Are the Democrats back on track?

Oh for sure. Both parties are horrible for the Earth.

 

No.

 

no

 

It seems to me that the US body politics is sick, ridden with the pox of neo-liberalism and the cure is a dose of democratic socialism.

But just as there are those that put their kids at risk by refusing to get them vaccinated because they believe a whole load of lies about vaccines - that they are full of chemicals that they are just a con by big pharma to make money and that is all a globalist conspiracy to keep track of everyone etc etc – there are those that don’t want the medicine that might cure the political system because they also believe a whole load of lies about socialism.

 

#walkaway

run away...

 

"Before the 2016 election Zizek stated something to the affect that despite his dislike for Trump, he would still consider voting for him because at the very least, Trump meant change; a destabilization of the system after 32 years of neoliberal rule. This is fundamentally what so many of the Left do not understand about the rise of Trump, just as many cannot believe that voters in Brazil would turn in part towards fascism after years of the Workers Party in power. In short, the Democrats have become the party of neoliberalism and corporate globalization, now coupled with the power of tech capital and silicon valley.

Along with a counter-insurgency strategy from the FBI and the police that they gave us everything from SWAT team raids, COINTELPRO, and broken windows theory, as Chomsky argues, the economic counter-insurgency was based around two key aspects: financialization of the economy and the offshoring of production through globalization. In short, neoliberalism. This system led to workers being precarious and often floating around, without a center of power or community to organize from and always desperate for work. In today’s world, this reality is compounded by gentrification and the rising cost of living, while wages of also stagnated since the 1970s.

Trade agreements such as NAFTA, and institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) further cemented these policies into law, helping to mainline “neo-colonialism” in developing countries, forcing structural adjustment programs that pushed deregulation and privatization – looting countries of their wealth and resources. Meanwhile, capital and jobs were free to move, but workers were firmly locked behind ever more militarized borders, such as “Operation Gatekeeper,” passed by Clinton directly after NAFTA went into effect, forcing the migration of millions of economic refugees and leading to the deaths of thousands in the desert.

After the financial crash of 2008, the economy re-organized itself, bailed out key industries and the big banks and the wealth gap between the rich and poor exploded, Wall Street saw record profits, and African-American families lost more wealth than at any time since the Great Depression.

But the Center, through both mass media outlets, the State apparatus, and the Democratic Party, has shown itself to be useless in the fight against ongoing assaults coming from the Trump administration. This is by and large because the Democrats have simply been largely a rubber stamp for Trump’s imperial military build up and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but moreover, have been unable to stop everything from the appointment of Kavanaugh to the rolling back of protections and regulations.

With the release of various reports on climate change that point not only towards the extremely apocalyptic reality of continued life within industrial civilization, but moreover, that elites with the Trump administration simply do not care about this reality, any serious talk of a social contact should be met with both contempt and laughter. In short, the elites have forfeited any reason for supposed control over our lives.

There is no way to ‘bring the country together’ because this is a settler colonial society, built on stolen land, and divided by class and organized by racial caste. To bring the countrytogether would require exactly what Trump and Bannon are selling, a new nationalism, most likely forged through war and the mass exclusion and elimination of millions through deportations. To this, by and large the Center, agrees, it just argues that such a project should be more “civil,” as to not arose the anger of the population.

We too wish to bring people together, but along lines of class interest that starts with the end of the American plantation and ends with the creation of the communal block party from here to eternity." - Bloodstains: Neoliberalism, Conspiracy and Civility

 

Lorax

I agree and don’t agree

First up to me the US Democratic Party, as a grouping, is not left wing, they would be seem in most democracies as basically a right leaning capitalist Liberal Party only in the US political system are they seen as ‘left wing’ because the US political system is skewed toward the right. To me the Clinton Democrats have dominated the Party since the 90’s These are Democrats that have to one degree or another accept neo-liberal economic ideas rather than Keynesian or socialist models.

Yes there are those that identify themselves as left wing even socialists within the Democratic Party but these have not been an influential faction.

And the thing is that many of us lefties have been pointing out the dangers of free market neoliberalism for years, I’ve been banging on about it even before I cam to these forums 17 years ago.

So many if not most people on the left did (and do) see the dangers.

As I’ve said many times the thing is that people voted for neo-liberal capitalism one of the most destructive forms of capitalism and they kept on voting for it.

Over and over again they were warned what could happen if they voted against their own self-interests and they still voted in neo-liberalist politicians.

The factories moved away due to no-liberalist policies and they voted in neoliberal politicians, public schools and services were run down due to no-liberalist policies and they still voted in neoliberal politicians. Inequality grew and they again voted for neoliberal tax cuts for the rich.

It was one of the reasons why so many Democratic politicians started supporting neoliberal ideas, because it seemed to be what the American public wanted and were voting for.

But as has also been pointed out by me and many others – a lot of Americans voted for other reasons that their economic self-interest.

You can warn all you like you can scream and holler but if people are not listening or don’t understand what you are trying to warn against…

I mean are those that are supporting Trump listening even now?

 

The big change came when Bill Clinton hired slimy Republican consultant Dick Morris to help him win the 1996 election. Morris sold Clinton on a strategy called "triangulation"--positioning him between the left and the Republicans. Hence, a kinder, gentler neo-liberalism. It seems to have worked. Which is a big reason why American elections seem like a choice between the lesser of evils. The bottom line in politics is: does it win elections.

