to the specter of any President who would dare to advocate for any policies in the actual interest of normal US citizens.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Grizzly » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:33 pm


Mike Gravel: Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are ONLY HOPE to Stop Imperial Foreign Policy!
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:15 am

Not to excuse the terrible damage done by Nixon (closing the gold window not included), Reagan and the BCF—but after all, the GOP is The Party of Business. The Democrats are supposed to be The Party of Everybody Else.

New Economic Thinking
63.4K subscribers

The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum explains the role Democratic presidents, from Kennedy to Obama, in moving economic policy to the right

INET President Rob Johnson sits down with The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum to discuss his new book, The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society (Little, Brown: 2019).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdhUPzrJ1A8
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6096
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:22 pm

This sounds rather bad... needless handwringing or serious red flag?

Many links in original:

https://www.laprogressive.com/elizabeth ... iberalism/

The Legitimization Machine: Elizabeth Warren

Since the crash of 2008, the neoliberal structures that have dominated our political lives and discourse for the last 40 years have been fending off a legitimization crisis. Obama spent eight years using his award-winning brand of progressive neoliberalism to hope and change it away for one portion of the populace. Then, when that left 43% of Americans unable to afford the basics and 78% living paycheck to paycheck, Trump promised to make America great again for the other half… With a nativist, racist take on the same essential neoliberal approach.

If neoliberalism has been brilliant at anything, it’s been its ability to morph, rebrand and integrate different aesthetics into the process of justifying its perpetuation. Only now, with accelerating economic precarity and UN scientists giving us 12 years to get our climate act together, neoliberal institutions are marshaling every tool at their disposal to stave off a growing, existential threat to its dominance.

And what ominous specter has DEM-leaning billionaires, corporations, media, politicians and think tanks caballing behind closed doors to beat it back? That’s right, the ghoul is a septuagenarian social democratic Senator from Vermont, running a campaign fueled by small individual donations that average a whopping $16/per, promising to fight for monstrous public goods, like universal healthcare.

But make no mistake, Bernie Sanders is a threat. And he’s a threat precisely because his movement stands in clear antagonistic opposition to the material depravity of current structures. Sanders has been making the same analysis and argument for his entire political career. He understands that the ability to challenge entrenched power arises out of class solidarity and movement muscle catalyzed by the commonality of material needs.
“It’s coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin’
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.” — Leonard Cohen

Sanders begins with a commitment to universal policies that guarantee public goods and thus feed a movement-driven, bottom-up theory of change. Then, by putting his million-plus volunteers to work supporting union actions, he demonstrates the way he plans to run an unprecedented activist presidency. As organizer in chief, Sanders will use the bully pulpit to clarify the stakes, policy solutions and enemies, as he continues to grow and direct our movement toward the actions needed to win. He will incite protest of every recalcitrant REPUB + DEM representative at home and in DC to make them fear for their careers. Then he/we will primary all who don’t fall in line in 2022 & 2024.

“Politics is a game of fear. Those who do not have the ability to make power elites afraid do not succeed. The movements that opened up the democratic space in America — the abolitionists, suffragists, labor movement, communists, socialists, anarchists and civil rights and labor movements — developed a critical mass and militancy that forced the centers of power to respond.” — Chris Hedges

In contrast, any candidate who calls to gather stakeholders together for civil conversation is practicing deception. At a moment where our political structures routinely ignore democratic will, the stakeholders are not our friends. This is war. Sanders is the only candidate willing to arm us to fight and win that war. Nobody else comes close.

Still, while stark differences between Sanders, Biden and the rest seem obvious to most, when it comes to Elizabeth Warren, many on the alleged left have taken to collapsing distinctions. They argue that Warren’s just as, or even more progressive, equal but a woman and therefore better, not quite as good but still a fundamental shift to the left, or at the very least, a serious opponent of neoliberalism. Some have even fantasized that Sanders and Warren function as allies, despite the obvious fact that they are, you know…running against each other.

All of these claims obscure the fundamental truth that Sanders and Warren are different in kind, not degree. Warren has always been a market-first neoliberal and nothing she’s doing now suggests deviation. Despite her barrage of plans and recent adoption of left rhetorical shibboleths like “grassroots movements” and “structural change,” Warren remains a neoliberal legitimization machine. Anybody who’s serious about amending and expanding the social contract and/or preserving the habitability of the planet needs to oppose her candidacy now.

Let’s begin with the fact that Warren was a registered Republican during Reagan’s neoliberal revolution, because she “thought that those were the people who best supported markets.” She has recently counter-claimed that she was actually apolitical at the time, though her simultaneous anti-regulatory academic scholarship proves that defense dishonest. In any case, by 1996 at the age of 47, Warren finally became a registered Democrat, just in time to align with the Clinton Third Way, as it completed the neoliberal deregulation that lead to the 2008 financial crash.