 

Okie

And if lies win elections and you have an electorate that accepts those lies without question then….

Neoliberalism was and is a big con game but its rise wasn’t an accident, a lot of time and especially money was spent in promoting it by a whole plethora of wealth sponsored think tanks. These produced ‘report’ and ‘studies’ that were simply disguised propaganda, which are then cited as ‘proof’ by the unwary or indoctrinated and of course the unscrupulous.

If you examine neoliberalism it falls apart quite quickly it’s just that most people that fell for the con didn’t look at it or question its assertions.

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

I find this headline very interesting. Wall Street is backing Democrats for the first time in a decade but I haven't read it yet. Lol. Perhaps posting it is premature. This makes me feel confident that we may actually be onto something.

 

Interesting point. In 1971, none other than Richard Nixon said he had embraced Keynesian economics, paraphrased by Milton Friedman as "We are all Keynesians now!" Keynesian economics, calling for a managed market economy, was the predominant view among economists. Free market economics had been widely viewed as discredited by the Hoover Administration and the Great Depression. Of course, Keynesian economics had its Achilles heel: the reluctance of politicians to bite the bullet and belt tighten during good times to prevent the economy from overheating. Economic historians call the period from the fities to the early seventies the "Age of Keynes" (aka, the Golden Age of Capitalism) Keysianism seemed to have brought high growth, low unemployment, reduction of inequality, lowering of public debt and low incidence of financial crises. But by 2002, Mandelson wrote in an article in The Times (London) "we are all Thatcherians now"--highlighting the dramatic shift in thinking under Thatcher and Reagan. The perceived failure of Keynesianism to halt the stagflation of the 1970s provided the backdrop, but as you say, the trend was helped along by over 100 think tanks--including the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Economic Education in the U.S.--well-funded by corporate interests hostile to big government. Libertarian eonomist Milton Friedman led the charge. Friedman's work seemed to predict stagflation, and his neo-liberalism gained ground in academia. Economist Robert Lucas's 1976 critique of large scale macroeconomic models added fuel to the fire, and the development of game theory by Cold War military strategists found new applications in reinforcing free market models. When the Nobel Prize for economics was given to to Hayek in 1974 and Friedman in 1976, it was clear that a revolution in economic thinking was taking place. I'd argue that this change had less to do with science than with ideology.
Economics as Ideology | Richard Spady
Free Markets Ideology Is Making Society Sick | HuffPost
Maybe its time to re-examine the dark side of neo-liberalism. But I don't think Trump's lumbering neo-protectionism is the solution.

 

Have you checked on the 'Publicans? They seem to be really unhinged and out of control. Mailing bombs, putting children in cages, sending troops to the border to do Lord knows what with a band of forlorn refugees seeking asylum.

 

Okie

Oh I agree

Now many people voted for neoliberal politicians and policies because they had little knowledge of them or what they would likely do but there where many people who claimed to support and believe in neoliberalism and I’ve had many discussions with such people.

In my experience even when warned about its detrimental effects they still seemed to support it – even today when its effects are all too obvious I’ve heard people defending it by saying that it was (and is) a good idea but that the wealth generated by it should have been more evenly distributed and those that were adversely effected should have been helped through investment.

The first time I heard this I nearly choked on the pretzel I was eating.

The problem with this revisionist history is that such distribution of wealth goes against the Social Darwinist foundations on which neoliberalism is built.

Inequality of distribution is one of the fundamental of this economic religion, it’s like saying that we can have Christianity but without Christ.

The other great myth (hopefully now burst) is that neoliberalism is a fiscally responsible economic model unlike for example Keynesian or socialist models.

I’ve also talked to many people here and elsewhere who claimed they were ‘fiscal conservatives’ (Republicans, neo-cons, tea party supporters and assorted right wing libertarians) but the problem for me was that they were all to some degree or another supporters of free market neoliberal economic models, which are fundamentally flawed.

These ‘fiscal conservatives’ claimed they wanted national balanced budgets and a national stable economy.

But the impression I got from many of these conversations was that their ‘fiscal conservatism’ was really only a stick with which to beat their opponents, going on and on about how bad leftist ideas would be.

Well I’m happy to defend Keynesian type economics but admit that it needs updating to take in technological advances.

But when the tables were turned and they were asked to defend neoliberalism it all got a bit hazy and they seemed unable to address the criticisms levelled at it.

I started coming to the conclusion that these people were more ideological neoliberals than they were ‘fiscal conservatives’.

So it was no surprise to me that many seemed happy to go along with the debt ballooning tax cuts passed by the Republicans.

 

Let's see.
Who held up the likeness of the bloody head of Trump?

Who shot up the Republicans on the softball field?

Who sent Ricin to the Republicans?

Who said this about immigration?





It's about effin time we had a president that actually takes the action instead of endless years of talking about it.

 

I filled out my sample ballot this morning. There must be a dozen Supreme Court/Appeals positions to vote on in California, and only two of them have info listed in the voter information guide. I found the only comfort was that many of them were appointed by our current governor, Jerry Brown. Anyway. I'm looking forward to the midterms! Hopefully there will be a good turn out.

 

The man the feds arrested for it was a registered Republican, William Clyde Allen III.