Claims of Warren’s conversion into a progressive firebrand, who knows how to work the levers of power, rely on her chairmanship of The Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP and subsequent founding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While Warren did provide symbolic bluster as chairperson, COP did nothing to alter TARP’s commitment to funneling relief money through banks or prevent 10 million people from losing their homes. Whether COP was powerless to do more or not is immaterial. What Warren and COP provided was an illusion of oversight, which legitimized TARP’s efforts to make banks whole on the backs of millions of everyday Americans.

The CFPB, on the other hand, is Warren’s “tough on banks” baby, heralded for extracting nearly “$12 billion for 29 million consumers in refunds and canceled debts.” Those numbers sound impressive, until one realizes that credit card interest rates and payments have not diminished but exploded since the CFPB’s creation in 2011. In fact, Americans paid $113 billion in credit card interest in 2018 alone, a 50% percent payment and 4% interest increase over the last five years.

Despite Warren’s claim that the CFPB was “about making markets work for people, not making markets work for a handful of companies that scrape all the value off to themselves,” the agency’s cop schtick has functioned as performative cover for escalating bank industry power, with profits of 236.7 billion in 2018, a record increase from 2017 of 44%-72.4 billion. The CFPB’s individualist “bad-actor” approach has also made it vulnerable to rollback under Trump, because it has done nothing for the majority of millions impacted by usurious but legal practices.

Both COP and CFPB are textbook examples of neoliberal legitimization. They brag about punching the big bad bully in the arm, while allowing him to smash his other elbow into our face, take our wallet, and leave us lying on the blacktop, breathing blood. Yet, Warren recently insisted:

“I took on giant banks, and I beat them. I took on Wall Street C.E.O.s, and I beat them… When we fight, we win — and I’m not afraid of a fight.” — Elizabeth Warren

This delusional disconnect from material reality boggles the damn mind.

Furthermore, Warren’s complete inconsistency on keystone structural reform like Medicare-for-All reveals the jive behind her recent zeitgeist calls for “big structural change.” While Warren has at moments voiced support for M4A, most notably during the second Democratic debate, support and a commitment to win the legislative fight of our lifetime are not nearly the same thing. Warren not only conspicuously neglects M4A in her stump speeches, she still doesn’t have a healthcare section on her website… Six months into her campaign. Read that again. Given the unprecedented scale of the opposition, Warren’s clear lack of commitment makes it certain that M4A would never happen under her presidency.

It gets worse. Warren has on many occasions deliberately undermined the healthcare discourse: “When we talk about Medicare for All, there are a lot of different pathways. What we’re all looking for is the lowest cost way to make sure that everybody gets covered.” This is a lie. M4A is existing legislation, with slightly different House and Senate versions, both of which feature specific, guaranteed paths to a single-payer, M4A system. M4A is not, as Warren claims, a “concept” that people interpret in different ways. Nor does the legislation include any of the radically insufficient options she goes on to describe. Warren’s simply making things up to mask her inevitable retreat.

She doubled down on this different-paths nonsense in the NY Times in June. Then, after she pivoted back to support during the second debate, she once again positioned M4A as a “goal” at a subsequent campaign stop… And went into full equivocation mode in an interview with David Axelrod, where she talked about negotiating “the pieces to get there” with “everyone at the table.” Remember what I said about stakeholders and civil conversations? And now, while I’ve been typing, Warren just Tweeted about expanding “access” to healthcare, which is blatant, ACA-era code for abandoning universal guarantees.

Warren is a high-powered attorney trained to be specific in her speech. We can be certain that her pivots and obfuscations aren’t rhetorical errors. She leveraged the debate stage to signal support for M4A to a mass audience and has since used less publicized occasions to signal retreat to power donors and brokers. Warren’s blatant dishonesty not only confuses many into believing incorrectly that she supports M4A, it makes more work for those of us committed to winning it. She is in no uncertain terms an enemy of the movement for Medicare-for-All.

The fundamental problem with Warren, as with all of the other DEM contenders, from Biden, to Harris, to Mayor Pete is that she begins with the neoliberal assumption that one can prioritize markets and business, while still serving the public good with the right set of incentives and regulations. As Warren puts it: “The question is whether we maintain good rules and an effective cop to enforce those rules.”

Warren’s faith in competition blinds her to the fact that averting climate catastrophe will require unprecedented international cooperation. See China and India’s massive expanding carbon footprint. Everything in Warren’s last-minute climate change plan would be rendered meaningless by her Trumpian “economic patriotism” competition with China as well as her incoherent attempt to “green” the military industrial complex.

Warren’s recent rhetorical calls toward building a “grassroots movement” reveal a similar incoherence. While Warren’s clearly attempting to counter criticisms that her policy onslaught lacks a credible theory of change, the “coalition” of White college graduates that her means-tested policies attract is neither broad nor materially motivated enough to win a national election, never mind the greater war for policy. It’s not the magic words that get it done. It’s the universalist commitments that attract the solidaristic coalitions, that turn the words into movement power, that fight and force change.

It’s no wonder that neoliberals like Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress and the Third Way have been fluffing Warren, or that Wall Street is starting to come around to her. Sure, they would have preferred a fresher face, with less baggage, who might at least deliver some working-class affect. But Harris, then Beto, then Mayor Pete all tanked out of the gate, while Biden’s mental lapses have him teetering on the edge of implosion.

So now, it’s down to Liz. Warren’s already broken her pledge, by underwriting her primary campaign with big donor money from her $10.4 million Senate slush fund. She’s made it clear that she’ll welcome dark money during the general election. She’s wooing DEM insiders. She’s meeting behind the scenes with Hillary Clinton. Warren’s the one.

It’s blue pill time, people. DEM power has made it abundantly clear that they will do anything and back anyone to defeat Sanders. We should be more certain than ever that nobody but Sanders will do.

We should demand solidarity from allegedly left politicians, organizations and publications. It’s time for AOC and the Squad, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, Sunrise Movement, Jacobin, Current Affairs and more to endorse Sanders and divorce themselves from this Warren farce. As I told a very kind BNC candidate, who called the other day, our movement goes nowhere without a Sanders presidency. I will only support those who endorse him and us.



All that given, a commenter observes:

Leftist forces in many countries have weakened themselves by impossible demands for purity — my candidate or nobody, which is exactly what Toback does here: “I will only support those who endorse him (Sanders)”. Every Democratic candidate has weaknesses. Warren would be by far the most progressive American president ever.


I think I could settle for "most progressive American president ever."
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6096
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:30 am

.

I believe you mean, " will wear the mask of (or be marketed as) the most progressive American President" while carrying out agendas consistent with predecessors.

Bush, Obama, Trump - each of these 21st Century Presidents carried out directives that benefited the very few at the expense of the Many.

So long as a president comes from either of the 2 establishment parties (2 heads attached to the same body) it shall remain so. Presentation and optics may vary -- a very important aspect of the illusion -- but otherwise it'll be business as usual.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:48 am

Elvis » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:15 am wrote:Not to excuse the terrible damage done by Nixon (closing the gold window not included), Reagan and the BCF—but after all, the GOP is The Party of Business. The Democrats are supposed to be The Party of Everybody Else.

New Economic Thinking
63.4K subscribers

The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum explains the role Democratic presidents, from Kennedy to Obama, in moving economic policy to the right

INET President Rob Johnson sits down with The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum to discuss his new book, The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society (Little, Brown: 2019).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdhUPzrJ1A8


A rare voice for the New York Times. Nothing we don't know, but he doesn't hedge and keeps the right tone for distribution to those who think truth has to be mainstream.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14348
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm



I am curious about what y'all think about Kuttner's historical analysis.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote:I believe you mean, " will wear the mask of (or be marketed as) the most progressive American President" while carrying out agendas consistent with predecessors.


I don't believe Warren is disinegnuous, or trying to fool progressives while secretly backslapping cigar-chomping investment bankers—ala HRC (no comparison). Her background is what it is, and though she's "evolved" a good bit, her training and past experiences will be at play. Just because she still has some faith in "market forces" doesn't mean she's dishonest; she's just got more learning to do. Hey, don't we all?
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6096
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Elvis » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:44 pm

Cross-posting from the Bernie Sanders Dangerous thread—take this, also-rans!

Bernie Sanders hits 1 million donors

09/19/2019 03:30 PM EDT

He is the first candidate to announce reaching that milestone.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... 9CEEamIJio


I don't see anyone overcoming this momentum—no candidate, that is.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6096
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Democratic Party, 2019

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:55 pm

.
Elvis » Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:10 pm wrote:
Belligerent Savant wrote:I believe you mean, " will wear the mask of (or be marketed as) the most progressive American President" while carrying out agendas consistent with predecessors.


I don't believe Warren is disinegnuous, or trying to fool progressives while secretly backslapping cigar-chomping investment bankers—ala HRC (no comparison). Her background is what it is, and though she's "evolved" a good bit, her training and past experiences will be at play. Just because she still has some faith in "market forces" doesn't mean she's dishonest; she's just got more learning to do. Hey, don't we all?


I'm not referring to her intent -- I certainly can't presume to have an inkling of it -- or whatever her platform may be now/throughout her career. My commentary is trained on the actions of U.S. Presidents, historically, once elected to the White House. Warren is not a U.S. President yet. IF she becomes U.S. President, we shall see just how strongly she may [be permitted to] adhere to her apparent convictions.

Remember when Obama was the Hope We Can Believe In?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Marionumber1 and 19 guests